Trump tackles Gaza taboos

Donald Trump's White House press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu put an end to the assumption that he would have a restraining influence on Israeli policy.

The most attractive thing for Israelis these days is to look at Donald Trump and hear their innermost thoughts. People of other nationalities are enormously skeptical about the US president. But Israelis of all political stripes believe he serves their interests, or at least harms their opponents.

His appearance last night in the joint White House press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu put an end to the assumption that Trump would have a restraining influence on Israeli policy. He joined the school of thought that envisions Gaza empty of all Palestinians. He spoke openly about something that no Israeli leader would dare to express publicly. Presumably, he was lifting a taboo that had been around for almost 70 years, although a range of retired Israeli army generals had already begun to lift it during the war.

Trump did not make do with simply expressing hope, or prophesying about the day after. He put on the table a concrete idea, as if he were a real estate developer: to clear the rubble out of Gaza, evacuate its "1.8 million" residents (he had deliberated a few hours earlier about the exact number) to "one, or two, or 12 beautiful sites" in the Middle East. The evacuation would be "permanent," he said in response to a question from an American journalist. This is clear, because who would want to return to a cursed place like Gaza, from which "bad luck" emanates, he explained.

Then came the big explosion, or the grenade. There will be no territorial vacuum in Gaza, he made clear. The US will take it over, establish "long-term ownership" in it, turn it into an "international territory," populate it with "people of the world," and create a Riviera of the Middle East. Every word in this vision was breathtaking for those listening.

But why should anybody have been surprised? He announced in his inaugural address, two weeks ago, that he planned to conquer the Panama Canal. He announced on the day of his inauguration that he would annex Greenland. He expressed admiration for President William McKinley, who conquered the Philippines in the late 19th century, and turned it into a US colony, and annexed the Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico. McKinley was also an ardent supporter of tariffs. This is what Trump is proposing to do these days: impose tariffs and annex territories, including territories that had not previously been on the agenda.

Is Israel worth endless war?

Trump provided his audience with two important criteria for assessing his commitment to Israel. The first concerns Israel's place in the US global equation, and the second concerns its place in the Middle East equation. But he also tempered the potential for enthusiasm with another important remark, the intonation of which was no less important than the content.

1. The show of affection for Israel and its prime minister came within the context of the dizzying deterioration in US relations with its most important allies. He shows how much historical alliances do not elevate or detract in his eyes, especially if he thinks that no material benefit comes from these relations. In his opinion, these old allies have deceived the US from day one, and he will put an end to this. Israel is one of a tiny handful of friends on whom he does not fell has committed the sin of deception, at least for the time being.

2. He described in chilling terms decades of US policy in the Middle East that had "cost trillions and led to death." He was referring primarily to the second Iraq War, during the administration of George W. Bush. He hates the "endless wars," which have mired the US in pointless conflicts in far-flung corners of the globe.

He does not want the US army permanently stationed overseas, let alone embarking on new wars. Nevertheless, he claims ownership of Gaza, which would require a military presence and perhaps embroil the US in a new war. This contradiction is difficult to resolve except by assuming that Israel is exempt from restrictions in his view, and is worthy of "endless war."

He was "unhappy" to sign

But….. a short time before the prime minister set out for the White House, Trump signed an executive order designed to put 'maximum pressure' on Iran. "I'm unhappy" to sign this order, he said, and he hoped that this will make things clear and that the "order won't be important" because it won't be used. If Iran comes to its senses, and abstains from developing nuclear weapons, then it will have excellent relations with the US and it will blossom like a flower.

These words should arouse mixed feelings in Israel. The bar the president has set is quite low. Iran is not required to change its vision of Israel's destruction, but only to relinquish uranium and plutonium as a means of destruction. This is certainly not a blessing for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, or any other facilities. Philosophically and perhaps also practically, the president's words imply a willingness to grant Iran a new agreement, which will not differ in principle from the agreement it signed in 2016 with the Obama administration.

Has the ugly American returned?

It is worth considering in particular the significance of embracing Israel on the day Trump ordered the closure of all USAID missions worldwide. This is the agency that coordinates US foreign aid with an annual budget of more than $70 billion and 10,000 employees. This is no less than a stunning development.

This agency has been a central instrument of US foreign policy for over 60 years. It was originally intended to demonstrate that the US is not only interested in its own material interests, but is willing to extend a hand to the weak and the poor.

USAID has shaped generations of friends of America around the world, a counterpoint to the harmful image of the ‘ugly American’ that was prevalent at the time. Its beneficiaries were pregnant women in Afghanistan, HIV-positive people in Equatorial Africa, and the hungry in the Eastern Horn of Africa. All of this is now being thrown out the window because the US president and his chief advisor Elon Musk have discovered that USAID is led by "radical leftist lunatics."

It is important to note the magnitude of the resentment that Trump expresses and reflects towards the global burden that the US has borne for the past 80 years, and the huge contempt he harbors for any manifestation of idealism in foreign policy.

The press conference with the Israeli prime minister proved that he does not attach any of this resentment and contempt to Israel. Why? After all, Israel has also been enjoying US gifts for 50 years. Since 1974, US aid to Israel became a grant, Israel was not required to repay it, and has received more aid than any other country on earth, much more than, for example, the entire African continent. In Trump's world, such a state of affairs is tantamount to fraud, but not in Israel's case.

Will Israel be able to hope for many years to come it will be exempt from the change in values in US foreign policy? Maybe not. Maybe one day in the near future Trump will turn the grants into loans on favorable terms. Maybe he has even said these things to the prime minister. But unlike Canada and Western Europe, these things are not being served up with a sauce of resentment and anger. In the age of Trump, that's a big win.

Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on February 5, 2025.

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2025.