Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza, remove all the
Palestinians, and develop it as a “Middle Eastern Riviera” is astonishing.
Unfortunately, this looks like ethnic cleansing. It seems to
me that it is, by common definition, and therefore a “crime against humanity.”
On the other hand, it also looks like the only way to achieve
peace in the area. Supposedly 80% of Gazans support Hamas. Hamas refuses to
recognize Israel’s right to exist, and vows eternal war. “From the river to the
sea.” So long as there is this hostile population right next to Israeli
settlements, like a knife alongside Israel’s throat, war and atrocities and bombings
and civilian deaths will continue.
Separating the parties looks like the only way; just as,
when you find two dogs fighting in the alley, you pull them apart.
There is too little land in either Gaza or Israel for a
buffer zone; especially with both sides possessing rockets.
In any real world, there is no place to move the 9 million
people of Israel. Put the Jewish state anywhere else, and you have all the same
tensions as here.
On the other hand, the 1.7 million Gazans are culturally
identical with a dozen countries nearby. Same language, same religion; historically
one country, up until 1917, with continuing dreams of reunification. They are
just one small neighbourhood in a vast Arab and Muslim world.
Is moving the Gazan Arabs substantially and ethically
different from expropriating for a new shopping centre?
Is moving the Gazan Arabs substantially and ethically different
from the Israeli government requiring Jews to move out of Gaza some years ago,
in an earlier attempt to separate the two sides?
By itself, Israel had no way to move the Arabs. Israel had
little land, Israel is just Israel, with no other place to put them.
But the US may have the wasta to use with some nearby nation.
Most obviously, Egypt: Egypt owned the Gaza strip up until 1967, and so up to
then accepted the Gazan Arabs as Egyptian citizens. Egypt gets especially large
sums in foreign aid from the US. It should be easy for Trump to buy Egyptian
compliance. With some investment in desalinization, it should be possible to
make some part of the Egyptian desert bloom, as has been done in Saudi Arabia
or the UAE. Presto: a nice new home for the Gazans.
At the same time, why does it make sense for the US to take
ownership of Gaza?
So that the enterprise can be self-financing. The US pays
for relocating the Gazans, and for building a tourism infrastructure; but it is
an investment. The place has tourism potential. The US makes the money back in
taxes on the revenue. Never mind a Middle Eastern Riviera. It can be a Middle
Eastern Monte Carlo. There is a lot of money in the nearby Persian Gulf. Beirut
used to profit from such tourism: a place where Muslims could indulge in many
pleasures not available at home. Why not Gaza, with its beaches?
Secondly, the US gets an inalienable military base in a
strategic and unstable part of the world. Britain has done well with its bases
in Cyprus.
Why does it make sense for Israel?
It removes the knife at their throat, which they cannot do
for themselves, either as a practical matter or because of international
disapproval.
Without owning the property, the Israelis stand to benefit
as much as if they did. The people actually living and working and investing in
the revamped Gaza strip and making the money from the new developments will inevitably
mostly be Israelis.
And a permanent American presence is a further guarantee of Israeli
security. Like the American troops permanently stationed in South Korea, Gaza
becomes a “trip wire” in case of attempted invasion. If anyone attacks Israel henceforth,
the US is almost automatically militarily engaged. It is a peacekeeping force.
And it makes sense for the Gazans, even if this is the hard
sell. Reputedly polls even before the present conflict showed at least 44% of young
Gazans sought to emigrate. They have been artificially sealed off in this
narrow strip by the closing of the Egyptian border, and the refusal of other
Arab lands to take them.
It really looks like a win-win-win situation.
This is what happens when you elect an entrepreneur as
president. Business is all about spotting such opportunities.
I think we need to change international law.
No comments:
Post a Comment