Working for decades in the counterterrorism field, I found it surpassingly difficult to get the average American government official to believe that Islamists simply hate us, not transactionally, but absolutely. No one could wrap their heads around the notion that they didn’t want to deal with us, but instead simply wanted to destroy us. Nothing could convince the policymakers I advised that, with Islamism, we faced a threat that might morph over time, but which would never go away, an implacable hostility that made nonsense of every prospect of compromise.
Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy identifies this as a fatal flaw in Donald Trump’s proposal to clear out and then rebuild Gaza. Our own Jed Babbin makes a similar point, observing, trenchantly, that “Trump’s plan will never work.” Both McCarthy and Babbin are wholly convincing in identifying Palestinian intransigence as the rock upon which Trump’s proposal will inevitably founder. (READ MORE: Nobody Wants the Palestinians)
This should scarcely be surprising. For all his worldly wisdom, Trump is subject to the same American, indeed Western, tendency to assume that somehow, with enough effort, understandings can be reached, even between enemies. This is evident in his conviction that, despite three years of bitter conflict, a deal can bring an end to the war in Ukraine. The Gaza proposal partakes of a similar attitude, albeit one confounded by a hatred spanning centuries. But this is a man who believes in his bones in “the art of the deal.” (RELATED: Profile in Courage: Trump’s Gaza Proposal)
However, I can’t follow McCarthy in simply dismissing the Gaza proposal for its failure to comprehend “Sharia Supremacism.” Whether accidently or by design, Trump’s proposal has served three extremely useful purposes. First, the reaction on the part of Hamas, specifically the insistence that Gaza is a Palestinian “homeland,” should once and for all disabuse the world of the absurd notion that these are “refugees” huddled in temporary displaced persons camps. The “refugee” canard has been exploited for decades by the Palestinians and by their left-wing Western sympathizers, a seductive fantasy that now should be forever dismissed.
Second, it has smoked out the absolute unwillingness of other Arab nations, starting with Egypt and Jordan, to accept significant numbers of these same Palestinian “refugees,” even on a putatively temporary basis. Never mind the horrified reaction of these governments to the idea of accepting this horde of troublemakers. Where is the so-called “Arab Street” in these countries, where is the outpouring of sympathy for those whose homes have been destroyed, where is the willingness to house them while their homes can be rebuilt? The answer, of course, is nowhere, a point made very pungently in Babbin’s essay.
Third, it has exposed the fundamental dishonesty of the humanitarian argument when it comes to Gaza. Stripped of the usual Trumpian hyperbole about beach resorts and casinos, the core proposal called for temporarily removing the population so that the rubble could be cleared away and then be rebuilt with a fusion of cash from the Gulf states. If the humanitarian crisis is as acute as Hamas and its Western supporters have claimed, then why not welcome a proposal to rebuild?
The very same Europeans who have poured into the streets on behalf of the Palestinians have been strangely silent about welcoming them to their lands. Entertainingly, when Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, invited these countries to take in the Palestinians, the rejection came swiftly. If the Europeans loved the Palestinians as much as they profess, perhaps they might have echoed Angela Merkel’s “wir schaffen es,” that is, “we can do it.” Instead, the silence has been deafening, and so, too, the hypocrisy.
Perhaps then, they still might contribute to rebuilding Gaza. Here again, Babbin makes a useful point, observing that the Europeans simply lack the financial resources for such a venture. For my part, I’d be best pleased if they didn’t even try, partly because of the progressivist strings that would inevitably attach to any European assistance, partly because, if needs must, any such European resources would be better spent closer to home, in mending the devastation wrought by Russia in Ukraine.
So there you have it. No place for the Palestinians to go, no desire on their part to leave, no prospect of rebuilding Gaza as long as the Palestinians and their Hamas overlords remain amidst the rubble. And all interested parties, not least the Arab world, offering neither financial resources nor a place for the Palestinians to live during the rebuilding process. No one seems open to taking Trump’s proposal and trying to make it work.
Trump, of course, doesn’t do rejection well, or at all. When his proposal finds no takers, as inevitably it will, he will be left with either accepting a high-profile failure or upping the ante in terms of pressure applied across the region. What form that might take is almost impossible to predict, but it’s interesting that the current Israeli leadership — surely the most realistic of all leaders when it comes to Sharia Supremacism — immediately saw benefit in aligning themselves with Trump’s proposal. This is intriguing, and significant in ways that suggest something more than mere politesse on the part of the Israelis.
For reasons both good and bad, the Israelis and the Trump administration were persuaded to loosen their grip on Hamas by agreeing to a cease-fire. Once the hostage issue has been resolved, focus can return to the future of Gaza, and Trump’s rebuilding offer. When the Palestinians reject Trump’s proposal, then the Israelis can anticipate a green light from the U.S. to finish Hamas once and for all.
This, in the final analysis, may prove to be the most valuable aspect of Trump’s Gaza proposal. In the aftermath of Oct. 7, I recalled the wisdom of a Vietnam veteran friend, namely that “it was hard to win their hearts and minds when the VC had them by the balls.” I wrote then that, before a Palestinian change of heart could occur, they would have to be taken by the balls, and squeezed so hard that their support for Hamas will finally disappear. The Israelis clearly know this, but they also understand that this requires consistent American support, something that was never assured under Joe Biden. (READ MORE: The Lie Behind the ‘Hearts and Minds’ Plea)
Trump has already served notice on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that we mean to become an unmatched energy superpower, which will diminish the leverage they’ve grown accustomed to exercising in the Middle East. He’s made it clear to the Europeans that he’ll not stand for their carping from the sidelines. He’s laid the foundation for boxing China out of its pretensions in the region, and he’s resumed his “maximum pressure” policy towards Iran.
It’s become commonplace to dismiss Trump’s so-called “wild ideas,” even after, on closer examination, many have proven quite closely reasoned. In the case of Trump’s Gaza proposal, I’m less inclined than most to dismiss it as naïve, and more inclined to see in it the glimmerings of a larger strategy. We’re already seeing that the second Trump administration differs from the first. This time around, when it comes to national security policy, Donald Trump is less deferential to received opinion, more inclined to trust himself, more confident. He demonstrates every day his ability to learn, to adapt, and to relentlessly pursue his foreign policy goals.
At play, then, isn’t a “Mar-a-Gaza” resort, or something similarly ephemeral. This time around, Trump appears to be playing for something much bigger, namely peace in the Middle East — an unmatched and unimpeachable presidential legacy. As the Democrats and many conventional Republicans learned last November, underestimating Trump is a losing proposition. Perhaps it’s time that the world took notice.
READ MORE from James H. McGee:
Profile in Courage: Trump’s Gaza Proposal
Trump and the Gaza Ceasefire: Implications for the Future of the Abraham Accords
Dueling Memes on Deportation … and Our Lives
James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His recent novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. A forthcoming sequel finds the Reprisal team fighting against terrorists who’ve infiltrated our southern border in a conspiracy that ranges across the globe. You can find Letter of Reprisal on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions and on Kindle Unlimited.
