The aftershocks echoed Wednesday from President Trump's declaration the previous day, saying the US should take away Gaza's “long-term ownership” and the Palestinians living there should move.
The position outlined during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit threatened to overturn the region's US policy framework. -exist.
When Trump refused to rule out the use of the US military in this effort, he caused even more surprise to most of the political spectrum.
When asked about that, he said, “We'll do what we need.”
Five big takeaways 24 hours later.
Details are notable due to their absence
If Trump really plans to follow his proposal, it will be a very important and very controversial – business.
As of Wednesday evening, there was still little detail on how that would be achieved.
Trump said Tuesday that he believed that “everything” of Palestinians should be moved.
How is that achieved? Why is it realistic to assume that those who are clung vigorously to their national identity will submit to abandoning their homelands?
If they do not voluntarily do so, will the American troops be put in harm's way to force them?
That was not clear.
The White House appears to believe that neighboring countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan, could be led to assuming Palestinian refugees, possibly by leveraging US aid payments.
However, in acquiescing them in such a scheme, there is a clear risk to the rulers of those countries.
If rulers are seen as conspiring to destroy individual Palestinians, these risks are concentrated on potential anger at home.
The White House goes back in its permanent preparations
In his remarks Tuesday, Trump indicated that Palestinians in Gaza could permanently resettle elsewhere.
The proposal for persistence highlighted the danger from an Arab perspective, given that the concept of forfeiture is central to Palestinian identity.
Many Palestinians were uprooted from their homes at the founding of Israel in 1948, and Israel has been occupying the West Bank since 1967.
Trump also said he thought the US should take “long-term ownership” over Gaza.
However, on Wednesday, the White House provided a backpedaling scale on the issue.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the idea of replacing Palestinians as temporary measures while Gaza is being rebuilt.
“In the interim, obviously people will have to live somewhere while you rebuild it,” Rubio said at a press conference in Guatemala, according to the Associated Press.
White House spokesman Caroline Leavitt pressed questions at a media briefing on Wednesday, saying Trump “revealed that it would need to be temporarily relocated from Gaza to rebuild this effort,” according to Gaza. He talked about the population.
These comments are the first concrete indication that the administration is at least boosting some elements of the proposal.
A flood of criticism from Democrats and others
Democrats responded with furious reaction to Trump's proposal, with some describing plans for the evacuation of Palestinians (potentially in the hands of the US military) as ethnic cleansing.
Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tribe (d-mich.) blamed Trump for “only spitting out this enthusiastic bull.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Trump “lost it” and suggested that if his plan was enacted, he would “burn the Middle East for 20 years.”
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) accused the president of pursuing “ethnic cleanups by different names,” while Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) has accused Trump of ammunition on the proposal We pledged to bring each article.
There was also criticism from Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. A statement from the Kingdom's Foreign Ministry called its commitment to the Palestinian state “solid, steady, unshakable.”
Even many Republicans sound slimy
Trump has his GOP firmly in his grip after his comfortable election victory last November. Therefore, it is always noteworthy when a considerable number of members of his own party appear slimy about his plans.
Perhaps because Trump reoriented the party around a broadly anti-interventionist “America-first” stance.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY.) wrote on social media: “I thought we were the first to vote for America. We don't have a business of pondering yet another profession to destiny our treasures and shed the blood of our soldiers. ”
But Paul, who is leaning towards libertarians, was not the only Republican to express his anxiety.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (Rs.C.) said most people in his state were “probably not excited to take over the Americans into Gaza.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) put on a similar tone, saying it wasn't “the best use of US resources to spend a lot of money in Gaza.”
Certainly, Trump's plans had a GOP booster.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told his Home State Journal Sentinel that the Middle East could benefit from “bold new ideas” and that Trump's proposal was a “paradigm shift.”
That said, the lack of enthusiasm from the other quarters was noticeable.
The plan focuses on Trump's family connections
In the initial shock caused by Trump's proposal on Tuesday evening, some observers said how his plans reflected previous comments from his son-in-law, Jared Kushner I pointed out.
Last year, Kushner, a real estate developer like Trump, sparked his own controversy when he said Gaza's “waterfront property” could be “very valuable.”
Kushner spoke about four months after the Israeli attack on Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, saying, “It's a bit unfortunate situation there, but from an Israeli perspective, I'm the best.” Do your best. People get out and clean it up.”
On Wednesday, the New York Times turned their attention to the Trump family's business deals in the area.
“The Middle East has transformed into the hottest place for the Trump family in terms of new international real estate transactions over the past three years,” the Times reported.
These include a recent agreement with a Saudi Arabia-based company, which will “construct high-risk luxury apartments, golf courses and hotels in Oman, Saudi Arabia and Dubai.”
The report also reminds readers that Kushner is “leading the private equity company that raised $4.5 billion from oil-rich sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.” Ta.
