For the average Palestinians in Gaza who have been experiencing first hand the genocide and immense destruction brought upon them by the occupation state and its backers, especially the US, the idea of leaving the enclave described by Trump as “uninhabitable” might be tempting. They are the ones who continue to suffer at the hands of the criminal Israel Defence Forces armed to the teeth with the latest American arms and munitions, and bankrolled by the US economy, the largest in the world. Moreover, the Palestinians have families whose future lies waiting for them if they survive the daily Israeli onslaughts.
The timing and manner in which the “Riviera of the Middle East” idea came up does not suggest that it was a comprehensive political and economic project that was discussed thoroughly and approved as a bold new US policy towards the larger Palestinian issue.
It was more like one of those ideas that pops up in someone’s head and seems like a good idea at the time.
And the one who thought of it — Trump in this case — rushes to publicise it in the hope of catching the headlines and winning some praise for being so “innovative”.
When he first declared his fantasy on 4 February, Trump was standing next to his friend and indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, who immediately endorsed the idea as an example of his best buddy “thinking outside the box”. Nevertheless, he appeared to be surprised by Trump’s announcement, which meant that he was not fully briefed about it in advance; that it was not part of the preparations for the meeting, nor was it conveyed to Israel before the prime minister’s arrival in Washington.
A little over a month later, on 12 March, Donald Trump backpedalled by saying that, “Nobody is expelling any Palestinians from Gaza.” He was sitting with Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Micheal Martin at the time, whose support for a Palestinian State is well known. Hamas noted this change approvingly and, conditionally, commended Trump for it.
However, we must remember that when Trump proposed his “Deal of the Century” during his first term in office, he was not proposing a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue. Rather, he wanted to achieve some gains and accumulate them until they became a reality, and he had some partial success. Four Arab nations — the UAE first, followed by Sudan, Bahrain and Morocco — normalised relations with Israel, both politically and economically. Each one received something in return: Sudan was removed from the list of “terror-sponsoring” countries; the UAE got the green light to purchase the US F-35 jets that it wanted; and Morocco got US recognition of its disputed sovereignty over the Western Sahara.
For Bahrain, the priority was to send a message to neighbouring Iran that Israel and the US have a high stake in Manama’s stability. The same was true for the UAE, which also wanted the new friendship with Israel to let Iran know that it should be careful.
For Israel it was more than enough to have the four Arab countries give up the long held Arab policy, albeit hardly reinforced, of not normalising with Israel without solving the Palestinian issue within a larger comprehensive peace process.
It is such incremental gains that Trump counts on, not only for the US and Israel, but also for others who open up to Israel. The same approach has, however, failed to be enough to incentivise the larger Gulf Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join the wave of normalisations in the region, for the time being at least.
Regardless of how the Trump administration’s aggressive pro-Israel policies might go either regionally and globally in the context of the wider Middle East, it is clear that he is attempting to go it alone, if necessary, to redefine the region as well as the international order. He envisions a world where the US is the dominant power both politically and economically, even as it is being seriously, and sometimes fiercely, challenged by others such as Russia and China.
The US president’s sometimes over exaggerated loyalty to Israel and his focus on it means that he is prepared to take some political, legal and historical approaches that have never been considered by any of his predecessors, despite only disagreeing with them in terms of the details of how best to serve Israel. This was obvious back in 2020 with his “Deal of the Century” for the Palestinians and latterly with his “Riviera of the Middle East” fantasy for Gaza.
What is dangerous here is that such approaches do not give any weight to international law, the United Nations or even to the bilateral agreements signed by Trump’s beloved Israel with the Palestinians or other Arabs, including Egypt and Jordan. From this Trumpian perspective, there are now no international laws or resolutions that the United States must abide by even if it has previously agreed with and respected them, and there is now no real meaning to international accountability. Trump’s “Riviera” proposal regarding Gaza, for example, was dependant on committing the crime of ethnic cleansing.
He was entirely happy with that; indeed, he proposed it.
How does Trump reconcile the contradiction of trying to build a new world order on an orderless basis? This is a puzzle, and we must question the wisdom behind such ideas. The army of advisors and legal experts in the White House could surely have warned their boss about this, but only if he is willing to listen. Apparently, that is not usually the case.
Trump believes that he has been sent by God not only to “Make America Great Again”, but also to make Israel great too, even if that means breaking international laws and conventions to such an extent that they become devoid of meaning or impact. We would all be wise to avoid not taking him seriously; that includes his European allies, about whom many of his close associates have this week voiced open disdain. We have been warned.
No comments:
Post a Comment