The front page of CNN's website headlines "Trump Made No Attempt To Soften Gaza Proposal in Meeting With King Abdullah."
As it happens I've been working on a proposal this week. My proposal is a real estate leasing proposal. It's 10 pages long. Includes floor plans and financial amounts. It includes a timeline for delivery. It includes photos, and background material about the organization I represent. It's a serious document that describes the potential for a mutually beneficial commercial deal over a defined period of time, between the company I represent, namely the Landlord, and the company being represented by an accredited real estate agency, namely the Tenant. This is what I call a 'proposal'.
Donald trump saying he is going to 'take' Gaza, not 'buy' it, and turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East by displacing the almost 2 million Palestinians who call Gaza home, is in no way 'a proposal'.
Actually it's an insult. A slap in the face. And King Abdullah of Jordan winced a couple of times as he sat quietly beside trump listening to him 'riff' on his 'idea' for peace in the Middle East, which would require Jordan giving some Palestinians 'a parcel of land' to settle. Shame on CNN for calling it a proposal. And shame on anyone who could think that what trump is saying is anything less than evil. I don't use that word a lot, if ever, evil. But that's actually what trump is saying. It's evil. Whether he is talking about 'taking' the land that belongs to other people, and moving the people who live there out, or bulldozing 'the strip' for a big beautiful real estate project, as he has repeated half a dozen times over the last few weeks. Using real estate development language does not cover the fact that his 'idea' is pure evil. And shame on every so-called news outlet for not calling it out for what it actually is. They are collaborating in this evil by using words like 'proposal'. Shame. King Abdullah had to be polite because he was constrained by the fact that he had to pay deferrence to his host. But you could see that if he could he would have vomitted into trump's lap.
Almost as bad, but not quite, is Thomas Friedman and Dan Senor. I've complained about Dan Senor in a recent post. Friedman, at least called trump's idea out for what it is, not serious. He said trump was just 'riffing'. Friedman clearly doesn't understand that trump is absolutely deadly serious. If it seemed like a 'riff' it's because that's as much as trump can understand about foreign policy, very little. Then Friedman said that trump's instincts that there had to be 'new thinking' to find a solution for the Palestinians is correct. Trump's instincts have nothing to do with finding solutions for the Palestinians. They have to do with sowing chaos and making money. What Friedman should have said is that trump's idea is pure evil. Period. And left it there. Senor and his guests were worse than Friedman. Granted they are Israelis and so they are always trying to promote Israel's best interest. Getting rid of the Palestinians completely would be a dream. How that could happen, well, who knows? They admit that's a problem. But again, they say trump's 'proposal' is laudable for 'shaking the coconut tree' (similar to Friedman's sentiment). No, there is nothing laudable about it and it's not about 'shaking' any tree. It's destructive and evil. That should have been the response. Shame. Has everyone lost their minds?
One thing I am sure trump intended to do with his 'proposal' is to throw Bibi a political lifeline. It was clear during their press conference together last week that Netanyahu couldn't be more thrilled with what he was hearing. This week he is telling his army to prepare roads for massive numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza voluntarily - not really sure where they are going - and to resume full scale war when trump's deadline for all the hostages to be released passes on Saturday. Before this Bibi's government was on the verge of collapse when some of his coalition partners bolted because they objected to the ceasefire deal. Now Bibi gets a chance to bring them back into the fold with the resumption of the war, which is what he really wants.
We all want Israelis to live in peace. Those of us who have vigorously supported Israel's defensive war in the last year have argued, in the face of widespread protest and withering criticism, that it was morally justified and the critics were misguided. The real damage of trump's 'proposal' is that he does indeed change the conversation, and otherwise rational well-meaning people wishing for a positive outcome are suddenly willing to entertain absolutist morally repugnant notions. The worst part is that they don't realize what is happening to them. For perhaps the first time I think I understand how evil operates.
9 comments:
You hit it spot on by calling trump’s idea - weakest word I can think of - evil. Revolting, and revolting to think that anyone could entertain the thought for a moment. Who is the USA to just come in and “take” the land? Why does nobody say anything about that colonial idea?? Not to mention that this now puts the lives of the remaining hostages in even more danger! trump says he wants peace (b.s.); he is creating conditions for war. This is how low America has sunk: to twice democratically elect a man with no respect for the law. Or other people’s lands. The breakdown of the American empire.
My theory is that this "proposal" is just a smokescreen. A distraction. What Bibi and Trump were really talking about during his visit was how to deal with Iran and with Hamas. Trump may indeed be evil in that he is an egomaniac and a megalomaniac. But Iran and Hamas take Evil to another dimension.
There no ‘theory’ to have here. Like there’s no ‘plan’ or ‘proposal’. Even considering it a distraction gives it a political purpose it doesn’t deserve. It needs immediate dismissal. Smokescreen or not (as I say I believe he’s deadly serious because it fits his mentality) it needs to be denounced, and he needs to be denounced. Full stop. Just like Hamas needs to be stopped. And Iran needs to be stopped. The evil I am referring to is the ‘dehumanization’ of a group of people. Treating them like they don’t or shouldn’t exist. Treating them like they are a lesser creature, without value, need to be removed. Sound familiar?
I’m wondering if you think as I do that when start comparing ‘evils’ ie. they are more evil they we are, it means you’ve been infected with the virus.
I am uncomfortable to be put in the position of defending Trump, because I, too, like you, am repulsed by him, and scared of what he is capable of. I am not a fan. But I also can't call myself a "Trump-hater" ... at least not yet. Again, I am not saying I am defending them, but I have heard many positive spins of his Gaza proposal, even to the extent of saying that it could actually benefit the Palestinians. He is correct in that the enclave is currently unlivable, and Palestinians are in need of a safe place to live while Gaza is being rebuilt. It is not clear to me that he is "treating them like they don’t or shouldn’t exist ... treating them like they are a lesser creature, without value, need[ing] to be removed." He certainly has not said this explicitly. Whatever the case, whatever his motives, ultimately, though, as I have said, I think that he is just blowing smoke. I remind you that he also said "there will be hell to pay" if all the hostages were not released last Saturday ... and that hasn't happened. Trump is a bully, his tactics are bully tactics. Is he evil, as you keep claiming he is? Maybe, maybe not. I am no expert on evil. But if it can be measured by the amount of innocent blood one has on one's hands, then yes I can compare ... and comparing Iran/Hamas with Donald Trump ... well there is no comparison.
If saving one life is like saving the entire world, than the death of one innocent life is as 'evil' as any number of deaths you can count. Correct me if I'm wrong - you're the rabbi not me - that would be the Jewish position on evil. Any notion of numerical 'comparison' makes no sense, from a Jewish standpoint. The point I am trying to make about evil was how easily we can slip into that sort of thinking. Once we start comparing 'evils' than we can justify our own participation in evil. Because ours is not as bad as theirs. It's that banal. A simple toggle of the mind, hardly noticeable. Whether Gaza is livable or unlivable is for no one to decide except the people who live there. He has definitely said the Gazans need to be removed 'while Gaza is rebuilt', and when he talks about 'owning it' and turning it into 'the Riviera of Middle East' it's obvious he's not offering the Palestinians to have any 'right' to return to their homes. Maybe first chance to buy his condos. You don't have to be an 'expert on evil' (whatever that means) to run from it.
Again, disclaimer, I am not trying to defend Trump or any of his mishugeneh policies, but … when you say “and when he talks about 'owning it' and turning it into 'the Riviera of Middle East' it's obvious he's not offering the Palestinians to have any 'right' to return to their homes” — I’m not sure that’s so “obvious”. Do you think Americans are going to move to Gaza? I don’t think so. I think the plan is — possibly— meant to push — yes, push — Gazans in a different direction, toward a different narrative … not to just blindly give them money so they can build new tunnels and buy more missiles and keep playing the victim, etc.
Hey, it’s kind of refreshing to disagree with you on something — that doesn’t often happen — but the truth is I don’t actually disagree with you. I see your point of view on the issue, and I can understand how you might feel the way you feel — of course the proposal is outrageous — but I think there are nonetheless viable arguments to the contrary. A lot of ink has been spilled on this proposal — some positive and some negative. Where I disagree with you is in your confidence that it is only negative and “evil”. Particularly if one considers the proposal not as an actual proposal, but rather as a talking point or as an initial idea to start a negotiation, there may, after all, be some merit to it.
If there was an actual 'proposal' to discuss I might agree with you. But there isn't one. That's my point. There is no good faith here, and anyone who thinks that anything trump says or does comes with any good faith, doesn't understand him at all. My point is that giving him that kind of moral bandwidth is dangerous. It opens you up to a deal with the devil. Ask any number of his former employees or advisors who got sucked in and lost their moral compass. That's how it works. It's how it worked in Germany. Yes, to a lesser extent of course, but the mechanism is the same. Arendt understood it. It's imperative to call it out now rather than wait until people are too far gone. To answer you question, if I think Americans would move to Gaza? They move to Ashkelon. Why not a re-vamped Gaza made into the Riviera of the Middle-East? Anyway, it's not the point. The point was to change the narrative, but not in the minds of Palestinians. It was to change the narrative in the minds of Israelis and supporters of Israel. That we can imaginbe a future where the Palestinians are gone. I asked a friend, if i gave you a button and you could press it to make all the Palestinians disappear, would you? He answered, you mean kill them? I said, no, just instantly transport them all to Timbukto. Would you? He said yes. That's what I mean. Would you?
I am reminded of something David Grossman said/wrote around the time of the second Intifada (I think, it may have even been the first). He said, (I am paraphrasing) I'm not as concerned about what the Palestinians are doing to us through their actions, as I am concerned about what they are doing to us through our actions.
Post a Comment