there uncountable acres of just dirt where IDF D9 armored dozers have cleared the battlefield.
Posted on 02/06/2025 4:52:57 AM PST by bert
On the face of it, Trump’s plan for the US to occupy Gaza is not remotely feasible, but that could all be part of the president’s scheme. US President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell on Tuesday when he announced that the United States will take over the Gaza Strip for the foreseeable future.
With his declaration, the president has once again thrown a diplomatic grenade into the Middle East conversation – not a particularly quiet region at the best of times and one beset by 15 months of war.
The proposal – one that envisions the US developing Gaza, creating jobs, and turning it into an international hub – immediately triggered widespread backlash. The Palestinians see it as a veiled attempt at forced displacement, Israel remains cautious, and Arab states like Egypt and Jordan swiftly rejected the idea.
On the face of it, the plan is not remotely feasible. The US military occupying Gaza is a logistical and political nightmare. Some 20 years of experience in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan will have taught the upper echelons in the Pentagon that Arab states would never publicly accept a mass Palestinian exodus onto their soil.
Even Israel, despite its frustration with Hamas, understands the consequences of such a move.
But here’s the thing – Trump probably knows that, too. The former president is not proposing a realistic strategy. He’s making an opening bid in a negotiation.
This is Trumpian negotiation 101, lifted straight from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal.
In his world, you start with an extreme demand – one that is so outrageous it shifts the boundaries of what was previously considered possible. Then, when the inevitable pushback comes, you negotiate down to something that, while far less extreme than your initial position, is still a big win. You aim for 100, knowing that landing at 50 is still a success.
TRUMP’S TRACK record in real estate and politics could suggest that his goal isn’t to occupy Gaza – it’s to force neighboring Arab nations, who have up until now dragged their feet, to take a more active role in solving the crisis. His assumption? That the shock of such a radical proposal will jolt Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states into stepping up in ways they have so far refused to.
For decades, Arab nations have loudly supported the Palestinian cause, but they have done little to materially improve the situation in Gaza beyond funneling money to Hamas.
Egypt, which once ruled Gaza, keeps its border tightly sealed, building barriers that make Israel’s security walls look lenient by comparison. Jordan, already home to a massive Palestinian population, wants no part of an influx from Gaza. Meanwhile, wealthy Gulf states, despite their enormous resources, have largely avoided offering Palestinian refugees permanent resettlement or serious infrastructure investments in Gaza.
By throwing out a seemingly preposterous plan, Trump may be forcing these countries to react – if only to reject his idea and propose an alternative. Suddenly, discussions about how to rebuild Gaza, who will govern it, and where displaced Palestinians might go shift from a vague, open-ended conversation to one with real stakes.
What are the obstacles? To be very clear: The chances of the US taking over Gaza are close to zero. The idea is riddled with insurmountable obstacles.
First and foremost, Trump was reelected on his renewed position of America First. Changing trade agreements and diplomatic relationships with other countries is intended to improve the domestic lives of ordinary Americans. Suddenly switching to occupying a foreign piece of land is a cost that is unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled Congress eager to reduce overseas military entanglements. The American public has no appetite for another Middle East quagmire.
The comments also go against the military record of the previous Trump administration.
As president, Trump pushed for troop withdrawals in Syria and Afghanistan, criticizing prolonged US involvement abroad. Why would he now advocate for the most challenging US military intervention in decades?
EVEN AMERICA’S closest Arab allies – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE – would never sign off on a US-controlled Gaza. It would violate their long-standing position that Palestinians must control their own land.
Plus, there is regional stability to consider. An American military presence in Gaza would become an instant target for Iranian-backed militias, Hamas, and jihadist groups. The risk of constant insurgency-style attacks would make long-term governance impossible.
Regarding the president’s comments on Gaza itself, the enclave is in ruins, its infrastructure decimated. Rebuilding it would take a decade and billions of dollars, requiring international cooperation – something a unilateral US occupation would make nearly impossible.
Trump’s real calculation may be that the mere suggestion of US control over Gaza will shake the Arab world into action.
Egypt, which has taken a hands-off approach for years, might suddenly find itself pressured to open border crossings, facilitate aid, or help manage security. Jordan, wary of another Palestinian refugee crisis, could be pushed into a more active diplomatic role. The Gulf states, embarrassed by Trump’s framing of them as mere bystanders, might finally invest in Palestinian infrastructure instead of just issuing pro-Palestinian rhetoric at the UN.
The key to his thinking is not the literal implementation of his words, but their ability to reframe the debate. He doesn’t need to “win” the Gaza issue outright; he just needs to move the goalposts.
By aiming for an impossible maximum, the president makes the previously unthinkable suddenly seem reasonable. A few weeks ago, the idea of Egypt or Jordan taking a bigger role in post-war Gaza was off the table. Now, it may start looking like the moderate alternative.
This is classic Trump deal-making: start at the extreme, let everyone panic, then walk it back to something that, while less dramatic, still represents real movement in his direction.
So, will the US take over Gaza? If it does, then we are all in for a shock.
Will Trump’s declaration change the conversation and possibly push Arab nations into doing more?
That’s the real deal.
Excellent! Propose the totally outrageous just to get a reaction.
He’s not negotiating with the Palis. He’s reestablishing the Abraham accords with all the various players
No, you are wrong. Saudi Arabia and the UE will provide the money when the ting is right and the air is cleared. No American Money of consequence will be required. All that matter know that
there uncountable acres of just dirt where IDF D9 armored dozers have cleared the battlefield.
I made 2 main points in my comment to you. The first one was that it’s just possible Netanyahu was smiling because Trump’s plan would put an end to a terrorist hotbed that has threatened his country ever since it was granted autonomy.
My second point was that we have no idea how much, if anything, Trump’s plan is going to cost U.S. taxpayers. And judging by everything Trump has ever stood for on such matters, it’s not likely to cost much the U.S. much, if anything. We don’t know how much any plan is going to cost U.S. tax payers nor where the money is going to go and yet you believe Netanyahu somehow does and that that was the reason that he was smiling.
Your initial comments made no sense, and rather than defending them you responded with a lame insult, the kind people engage in when they’ve run out of anything intelligent to say.
100% correct.
* Trump is not sending troops to Gaza (this is the antithesis of MAGA)
* Egypt and Jordan will not take Palestinians as that is equivalent to seppuku
* No other country wants Palestinian troublemakers
* After 75 years you are not “refugees - this is simply a new generation of terrorists who don’t understand they lost the war
* Rebuilding Gaza cesspool makes no sense unless you replace it with a functioning self-sustaining economy
* Gaza actually does not belong to Palestinians any more than displaced refugees in other countries “own” their camps
* The 2-state solution is dead. If Palestinians want their own country maybe a Muslim country can donate some land.
* The sooner people acknowledge that the world is not going back to the status pre-Oct 7 the quicker we can move to a feasible plan.
If you cant intellectually get with the FR program, get off this site.
I’ll defend MY country any way I choose.
>>If you cant intellectually get with the FR program, get off this site.
Make your case to Jim. If he agrees with you, I’ll leave.
I dont make it a practice to chase people off this
site but I could make an exception in your case.
I rather prefer you stay-——b/c I respect other people’s opinions.
You obviously dont.
I would hope you might be educable, although your micro-
managed remarks are spectacularly intellectually facile.
One last piece of advice——this is America. When
a poster is defending the USA , you’d do well to step aside.
I shared my opinion just as you did. No apologies. Your response was to make it personal And portraying your opinion as “defending the U.S.A.” while portraying mine as somehow un-American is absurd.
I don’t remember you being this emotional or irrational in the past, so maybe you’re just having a bad day. Maybe you should just drop it and give it a rest.
Gaza and Syria were two parts to solving the 1979 Iranian regime problem. Everything Tehran is involved is now much too problematic for the clergy rule.
Gaza is one more avenue to force internal regime change in Iran.
The US presence in the MFO is all that is required for the mismanagement component for Gaza.
Trump doesn’t need anyone extra not already in the Egyptian Israeli footprint.
He needs both Saudi Arabia and the UAE on board for international acceptance and most importantly, money.
It’s all in the preplanned Abraham accord/Negev Summit takeover of the Palestinian debacle and will be ok.
Relocate them, with anybody with possible leanings towards terrorism or war located far apart from each other. Any proven plans for disruptive actions forfeits homes and jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.