Friday, February 14, 2025

AMERIKA

This Wrecking Ball Must Be Stopped


 February 13, 2025
Facebook

Getty Images and Unsplash+.

Trump and Musk aren’t ‘saving money’ by ‘slashing a bloated budget’.

They’re taking a wrecking ball to the United States of America.

Even if you believe we should be reducing the size and scope of the federal government, consider this: the shock doctrine approach is reckless, incompetent and dangerous. The Trump Administration is smashing its way through our federal government – and the nation is crumbling fast.

If Trump and Musk truly cared about this country, they’d roll out their policies with consideration for the impacts of their actions. From hiring freezes to federal employee layoffs to funding seizes to gaining access to sensitive data to tariff trade wars to shuttering public health websites, the wrecking ball approach has been endangering hundreds of millions of people.

The Trump Administration is using its anti-DEI executive orders to upend the federal agencies, halting DEIA programs and scrubbing out anti-discriminatory policies with a 50-year legacy of success. They’re threatening to fire federal employees who do not comply and to cut off funding for those agencies that do not fall into line.

First of all, if they truly cared about this country, they’d affirm policies that help us become “a more perfect union” by building understanding of diversity as strength. (Which is what DEIA programs are designed to do.) Secondly, they would honor and respect civil servants who have dedicated their careers to upholding rule of law, their duties to this country, and the well-being of the United States. Instead, they’re firing them in purges, going on witch hunts, making chilling threats, mocking them, and dismantling the institutions that serve the country.

For those who think shrinking “Big Gov” is sensible, Trump’s administration is not actually downsizing anything. It’s consolidating power into the executive branch in alarming ways that should concern people on all sides of the political spectrum. It’s a classic example of federal power run amok. Under the unelected leadership of Elon Musk, the newly formed DOGE is amassing levels of authoritarian control that this country has never seen before. Their illegal actions constitute one of the worst constitutional crises in decades as the executive office oversteps its purview in unprecedented ways.

The wrecking ball isn’t just smashing through domestic agencies, though. It’s also wreaking havoc with international relations.

Trump’s blundering tariffs policy caused international alarm and concerns of a global economic crisis. Though he backed off with a 30-day reprieve in exchange for minor concessions from Canada and Mexico about troops along US borders, the insulting, offensive manner in which the tariffs were announced has caused serious harm to our relationship with our nearest neighbors. And for what? In the end, it seems that Trump might settle for tariff deals that were not significantly different from before.

And the damage is done.

The fiasco soured relationships with Canada to the point that the notoriously friendly and goodwilled Canadians are booing the US National Anthem at sports games. It also led to far-right Governor Doug Ford to threaten to rip up Elon Musk’s $100 million SpaceX contract. Canada is not for sale hats soared in sales and international relations are at an all-time low after Trump’s alleged jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state set off triggered concerns over Canada’s sovereignty.

If you’re pissing off the Canadians, you’re doing something wrong.

To make international matters even worse, Musk abruptly cut off funds to USAID, impacting thousands of workers and threatening global stability. Aid funds are one way that the US has exercised ‘soft power’, leveraging it to stop human rights abuses, rein in dictators, lean on authoritarians, and more. We can critique the use of USAID as a leverage point for diplomatic negotiations, but halting those programs overnight is like taking a chainsaw to a cow. Carnage is unfolding. USAID is responsible for 42 percent of the world’s humanitarian aid. Millions of lives are at risk because of it, along with international relationships worldwide.

It is impossible to list all of the detrimental actions that have unfolded in the past weeks and are slated to happen in the coming weeks and months. It is equally hard to imagine how the United States will withstand four years of this chaos and destruction.

It doesn’t matter if you voted for or against Trump in the last election. This chaos isn’t what any of us voted for. Musk with unlimited powers isn’t something we voted for. The destruction of the United States isn’t something we voted for. This illegal, unconstitutional, anti-American authoritarianism isn’t something we voted for.

The wrecking ball must be stopped.

Rivera Sun is the author of The Dandelion Insurrection and other books, and the cofounder of the Love-In-Action Network.

A Constitutional Crisis: Can the Rule of Law Survive This Presidency?

 February 13, 2025
Facebook

“Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest — forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.”

—Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

This has all the makings of a constitutional crisis.

According to law professor Amanda Frost, “a constitutional crisis occurs when one branch of government, usually the executive, ‘blatantly, flagrantly and regularly exceeds its constitutional authority — and the other branches are either unable or unwilling to stop it.’”

Consider for yourself.

The president has gone rogue, doubling down on his belief that “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

The vice president believes the president should be a law unto himself, i.e., unaccountable to the other branches of the government.

The Republican-controlled Congress appears to be deaf, dumb and blind to the Executive Branch’s blatantly unconstitutional overreaches.

The courts, which have in recent years largely rubberstamped the government’s power grabs, are ill-prepared to rein in a sitting president who is determined to do whatever he wants, the Constitution be damned.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court preemptively gave future presidents the green light to engage in all manner of criminal activitieswhen it ruled 6-3 that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution, provided the lawbreaking is related to their official duties.

Meanwhile, the Constitution is still missing from the White House’s website.

This last point is not an oversight.

Rather, it speaks volumes about the priorities of the current presidential administration, which operates as if the rule of law does not apply to itself.

Indeed, while President Trump’s predecessors paid lip service to the rule of law while sidestepping it at every opportunity, Trump has been unapologetic about his intentions to set aside whatever legal, moral or political barricades stand in the way of his end goals.

Rule by fiat—when presidents attempt to unilaterally impose their will through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements—is an offense to the Constitution.

It was offensive when Biden did it. It was offensive when Obama did it. And it is just as offensive when Trump does it.

Already, Trump has signed more executive orders in his first month than any other president in their first 100 days.

This is not a sign of strength and leadership. This is a red flag.

In bypassing Congress in order to carry out his ambitious agenda to “make America safe again,” “make America affordable and energy dominant again,” “drain the swamp,” and “bring back American values,” the Trump Administration risks transforming the executive branch into something akin to the very entities it often criticizes: an overreaching surveillance state, a nanny state that dictates individual choices, and a police state that prioritizes compliance over freedom.

It is particularly telling that while Trump and his Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are pledging to lay off huge swaths of federal employees and replace the workforce with artificial intelligence, the police state’s martial law apparatus will remain largely untouched.

This is how you prepare to lock down a nation.

This danger transcends party lines and tests the resilience of our constitutional framework.

How far will “we the people” allow the Executive Branch to continue to expand its power at the expense of established legal principles and the rule of law?

As much as past occupants of the White House and Congress would like us to believe otherwise, winning an election is not a populist mandate for one-party rule.

This way lies totalitarianism, by way of authoritarianism, and those who insist it can’t happen here need to pay better attention.

It’s happening already.

The following are 15 benchmarks of a totalitarian regime, according to Benjamin Carlson, a former editor at The Atlantic.

1. Media is controlled.
2. Dissent is equated to violence.
3. Legal system is co-opted by the state.
4. Power is exerted to prevent dissent.
5. State police are directed to protect the regime, not the people.
6. Financial, legal, and civil rights are contingent on compliance.
7. There is a mass conformity of behaviors and beliefs.
8. Power is concentrated in an inner ring of people and institutions.
9. Semi-organized violence is permitted.
10. Propaganda targets enemies of the state.
11. Whole classes of people are scapegoated and singled out for persecution.
12. Extra-legal action against internal enemies is condoned.
13. Unpredictable and harsh enforcement is used against unfavored classes.
14. The language of the constitution serves as a facade for the exercise of power.
15. And all private and public levers of power are used to enforce adherence to state orthodoxy.

To guard against these pitfalls, we must start by understanding the rule of law, and how it functions within our system of checks and balances.

The rule of law is the principle that everyone, including the government—and the president—must obey the law, which is embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

In a nutshell, the Constitution is the social contract—the people’s contract with the government—which outlines our expectations about the role of the government and its limits, a system of checks and balances dependent on a separation of powers, and the rights of the citizenry.

America’s founders established a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch. To this end, the Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch, which makes the law; the executive branch, which enforces the law; and the judicial branch, which interprets the law.

As constitutional scholar Linda Monk explains, “Within the separation of powers, each of the three branches of government has ‘checks and balances’ over the other two. For instance, Congress makes the laws, but the President can veto them, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional. The President enforces the law, but Congress must approve executive appointments and the Supreme Court rules whether executive action is constitutional. The Supreme Court can strike down actions by both the legislative and executive branches, but the President nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms or denies their nominations.”

Despite Trump’s attempts to rule by fiat, nowhere in the Constitution is the president granted unilateral authority to act outside these established checks and balances, no matter how well-meaning his intentions might be or how worthy the goals (a balanced budget, safety, economic prosperity, etc.).

Writing for The Washington Post, Alan Charles Raul, general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warns that not only is Trump acting extra-constitutionally, i.e., beyond the scope of the Constitution, but he lays out the case for why DOGE itself is unconstitutional:

“The protocols of the Constitution do not permit statutorily mandated agencies and programs to be transformed — or reorganized out of existence — without congressional authorization… The radical reorganization now underway is not just footfaulting over procedural lines; it is shattering the fundamental checks and balances of our constitutional order. The DOGE process, if that is what it is, mocks two basic tenets of our government: that we are nation of laws, not men and that it is Congress which controls spending and passes legislation. The president must faithfully execute Congress’s laws and manage the executive agencies consistent with the Constitution and lawmakers’ appropriations — not by any divine right or absolute power… [T]here is no reading of the Constitution that allows any president to claim that a political mandate, or a political promise made, obviates or supersedes the role for Congress… Even under the most aggressive view of the president’s ‘unitary executive’ control over the entire executive branch and independent agencies, it is Congress’s sole authority to appropriate and legislate for our entire government… [I]n the end, the president is constitutionally stuck with the policies for the federal government that Congress enacts and appropriates. No one man in America is the law — not even a Trump or an Elon Musk.

Allowing the president to bypass established legal procedures in order to prioritize his own power over adherence to the rule of law ultimately undermines the principles of a constitutional government.

Which brings us to the present moment.

With Congress on the sidelines, the momentum is building for a constitutional showdown between the White House and the judiciary.

This is as it should be.

The job of the courts is to maintain the rule of law and serve as the referees in the power struggle between the President and Congress. That delicate balance between the three branches of government was intended to serve as a bulwark against tyranny and a deterrent to any who would overreach.

So for anyone, especially someone who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, to suggest that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” constitutes either an appalling admission of civic illiteracy or a bold-faced attempt to sidestep accountability.

When all is said and done, however, it is supposed to be “we the people” who hold the real power—not the president, not Congress, and not the courts. As the Tenth Amendment proclaims, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The government’s purpose is to serve the people, not the other way around.

Those first three words of the preamble to the Constitution say it all:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

This is not a monarchy with an imperial ruler. It is not a theocracy with a religious order. It is not a banana republic policed by a junta. It is not a crime syndicate with a mob boss. Nor is it a democracy with mob rule.

So, what’s the answer?

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, America’s founders were very clear about what to do when the government oversteps.

Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, advised Thomas Jefferson.

Take alarm at the first experiment on your freedoms, cautioned James Madison.

And if government leaders attempt to abuse their powers and usurp the rights of the people, get rid of them, warned the Declaration of Independence.

A Trumpian Fascistic Coup is Underway—Stop It Before the Terror Starts


 February 11, 2025
Facebook

Image by Mike Von.

Rise up people and fast. Tyrant Trump and his Musk-driven gangsters are launching a fascistic coup d’état. Much of everything you like about federal/civil service for your health, safety, and economic well-being and protections is being targeted.

To feed Trump’s insatiable vengeance over being prosecuted, being defeated in the 2020 election, or now just being challenged, this megalomaniacal, self-described dictator is harming the lives of tens of millions of Americans in need and millions of Americans who are assisting them.

In his demented lawless arrogance, convicted felon Trump is nullifying the freedoms and protections of the American Revolution (King Donald is today’s King George III), and rejecting the Declaration of Independence (which listed the rights and abuses against the British Tyrant that Trump is shredding and entrenching). He is defiantly violating the U.S. Constitution, its controls over dictatorial government, and its powers exclusively given to Congress.  The Constitution demands that we live under the rule of law, not the rule of one man.

While Trump enjoys Mar-a-Lago and his golfing, Madman Musk, a South African, is literally living in the Executive Office Building next to the White House, with his heel-clicking Musketeers, seven days a week (they brought in sleeping cots) guarded by a large private security detail.

Consider, people, that the world’s richest man, with billions of dollars of federal contracts, is unleashing his henchmen to wreck the daily work of public servants committed to providing critical services that have long and bi-partisan support. Assistance to children, emergency workers, the sick and elderly, public school students, and people ripped off by business crooks. He is firing the federal cops on the corporate crime beat – whether at the FBI, the EPA, or the key Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which Trump/Musk are gutting.

Some headlines: “Laws? What Laws? Trump’s Brazen Grab for Executive Power” by the great reporter Charlie Savage (New York Times, February 6, 2025). Outlaws taking charge, driven by greed for the government’s honeypots of corporate welfare, and near-zero taxes for the rich and big corporations.

Or “Searching for Motive to Musk Team’s Focus on ‘Checkbook’ of U.S.” by Alan Rappeport, February 6, 2025, New York Times.

Or “White House Billionaires Take on the World’s Poorest Kids” by the super-reporter Nicholas Kristof (February 6, 2025. New York Times) shutting down The Agency for International Development’s distribution of AIDS medicines, and crucially stopping U.S. health agencies from countering rising, deadly pandemics in Africa that could come here quickly without U.S. defensive actions abroad. Already the devastating effects on children missing healthcare and food are erupting.

Kristof concludes that all this (and the dollar amounts are very small compared to their benefits) may seem like a game for Trump/Musk, but “… it’s about children’s lives and our own security, and what’s unfolding is sickening.” It is also criminal!

When the forces of law and order reassert themselves, Elon Musk may become known as felon Musk. He is not a properly appointed federal official. He has no authority to send his wrecking crews into one agency after another, demanding private information about Americans, pushing people out, and shutting down operations.

Musk, whose next target is the federal auto safety agency that has been enforcing the safety laws against Tesla and has not surrendered its regulation of self-driving cars (Musk’s next big project). Musk refuses to disclose his sweetheart contracts with the federal agencies nor has he disclosed his tax returns. Demand them.

What is very clear in the first 20 days of Trump’s lawless madness is that he is moving fast for a police state along with deepening the corporate state with and for Big Business. His prime victims are not the vast military budget at the Department of Defense, nor the big budgets of the Spy Agencies or of Musk’s lucrative fiefdom – NASA, the Space Agency. No, like the bullies they are, Trump/Musk are smashing people’s programs.  They hate Medicaid (provided to over 80 million Americans) or the food programs for millions of children.  Crazed Trump is pushing to shut down many clean wind power projects and cut credits to homeowners installing solar panels while booming the omnicidal oil, gas, and coal industries. He wants many more giant exporting natural gas facilities near U.S. ports which could accidentally blow up entire cities.

Musk’s poisoned Tusks have even reached Laos, Cambodia, and parts of Vietnam where mine-clearing efforts have been cut off. These are the U.S.’s Vietnam War era unexploded ordinances and bomblets that have killed tens of thousands of innocent residents, mostly children, in the past fifty years.

The Washington Post headline on February 6th, “Musk Team Taking Over Public Operations” understates the carnage. They are brazenly shutting down agencies, taking down thousands of government websites helpful to all Americans, and telling conscientious civil servants to obey or be driven out.

The Republicans in Congress, to their future shame and guilt, are surrendering their constitutional powers in the very branch of government our Founders assigned to check any rising monarchy in the White House.

The Democrats in the minority are just starting to protest, some in front of shuttered federal buildings. But they have not yet initiated unofficial public hearings in Congress to give voice to the surging anger of Americans (now flooding their switchboards) whose narrow majority of Trump voters are sensing betrayal big time. Demand unofficialhearings now! Federal judges are starting to uphold the violated laws.

The media, itself threatened by Trump’s attacks, censorship, and who knows what is next from this venomous liar (see the Washington Post’s Glen Kessler’s January 26, 2025 piece “The White House’s wildly inaccurate claims about USAID spending” or “Trump’s gusher of misleading economic statistics at Davos”) will cover protests and testimony by people all over the country. The rallies and marches have begun and will only get larger as Trump and Musk sink lower with their tyrannical abuses.

The career military does not relish the reckless buffoon that Trump put over them as Secretary of Defense. American business cannot tolerate the chaos, the uncertainty, the tumult.  Thirty-nine million small businesses are already feeling the oncoming Trump tsunami.

Break with your routine, Americans. It’s your country they are seizing with this burgeoning coup. Take it back fast, is what our original patriots of 1776 would be saying.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! 



 TRUMP-KUSHNER GAZA BEACH ESTATES


Resettling Gaza: Trump’s Empire-Building


Agenda?


Facebook

February 13, 2025

In his signature style, President Donald Trump has doubled down on his vision for the future of Gaza, suggesting that the United States could assume control of the embattled territory once hostilities subside. Speaking on December 6, Trump outlined a plan in which Israel would transfer the Gaza Strip to U.S. oversight, emphasizing that the move would involve resettling Palestinians into what he described as “far safer and more beautiful communities” across the region. Notably, he assured that no American troops would be required to execute this vision.

The proposal, however, has sparked immediate backlash. Critics have accused Trump of endorsing a form of ethnic cleansing, a charge vehemently denied by his administration. The United Nations, human rights organizations, and Arab leaders have condemned the idea, while analysts remain skeptical of its feasibility. Trump’s initial remarks, made during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, framed Gaza’s transformation into the “Riviera of the Middle East” as a permanent shift. Yet, subsequent clarifications from his officials have painted a different picture, suggesting that any displacement would be temporary and would allow for reconstruction and debris clearance.

The contradictions within Trump’s camp have only deepened the controversy. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt and Secretary of State Rubio both emphasized the interim nature of the plan, directly contradicting Trump’s earlier implications of permanence. Meanwhile, Trump’s post on Truth Social left key questions unanswered, particularly whether Gaza’s two million residents would eventually be permitted to return. Under international law, the forced transfer of populations from occupied territories is explicitly prohibited, adding another layer of complexity to Trump’s proposal. Trump’s vision, though ambitious, appears mired in legal, logistical, and ethical challenges, raising doubts about its viability.

In advocating a prolonged U.S. occupation of Gaza and the expulsion of Palestinians, President Donald Trump is not only aligning himself with the far-right vision of Israel’s supremacist factions but also endorsing what can only be described as a war crime. This stance betrays any commitment to peace he might have professed during his inaugural address. Trump, who took an oath to uphold the U.S. constitution, has now proposed on February 4 that the United States take control over Gaza under the pretext of reconstruction—a thinly veiled prelude to a predatory real estate venture that explicitly excludes Palestinians. Trump’s unwavering support for Israeli policies is well documented. His unilateral decisions, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thus recognizing the city as Israel’s capital, and legitimizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, set a precedent during his first term (2017-2021).

In advocating for the forceful displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Trump has taken a significant step towards solidifying his alignment with the Israeli far-right. This segment of Israeli politics envisions the conflict in terms of absolute dominion and subjugation. Furthermore, Trump’s shocking announcement about Gaza might soon be followed by similar stances on the annexation of significant portions of the West Bank. By denying Palestinians their legitimate right to self-determination in the land that is rightfully theirs, Trump is essentially rewriting history to fit a narrative of dominance and control. This distortion of historical facts into a narrative of supremacy risks being endorsed as official policy by the world’s leading power.

This trajectory must be halted. Peace is achievable only through compromise and mutual recognition, not through the oppression of a beleaguered people. The pursuit of such a catastrophic project would undoubtedly incite dangerous Israeli messianism, to the detriment of both sides.

Trump is also disregarding how this announcement will affect the ongoing normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which hinge on the creation of a Palestinian state. The expressed refusal by Egypt and Jordan to be complicit in this proposed ethnic cleansing by taking in displaced Palestinians similarly falls on deaf ears. Trump appears convinced that the force he wields from the White House supersedes all other considerations. This conviction harkens back to the misadventures of another Republican administration in the wake of 9/11, which saw the United States engage in disastrous military endeavors across the Middle East. The resulting damage to America’s global standing, the loss of countless lives, and the squandering of vast resources were all counterproductive to the intended outcomes. Trump entered the political arena a decade ago by criticizing these very missteps, yet now he champions a form of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism that demands a physical presence in foreign lands. Far from restoring America’s greatness, as he claims, Trump risks dragging the nation back into a bloody quagmire from its past.

The public sentiment in Arab countries has been overwhelmingly negative towards the plan. Many perceive it as an imperialistic act that negates Palestinian self-determination and threatens regional stability. The geopolitical consequences of this proposal are likely to be severe. The displacement of Palestinians could ignite riots and violence, not just in Gaza, but throughout the Middle East. Countries in the region are already grappling with socio-economic challenges and political risks, and may not be able to manage the additional burden of displaced Palestinians. Moreover, this plan could strain relations between the United States and key Middle Eastern allies. Strategic partners like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan might reconsider their diplomatic ties with the United States if it pursues such a policy. The broader Muslim world, including Turkey and Iran, would likely amplify their objections to America’s role in the region.

The challenges of implementing such a transformation are immense, even though Trump envisions Gaza as an economic hub. Relocating more than 1.8 million people is not feasible. Neighboring countries, already dealing with their own economic and political issues, are unlikely to open their borders to such an influx. The lack of options for the Palestinians exacerbates the situation. Furthermore, security risks would deter investors, even if the land were cleared for redevelopment. Transforming Gaza economically would require substantial foreign investment, but the displacement of its population would discourage many international businesses. Yet, the cost of demolishing and rebuilding Gaza would be prohibitively high, necessitating immediate and long-term involvement from a reluctant if not openly hostile international community.

Another significant issue is security. The evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza would provoke strong resistance from local militias and other regions and countries. Hamas and other militant groups would likely launch counterattacks, leading to further conflict. The U.S. control of Gaza would necessitate a sustained military presence, resulting in prolonged insurgency and terrorist activity. Past experiences of military occupations in volatile regions like Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that such interventions often lead to significant losses, financial strain, and long-term instability rather than successful outcomes.

Trump’s proposal to seize the Gaza Strip and relocate its Palestinian residents raises numerous legal, ethical, and geopolitical questions. Mass deportation of people is not only a violation of international law but also a practice that could lead to further conflict and strained relations with other nations. Ultimately, any effort to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue must begin with the recognition of the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. A multilateral and sustainable approach, grounded in the principles of international law and involving all parties in the conflict, is essential for establishing lasting peace in the region.

This first appeared on FPIF.

Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and publications.

A Thief’s Mentality: Trump, Real Estate and Dreams of Ethnic Cleansing


 February 11, 2025
Facebook

Photograph Source: Dan Scavino – Public Domain

President Donald J. Trump likes teasing out the unmentionable, and the Israel-Palestinian situation was hardly going to be any different.  With a touch of horror and the grotesque, he offered a solution to the issue of what would happen to Gaza at the conclusion of hostilities.  In a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he declared that the United States “take over and own the Gaza Strip”, in the process promising to “create an economic development that will supply an unlimited number of jobs and housing for people of the area.”

The strip, one of the most densely populated stretches of territory on the planet, would be reconstructed, redeveloped and turned, effectively, into a beach resort, “the Riviera of the Middle East.”  Here was the double battering being dished out to an impoverished, tormented, tortured population: not only would any aspiration of political independence and Palestinian sovereignty be terminated, it would reach its terminus in the form of tourist capitalism and real estate transactions.

This development idea in Trumpland is not new.  In October 2024, the then Republican presidential candidate told a radio interviewer that Gaza could be “better than Monaco”, provided it was built in the appropriate way.  His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, conceded at an event held at Harvard in February last year that “waterfront property” in Gaza “could be very valuable”.  Israel, he proposed, could “move the people out and then clean it up”.

The logistics of the plan remain inscrutable.  Trump does not envisage using US troops in the endeavour (“No soldiers by the US would be needed!”), but Israel’s defence minister Israel Katz has already ordered the military to draft plans for Palestinians wishing to “voluntarily” leave.  With heaped upon praise, Katz thought the plan would “allow a large population in Gaza to leave for various places in the world” via land crossings, sea and air.   He also suggested that the Palestinians find abodes in such countries as Spain and Norway, countries critical of Israel’s war efforts.  For those countries not to accept them would expose “their hypocrisy”.

Netanyahu, for his part, saw Trump’s Gaza plan as “completely different”, offering a “much better vision for Israel”.  It would open “up many, many possibilities for us.”  He was particularly delighted by the notion that Gazans could leave.  “The actual idea of allowing Gazans who want to leave – I mean, what’s wrong with that?” he told Fox News.  “They can leave, they can then come back.”  Informed cynicism hardly permits such a view to be taken seriously, and a number of Israeli politicians would simply see such departures as a prelude to rebuilding Jewish settlements.

On Truth Social, Trump insisted that Palestinians would be duly “resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.”  Where in the region he does not say.  He also makes no mention of Hamas as an obstacle, a group Israel has failed to eliminate despite various lofty claims.

For those in Congress, and for allies of the United States to agree with this, would be tantamount to signing off on a gross violation of international law.  The phenomenon of ethnic cleansing, so aggressively evident in the redrawing of boundaries in Europe and the Indian subcontinent after the Second World War, came, in time, to be seen as a category almost as heinous as genocide.

It did not take too long for the human rights advocates to see through the plan’s inherent nastiness.  To displace Palestinians from Gaza, argued Navi Pillay, chair of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, could not be seen as anything other than proposed ethnic cleansing.  “Trump is woefully ignorant of international law and the law of occupation.  Forcible displacement of an occupied group is an international crime, and amounts to ethnic cleansing,” she explained to POLITICO.

Other states that are expected to have some say in the political arrangements of post-war Gaza have been, in various measures, cold and aghast at the proposal.  Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry, for instance, stated that Palestinian statehood “is not the subject of negotiation or concessions”.  Columnist Hamoud Abu Taleb, writing for Okaz, suggested that Trump believed “that countries are no different from his Mar-a-Lago resort and can be taken over in deals, and if necessary, by force.”

The attitude from certain Palestinians returning to their ruined homes captured the sentiment most acutely of all. Muhammad Abdel Majeed, a man in his mid-30s who returned to northern Gaza to find the family home in Jabalia refugee camp pulverised, felt that Trump was operating with “a thief’s mentality”.  It was one that placed investments and money before “a person’s right to a decent life”.

Thieving it may well be, but the Trump formula may simply be a provocation designed to draw upon Arab involvement.  A bluff is a possibility, insofar as a threat to occupy or displace the residents of Gaza prompts Arab states to supply forces while also considering the process of normalisation with Israel.

Much in law entails the twist and the crack that turns a benign expression into something sinister.  It can also render the sinister benign.  While greeted as “innovative” and an inducement for other states to put forth their own Gaza proposals, to execute with any seriousness a measure to displace a whole, brutalised population would not only be criminal but a further incitement to violence.  It hardly matters that such violence will be exercised by Hamas or some successor organisation.  What matters is that it will take place with relentless, retributive tenacity.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com