When a real estate developer becomes the US president, do not be surprised if US foreign policy involves great help in the development of real estate.
This is probably the biggest conclusion drawn from the amazing proposal of Donald Trump for now to take over Gaza and turn it into a resort where all the people of the world will enjoy- “Riviera of the Middle East”, according to him.
It also represents the latest iteration of questions that lasted as long as Trump was involved in the highest level of American politics.
Should Trump’s Gaza Development Plan, which includes the relocation of more than two million Palestinians and American “ownership of the disputed countries, take literally or seriously? Both or not?
Trump’s proposal flies before the deep wishes of the Palestinian people and the Arab peoples rejected him with a summary that could play an integral role in moving those displaced from a warmingly destroyed gauze.
She also launched a protest from the international community, as well as the president’s domestic critics in the Democratic Party.
“Developing war -torn countries like Trump’s Golf Resort is not a peace plan, it’s an insult,” said the Democratic Congressmen Troy Carter of Louisiane. “Serious leaders follow real solutions, not real estate contracts.”
Even some of Trump’s most complete Republican allies seemed a cautious president’s proposal for US forces to occupy gauze, clean the ruins and remove an unexploded Israeli rulebook.
“I don’t think most of the South Caroline people would probably not be excited to send Americans to take over Gaza,” Lindsey Graham said on Wednesday, representing South Carolina in US Senate. “I think it might be problematic, but I’ll keep an open mind.”
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was still a blunt.
“I thought we voted for America first,” he wrote on X. “We have no work to think about another occupation for the collapse of our treasure and the shedding of the blood of our soldiers.”
Paul emphasizes what was an obvious contradiction in the early weeks of Trump’s Presidency. While Trump took away the American side of help and committed to focus on American domestic concerns, he also raised his objections by talking about US expansionism.
His interest in gaining Greenland is persistent and, according to the administration official, deadly seriously. His conversation about Canada becomes “51. The state” and that the Panama Channel is not treated again, no longer treated as a joke.
And now Trump, one of the loudest right -wing critics of the American invasion and renovation of Iraq, suggests a new project for the construction of the Nation of the Middle East.
As for the concrete ideas behind Trump’s latest proposal, some may be shocking, but they should not be too shock.
The president spoke of “cleansing” Gaza and the relocation of Palestinians in remarks of aircraft to the aircraft only a few days after his inauguration.
During the presidential campaign, he told the conservative radio presenter Hugh Hewitt that Gaza could be “better than Monaco”, but that Palestinians “never used their” best location in the Middle East “.
This is also not the first time Trump has been seeing an unspeakable foreign policy as an exciting business opportunity.
During the meetings with Kim Jong Una in North Korea in 2018, President Trump admired the “shiny beaches” of the hermit, which could one day have “the best hotels”.
These ambitious dreams are deposited – and Trump’s gauze vision, which would require a significant commitment to American blood and wealth at a time when it is compared to the side of participation, will almost certainly fulfill the same fate.
But Trump’s proposal to Gaza is a significant shift into the dedication of America to the solution of Palestinian situation with two countries.
The generous interpretation of the American strategy is that it is conceived to shake up forces in the Middle East and force them to commit more of their own resources and the political will to find a long -term solution to the situation in Gaza.
But such a strategy would come with risks.
The multi-cornic Israeli hamas ceases fire in balance. Palestinians could consider Trump’s comments a sign that he is not interested in lasting peace, while Israeli stubborn, which are the key part of the Benjamin Netanyahu management coalition can celebrate it as Trump’s green light for further expansion of Israeli settlements.
Arabic nations – some of which cooperated with the first Trump administration to produce normalized relations with Israel in Abraham’s agreements – they may doubt whether Trump can be a reliable negotiating partner in his second term.
Now there is years of evidence that Trump’s focus can be switched to a moment. In the end, he could leave all attempts to establish a durable peace in the Middle East, accusing Palestine and their Arabic allies of what could be considered by their decision to reject the look of a better life removed from past conflicts.
He then returns to trading wars with Canada, condominiums in North Korea, mining sites in Greenland or some other challenges that do not share their party or require the resolution of the century of animosity with seemingly unspeakable concerns for ancestors.
