(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump clarified how he envisions the US taking over the Gaza strip in a message posted during an early Thursday morning flood-zoning flurry of social media posts.
Trump unveiled a shocking and controversial plan for the US to take over Gaza during a joint press briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—just two hours before he sprung it on his Israeli counterpart, according to an Axios report.
Since then, there has been significant clarification, verging on “walking back” the concept from the Trump White House regarding the specifics of this idea. Trump did not insist on using US military, but he left the option open. The removal of all Palestinians from the war-ravaged area has been correctly called “ethnic cleansing,” but a debate on whether Trump wants to remove Palestinians permanently or temporarily only became clearer after Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt cleaned up the president’s idea.
But one big question remaining is how precisely the US would “take over” Gaza, to use Trump’s words: What authority
The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting. The Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the World, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth. No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed! Stability for the region would reign!!!
“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting” is a helluva simplification as well as a clear signal to Israel that they have American permission to clear out all 2 million Palestinians who currently live in the war-torn area, including, of course, thousands of Hamas military who will not be eager to leave.
“No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed!” is a noteworthy detail that will surely appease a growing set of Republican critics who believed Trump when he campaigned on a less interventionist role for the US military worldwide.
It’s
Trump’s doubling down with specifics also draws significant light between what he seems to think is a real plan and the notion that this isn’t anything more than a negotiation tactic for further discussions and negotiations.