Post New

This mind boggling news seems to be flying under the radar, if we still have any functioning radar. I guess the next 9/11 pilots will be directly trained by the USAF.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/10/politics/qatar-air-...

Xenophobia and fear mongering in America. A shame.

Do you want to tell them or should I tell them that literally every country hangs out with us at Nellis a few time a year for Red Flag exercises?

Red Flag exercises?

They are NOT there all year long. Shot yourself in both feet with your own posts.

Imagine if Biden or Obama had done this...

Have we ever allowed a foreign nation a base in our sovereign territory? I can't think of one. Serious question.

IMHO, it's an undesirable precedent. Pay-off for the donation of the jumbo jet??

Well. here tis:

AI Overview
There are no independent foreign military bases in the United States, but some foreign air forces have a presence on U.S. bases for training purposes, such as the Singaporean air force at Mountain Home Air Force Base and a planned Qatari facility at the same base. The German air force also has a training command at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.
Examples of foreign training presences

Qatar:
A new air force facility will be built at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho to support the training of Qatari F-15QA pilots.

Singapore:
The Republic of Singapore Air Force has maintained a presence at Mountain Home Air Force Base since 2009, with its 428th Fighter Squadron training there.
Germany:
The German air force operates a tactical training command at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas, and German pilots have been training in the U.S. since 1958.
Other NATO allies:
Pilots from other NATO nations, such as the Netherlands and Britain, frequently train in the United States.
Saudi Arabia:
The U.S. has a history of training Saudi pilots, though this was complicated by a 2019 incident where a Saudi officer killed three people at a U.S. base in Florida.

Hegseth announces Qatar will build air force facility at U.S. base in Idaho
2 days ago — There are no foreign military bases in the U.S., but some foreign militaries do maintain a presence for training. The Si...

I knew we trained foreign pilots. I wasn't aware -and your post didn't indicate that we did- allow a foreign military to build facilities on our territory. But it seems we're allowing it with Qatar.

Have we ever allowed a foreign nation a base in our sovereign territory?

Not their own base, so to speak, but I see UK military aircraft flying back and forth every year... it's training with the Navy and Army out of Lemoore naval air station...and National guard at Fresno.... so those flight patterns bring them out over the Central Cal coast.

Original 1PG: Have we ever allowed a foreign nation a base in our sovereign territory? I can't think of one. Serious question.

Now 1PG: I wasn't aware -and your post didn't indicate that we did- allow a foreign military to build facilities on our territory. But it seems we're allowing it with Qatar.

Me: And I gave a serious response, that's the difference - base vs facility. It looks like there were hangars for Singapore, so all that needed to be done was upgrade them.

What that means to me is they may build hangars, and the corresponding needs, etc., but not a base, and they likely use our runways. We're probably out of hangar space, so we let them build it. I don't see it as anything special, it's not an embassy or an Air Force Base, just a facility, but I can understand the concern.

“Rather, Qatar has made an initial 10-year commitment to construct and maintain a dedicated facility within an existing US air base, intended for advanced training and to enhance interoperability in defending and advancing our shared interests around the world,” Al-Ansari wrote.

The project has been in the works for “several years” with planning going through several rounds of “engagement and community consultation” and has received approval at both the city and local levels.

Not their own base, so to speak, but I see UK military aircraft flying back and forth every year.

And we have facilities and full bases in other countries. We train with them in their countries too. I remember when we lost a practice war in India because we weren't allowing our aircraft to pull the full G maneuvers and the Indians were allowing it - so we were not as good at doing it. (Or could be we didn't do it.) :)

Pay-off for the donation of the jumbo jet??

The jumbo jet is already in the bag. Besides, that was a bribe TO Trump. This time it's Trump bribing the Qataris, to grease the wheels for Jared Kushner's $50 billion real estate project in Qatar.

This time it's Trump bribing the Qataris, to grease the wheels for Jared Kushner's $50 billion real estate project in Qatar.

All grift all the time, and MAGA is kept in the dark and blind to it all.

There was a time this would not have been tolerated.

Pay-off for the donation of the jumbo jet??

It also might be the quid pro quo for them forcing Hamas into the peace deal.

What's Qatar's benefit to getting a military base in the U.S.? They're a small country with a negligible military, so it doesn't materially affect their ability to project military power anywhere. Which is typically the most direct benefit to having a base in another country.

What it does do, though, is lock the U.S. and Qatar into a fairly tight relationship - and it comes on the heels of Trump giving a nominal security guarantee to the Qataris against any further Israeli attacks, as well as Trump forcing Netanyahu to read off an apology for the previous one.

I would suspect that this is part of the national security realignment that Trump has been pitching to the Middle East in an effort to get his Peace Prize. Dump Hamas, take some oversight role in Gaza...and the U.S. will provide security and will stop trying to force you to change your domestic political structure. Since Trump can't get a treaty through the Senate, creating some irreversible de facto commitments is the best way he can backstop that kind of pledge.

I would suspect that this is part of the national security realignment that Trump has been pitching to the Middle East in an effort to get his Peace Prize. Dump Hamas, take some oversight role in Gaza...and the U.S. will provide security and will stop trying to force you to change your domestic political structure. Since Trump can't get a treaty through the Senate, creating some irreversible de facto commitments is the best way he can backstop that kind of pledge.

Interesting. But is this really Trump's plan? Or others in his administration.

Interesting. But is this really Trump's plan? Or others in his administration.
***

LOL

Interesting. But is this really Trump's plan? Or others in his administration.

Interesting comment on the Beeb last night. Words to the effect this is only phase one. A lot of hard bargaining lays ahead. Trump is basking in the praise and honors right now, but, when the bargaining over the hard issues starts, will he lose interest, and move on to something else?

Steve

It also might be the quid pro quo for them forcing Hamas into the peace deal.

That's the way I read it. With the Abraham accords I saw a huge hope of reshaping the Middle Easy to a relative stability, and I liked that. I was wondering how many years it took to get that - then hopes faded with GAZA, and that seemed to be the plan, disrupt the Abraham accords. And now HAMAs is rooting out gangs and other enemies. While I don't see how HAMAS is gotten rid of, I'm happy that this appears to be working. but wondering how HAMAS figures into the whole pic.

But is this really Trump's plan? Or others in his administration.

It's certainly both. I mean, even as a general matter no President ever acts alone (Phil Hartman's Ronald Reagan notwithstanding); diplomatic staff rarely acts on major issues like this without the involvement of the President. And specifically, the diplomatic push that resulted in the peace agreement was driven by the President reaching out directly to regional Arab leaders (the carrots) and squeezing Netanyahu (the sticks). No doubt the details, and very high-level details at that, were handled by the appropriate folks in State and Defense - but Trump almost certainly was key to it happening.

I don't entirely understand the reluctance to acknowledge that Trump actually had a major part in this happening. He's the one who decided to finally use the leverage that he had built up over Netanyahu, and decided to offer the other Sunni nations a deeper and more real partnership with the U.S. despite their rather bloodstained and oppressive human rights records. Those things are all completely consistent with everything we know about Trump: he likes to bully, he doesn't like to be balked by people acting as if they're more important or more powerful than him, he really seems to want a Nobel Peace Prize, and he's long been dazzled by the enormous opportunities to personally make a ton of money in the Middle East if it weren't so fraught to deal with the geopolitics of the situation.

All of that combined to have him hold out a compelling bargain to the Sunni states: stick your neck out and take a stand on the Palestinian conflict by publicly deciding against Hamas, and I'll reward you with a much tighter alliance with the U.S. without you having to do any of those human rights reforms (or disclaiming Sharia law or jihadism or anything else that's been a political problem in the past) that any other Administration would insist on. Trump doesn't care about their oppressive domestic governmental structures or persecution of opposition figures. For the first time, the Sunni states have an American President who is happy to embrace them without "spreading democracy" or "protecting human rights" to get in the way.

That was the deal. Because that's not the kind of deal you can put in a treaty that could pass the Senate, Trump's going to have to extend that embrace to the Sunni countries in other ways. I suspect that the air force base is a mechanism for doing that.

While I don't see how HAMAS is gotten rid of, I'm happy that this appears to be working. but wondering how HAMAS figures into the whole pic.

Ah, you just need to be more cynical.

One model of the Arab-Israeli conflict (as we used to call it) is that the Arab states in the region cared a great deal about the Palestinian cause and didn't give a flying fork about the Palestinian people. That's especially true of Egypt and Jordan, who generally regarded several of the Palestinian independence efforts as dangerous and threatening to their own countries. They loved the fact that the Palestinian issue caused enormous problems for Israel and their U.S. patrons, but that didn't necessarily extend to caring much about the Palestinians really getting their own country. Again, even now Egypt and Jordan probably have some very serious concerns about how an actual country of Palestine would affect them.

There's an old saying in politics: you can't beat someone with no one. You can't drive out Hamas for good unless there's someone that replaces them. But the only two alternatives have always been either Israel (which the Sunni nations would hate) or some group of Palestinians like the PA (which was also deeply unpalatable).

So the highlight of this deal is that Trump is proposing that Gaza be liberated from Hamas without putting the Palestinians in charge. It's going to be run by a "Board of Peace," meaning not the Palestinians who live in Gaza and not the PA and not Israel. Picture the cake scene from The Godfather Part II, but with Gaza instead of Cuba, and the various countries in the region all getting a "piece" instead of the crime families:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkm5UOabXZk

Because Trump doesn't care about Palestinian rights to self-determination and autonomy - even to pay lip service to them - he can offer this deal where no other President before or after can do it. He doesn't care and doesn't need to. So he can step in and "give away" Gaza to the other Arab states. As long as it doesn't go to Israel or to the PA, it's an acceptable outcome to them.

The proposal is to give those other nations a real incentive to force Hamas out of the picture and letting them be the ones in charge of the country (with the U.S. in the lead position). If Gaza goes well, then they all get to make tons of money and have some real security dealing with the United States; and they don't have to worry about there actually being a Palestine. So if all those countries start actually putting their own pieces into Gaza, then they'll have incentive to create their own power structure in Gaza.

The pitch is having an anti-democratic governing body that can rule Gaza instead of the Palestinians doing it. You can't drive Hamas out of power and replace them with a vacuum, so the question "If not Hamas, then who?" was a huge problem. Now, the answer is "Who ever Trump decides will make him the most money and get him a Nobel." Since that answer is not the PA, not Israel, and not any other Palestinian group, then everyone in the region how has a chance to win if Hamas is driven out. I mean, except for the Palestinian people of course. But that's why you need to be more cynical to see what the deal really is....

I don't entirely understand the reluctance to acknowledge that Trump actually had a major part in this happening.

I agree. As I said before I will be happily chagrined and acknowledge his efforts.

I mean, except for the Palestinian people of course. But that's why you need to be more cynical to see what the deal really is....

If you put it up to a vote, who would the Palestinians vote for? I suspect you know the answer already.

If you put it up to a vote, who would the Palestinians vote for? I suspect you know the answer already.

If we put what up for a vote? In what context? And when?

Right now, if there were a secret ballot between actual political alternatives without fear of reprisals, for governance of Gaza as it was before the war (not a country, subject to a crippling embargo, and insanely poor), Hamas would get trounced in a vote. The Palestinian folks have suffered horrifically. If all they get out of it is a return to the status quo ante but with their land in ruins, they'd run Hamas out of town on a rail.

Except, of course, that Hamas has all the guns. So if you had a vote today for governance of Gaza, Hamas would win - because who would vote against them? Who would run against them? No one thinks that Hamas would accept the results of an election they lose, and they would kill anyone who runs against them and wins. So Hamas would be the only real candidates that anyone could feel safe voting for - even though they would lose by a landslide in an election without that fear.

However, if the outcome of the war were an actual Palestinian country? Then Hamas might indeed win an election - because they would be proven right, and would be the Founding Fathers of that new country. Violence was the way to independence, and their sacrifice would have birthed the new nation.

Now, the answer is "Who ever Trump decides will make him the most money and get him a Nobel." Since that answer is not the PA, not Israel, and not any other Palestinian group, then everyone in the region how has a chance to win if Hamas is driven out. I mean, except for the Palestinian people of course. But that's why you need to be more cynical to see what the deal really is....

This makes sense, and in the future I will remember to be more cynical. :) Thanks.

If we put what up for a vote? In what context? And when?

Your post is basically poking the Trump administration for not introducing democracy to the Gazans. I'm asking you who they'd vote for if they got to elect a government.

Hamas would get trounced in a vote. The Palestinian folks have suffered horrifically. If all they get out of it is a return to the status quo ante but with their land in ruins, they'd run Hamas out of town on a rail.

Really. I don't believe that. Culturally, the Palestinians are a broken people. They've been marinating in victimhood and antisemitism for so long I don't know how you unwind that. Even if they tossed Hamas out with the garbage they'd elect a group that would be so ideologically similar to Hamas there wouldn't be much daylight between them.

Trump knows there's no Palestinian George Washington and he doesn't want to make the same mistake that Bush43 did with Iraq: some places just aren't ready to have open and free democracy.

Dope sums it up again. Beat the shit out of most editorials written on this topic.

Your post is basically poking the Trump administration for not introducing democracy to the Gazans.

No, it's not.

Democracy for the Palestinians has always been the one of the hardest things to craft a peace proposal around, because of Israeli fears that Hamas or a similar group would take power. That either they would win power in an election, or that they would just take power through coup. Other countries in the region weren't overly enthused by that prospect, either, in the last decade or two - since the most likely outcome is that whatever group took over would be sponsored by Iran.

But because it's such an established norm of international law these days that domestic populations are entitled to self-determination and autonomy, and should not be ruled by others from afar, any formal "day after" plan had to propose Palestinian autonomy. Regardless of whether you believe that Palestinians aren't "ready" to govern themselves, governing yourself is considered a fundamental human right. One of the most basic and important human rights, actually. And it was very difficult to work out a way to do that in a way that addressed Israeli security concerns enough that Israel would go along with it.

Now, Gaza's going to get occupied again. This time by the U.S. in concert with other nations in the region. They'll control the government and the military forces. Palestinians will get to hold jobs in civil positions in the government, but the "Board of Peace" will be in charge of all the decision-making. There's a fig leaf that this is just transitional, but there's no real mechanism for that new situation to ever really change.

That's why only Trump could cut this deal. It lets the other countries in the region sign off, because Israel isn't getting Gaza. It lets Israel sign off, because the Palestinians aren't getting Gaza. The ones who will be actually running Gaza are a collection of non-democratic nations - monarchies and authoritarian states - that Israel will soon have security agreements with. Again, a win-win-win for everyone except the Palestinian people, who are likely to now be forever occupied...just by someone other than Israel.

For the first time, the Sunni states have an American President who is happy to embrace them without "spreading democracy" or "protecting human rights" to get in the way.

Spot on. But why?

Could it be because that's exactly how he and Project 2025 intend to topple the Democratic Party? Control the army, the press, and the dominant religion, while at the same time creating a vast global Trump conglomerate "like no one has ever seen, believe me."

Spot on. But why?

Because he doesn't care about those things.

He wants the Middle East to be orderly, for a variety of reasons. He wants a Peace Prize, he wants credit for establishing a regional cross security and economic agreement through the Abraham Accords, and he wants to make a shirt-ton of money while doing it.

He may share a bit of Dope's perspective on whether the populations of these countries are "ready" for self-governance, rather than being rule by monarchies or other semi-autocratic non-democratic governments. But he's also intensely transactional. Right now, all these countries are rule by autocrats and monarchs who are both willing to make deals with the U.S. (as a country) and him (as a private individual through his proxies), in a way that democratically-elected governments in those countries never ever would. Why would he want to change that for some hazy intangible ideal like "self-determination," which he (like Dope) probably doesn't think they're "ready" for anyway?

That's why only Trump could cut this deal. It lets the other countries in the region sign off, because Israel isn't getting Gaza. It lets Israel sign off, because the Palestinians aren't getting Gaza. The ones who will be actually running Gaza are a collection of non-democratic nations - monarchies and authoritarian states - that Israel will soon have security agreements with. Again, a win-win-win for everyone except the Palestinian people, who are likely to now be forever occupied...just by someone other than Israel.

And...?

The Palestinians bet on the wrong horse in 1948 and have been doubling down on that bad bet ever since.

If you folks have learned nothing about Trump after all this time you should know that Trump doesn't give a crap what people think about him - if he did, he'd spend his days and nights weeping. But he doesn't. That allows him to pursue some of the most ruthlessly pragmatic policies one can pursue because he's effectively mentally liberated from certain "niceties".

Such as the "nicety" of mouthing the words, "The Palestinians deserve their own democratic state". No...they don't. At least not yet. 87 years of supporting warfare and terrorism have earned them this "peace council".

Do you know where a lot of the hostages were kept? With families of "ordinary" Gazans. What does that tell you about the mindset of the average ordinary person there? Ever see any of their version of Schoolhouse Rock? While we learned Conjunction junction, what's your function? they learned that Jews are rats and that blowing all of them up was the highest moral plane one could reach.

We tend to look at the world through our Western political/cultural lens; Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that doesn't always work. It's going to take decades for them to learn to love life more than they hate Israel.

Is this plan morally perfect? No. But does it need to be? Also no. Rome wasn't built in a day and the Palestinians aren't going to fixed in one day either.

Dope sums it up again. Beat the shit out of most editorials written on this topic.

Thanks, brother!

Now, Gaza's going to get occupied again. This time by the U.S. in concert with other nations in the region. They'll control the government and the military forces. Palestinians will get to hold jobs in civil positions in the government, but the "Board of Peace" will be in charge of all the decision-making. There's a fig leaf that this is just transitional, but there's no real mechanism for that new situation to ever really change.

Essentially, the creation of Gaza as the rump of the former British mandate over Palestine. It was the British that terrorists like Menachem Begin fought against. Except, this time, instead of the British, it will be the US the terrorists will target.

Sure, this is a big help.
/sarcasm

Steve

Essentially, the creation of Gaza as the rump of the former British mandate over Palestine. It was the British that terrorists like Menachem Begin fought against. Except, this time, instead of the British, it will be the US the terrorists will target.

Sure, this is a big help.
/sarcasm

Okay. Here are your choices:

1. Put leadership in Gaza up for a vote and respect whatever government comes out of it.
2. Let the war go on.
3. This plan.

What's your option 4 if you don't care for the above? Note that for Option 3 the Saudis and others will be in the lead, not us.

Right now, all these countries are rule by autocrats and monarchs who are both willing to make deals with the U.S. (as a country) and him (as a private individual through his proxies), in a way that democratically-elected governments in those countries never ever would. Why would he want to change that for some hazy intangible ideal like "self-determination,"

...and to maximize the transactional opportunities Trump thirsts for (fame AND fortune AND recognition)he needs the US to cede self-determination to one party rule as Putin has effectively done.

Any opposition to his plan will be labeled as evil; some kind of enemy of 'god'&state. "we have radical left lunatics out there, and we just have to beat the hell out of them."

Except, this time, instead of the British, it will be the US the terrorists will target. Sure, this is a big help.
/sarcasm

Just because your paranoid (cynical) doesn't mean you're wrong.

The shia/sunni schism ain't going nowhere. The catholic schism seems to be intensifying.

Interesting times are here. Interesting times lay ahead.

But that's why you need to be more cynical to see what the deal really is....

Thank you for that. Let’s try this on for size.

Maybe the Gaza Strip gets turned over to a group of rich Gulf states, led by Qatar. They make sure that Hamas is gone from there by simply removing everyone. They then make sweetheart deals with the trump family to develop the region into a luxury resort area, where it becomes another playground for the ultra wealthy.

Since Trump can't get a treaty through the Senate, creating some irreversible de facto commitments is the best way he can backstop that kind of pledge.

I wonder whose idea that was. The Felon isn't smart enough to figure that out himself. Plus his dementia...no way he thought of that. Maybe Miller?

Any opposition to his plan will be labeled as evil; some kind of enemy of 'god'&state. "we have radical left lunatics out there, and we just have to beat the hell out of them."

What's astonishing is that almost the entire Republican establishment is OK WITH THIS!

One party rule in league with the uber wealthy oligarch class is the goal.

And...?

And that's one of the key changes in the approach of the U.S. in trying to broker a deal.

Not everything is a knock on Trump, Dope. We're just talking about the deal and some of the details, and why the parties (including all the other Sunni nations) think that it has enough of a chance to actually work for them to come out and support it. The key element is jettisoning any near term reversion of Gaza to Palestinian self-rule - replacing governance by Hamas or Israel with governance by the other nations in the region plus the U.S. That's why this deal is happening now, and couldn't have happened earlier.

I don't entirely understand the reluctance to acknowledge that Trump actually had a major part in this happening. He's the one who decided...

The Felon had a major part in that he had to approve it. But I don't for one second believe he came up with it. He is -frankly- a moron. Apparently always has been. Plus, he is showing signs of dementia. His brain never worked that well, and now it's declining.

From what we know, somebody had the idea, and whispered the correct obsequiousness in his ear, and he agreed to go ahead. He was maneuvered into this deal by someone pulling his strings. My guess is Miller. I don't think Vance has that kind of influence, nor the smarts (he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, though he is sharper than the Felon).

One party rule in league with the uber wealthy oligarch class is the goal.
****

Oligarchs made up 2 electoral college wins?

Who knew.


PS: Is it the oligarchs buying the tattoos, paying for their baby-daddy expenses or making society pay for them, buying hte latest new ssmartphone or car, helping restaurants have great sales numbers, buying designer labels and every god damn streaming service and puppy vet bill and granite countertop? NNope.....

Essentially, the creation of Gaza as the rump of the former British mandate over Palestine. It was the British that terrorists like Menachem Begin fought against. Except, this time, instead of the British, it will be the US the terrorists will target.

Not really. Unlike the Mandate era, you will have a governing body that has the participation of many of the other states in the region. There are no details yet, but it is likely that Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar will get the lion's share of local control.

Per the plan, there will be a "Board of Peace" that's the civilian governing body, and there will be a multinational force that will be in charge of security. Those two bodies will have the U.S. involved, but won't just be the U.S. And they're probably not going to be as 'gentle' as the Mandate-era Brits were or as you might expect the U.S. would be. I think you can expect something more along the lines of Egypt's brutal suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood as a model. In fact, it's entirely possible that Egypt might actually welcome the opportunity to root out Hamas, which is an offshoot of the MB - so the new security forces in Gaza might end up being especially repressive.

Or they might not. It might be that none of the nations involved actually care about this very much, don't want to bother with Gaza, and are just happy to have the fig leaf of a solution that nominally has someone in charge of Gaza that isn't Hamas or Israel for long enough that they can all sign their security deals under Abraham Accords Mark II. They might be willing to let Gaza remain a perpetual failed state, as long as the war ends for just long enough that they don't have to placate their domestic populations.

We're just talking about the deal and some of the details, and why the parties (including all the other Sunni nations) think that it has enough of a chance to actually work for them to come out and support it. The key element is jettisoning any near term reversion of Gaza to Palestinian self-rule - replacing governance by Hamas or Israel with governance by the other nations in the region plus the U.S. That's why this deal is happening now, and couldn't have happened earlier.

And this is the correct deal. Don't forget that there's still the West Bank sitting there; you can't stand up an "independent Palestinian state" in one region and not the other. The Palestinians in either place would reject that.

Trump and the mideast allies played this one from all fronts very well:
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/a-coordinate...

Egypt and Qatar told Hayya the deal was his last chance to end the war, according to the officials. They pressed Hamas to understand that holding the hostages was becoming a strategic liability, giving Israel a source of legitimacy to keep fighting.

The next day, joined by Turkey, they warned him that if Hamas didn’t approve the plan it would be stripped of all political and diplomatic cover; Qatar and Turkey would no longer host the group’s political leadership, and Egypt would stop pressing for Hamas to have a say in Gaza’s postwar governance, the officials said.

It was enough to get Hamas to agree to release all its hostages in Gaza and sign on to the first part of Trump’s peace deal, giving up what had been its most important bargaining chip to keep a seat at the table. While modifying its acceptance with heavy caveats that reflected its concerns about the deal, Hamas had given Trump an opportunity to declare victory and set the stage for a hostage release early this week.

They make sure that Hamas is gone from there by simply removing everyone. They then make sweetheart deals with the trump family to develop the region into a luxury resort area, where it becomes another playground for the ultra wealthy.

There's no way to "simply remove everyone." We're talking about two million people. Where would they go? Qatar isn't going to get Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia to take them in, and the US and EU are closed to that kind of migration.

It wouldn't be surprising if whatever little of value remains there got divided up by the new ruling powers, a la the Cuba cake in the Godfather - but most of the strip is going to still be occupied by the desperately impovershed Gazan population.

Or they might not. It might be that none of the nations involved actually care about this very much, don't want to bother with Gaza, and are just happy to have the fig leaf of a solution that nominally has someone in charge of Gaza that isn't Hamas or Israel for long enough that they can all sign their security deals under Abraham Accords Mark II.

I'm far less acquainted with the history than you. However, the Palestinians (what's left of them) still will want a homeland. Just like the Armenians. Just like the Kurds. To my knowledge, there isn't much of an Armenian terrorist organization. But many nations regard any organized Kurds as terrorists (including Turkey, a NATO member). If this stops the bloodshed and genocide, that's certainly a plus. But I wonder how long it will last before Palestinians start muttering "but this was OUR land, and still should be". You can't kill an idea that easily.

...a la the Cuba cake in the Godfather...

And how did Cuba work out for them? As I recall, a lot of oligarchs lost a lot of money with the rise of Castro. If Gaza/Palestine goes the way of Cuba, that's not what the other nations in this deal want.

And this is the correct deal.

It is a deal. It's a deal that doesn't address or resolve the underlying Palestinian independence movement and basically results in Gaza being reoccupied. The Palestinians living there will have even less autonomy and self-determination than they did before October 7.

It's a legitimate question whether a re-occupation of Gaza by a different party will result in a stable outcome in even the near term, let alone over a longer time horizon. I think that the population has been so battered by two years of war that they may not have the resources or desire to worry about an independence movement; they're on a completely different level on the pyramid of needs right now. And that might be enough to let a new authoritarian Gazan government cement control and rule the strip the way other authoritarian regimes control their jurisdictions. But that might not be what happens - you might end up with an insurgency against the "Board of Peace."

But I wonder how long it will last before Palestinians start muttering "but this was OUR land, and still should be". You can't kill an idea that easily.

No, not easily. But ideas can be killed, even so. Or at least weakened to the point of irrelevance. Not all separatist movements succeed. History is littered with failed uprisings, abandoned independence movements, and righteous causes that were left behind. It might be much harder to find recruits willing to die for Palestinian independence when doing so means fighting against other Arab soldiers rather than Israeli ones. Or trying to organize in the face of repression efforts like those in Egypt against the Muslim brotherhood.

It will depend on whether the nations that seize control of Gaza actually want to control it or just want to hold it long enough to get their other deals signed and then let it fall into chaos. I think it could go either way. Those countries are far more willing to link arms with Israel and deny opportunities to Iran than they were even a decade or two ago, and if the U.S. is weakening human rights activities against them (both American and otherwise) then they might be content to squelch Palestinian independence in Gaza in order to keep a firm grip on the place.

And how did Cuba work out for them? As I recall, a lot of oligarchs lost a lot of money with the rise of Castro. If Gaza/Palestine goes the way of Cuba, that's not what the other nations in this deal want.

Poorly. The rebels won.

Who knows what will happen down the road? For all I know, the Qataris and Egyptians might genuinely think that they've got enough of a bead on things that they can basically take over Gaza. Or it might be that they genuinely don't care and only want to keep a lid on things for a year or two, and then let the devil take the place. Or they might actually think that there's hope for the PA, that this can be a "come to Jesus" moment for them as well.

Regardless, the actual fighting in Gaza may end up stopping for a while - which may be good enough for now.

It is a deal. It's a deal that doesn't address or resolve the underlying Palestinian independence movement and basically results in Gaza being reoccupied. The Palestinians living there will have even less autonomy and self-determination than they did before October 7.

No, and no single deal ever was going to be able to do that.

As to the second point, come on. How free of a society do you think Hamas runs? Every dollar of aid went to work building rockets and tunnels to attack the Israelis with. Did they have freedom of expression? Did they even have elections after Hamas "won" the first time? Was economic rehabilitation even on their list of priorities?

Literally anything they get is better than that.


It's a legitimate question whether a re-occupation of Gaza by a different party will result in a stable outcome in even the near term, let alone over a longer time horizon. I think that the population has been so battered by two years of war that they may not have the resources or desire to worry about an independence movement; they're on a completely different level on the pyramid of needs right now. And that might be enough to let a new authoritarian Gazan government cement control and rule the strip the way other authoritarian regimes control their jurisdictions. But that might not be what happens - you might end up with an insurgency against the "Board of Peace."

Of course it's a legit question. Their population has been battered by not just 2 years of war but 70-somehting years of a bogus promise that will never be fulfilled ("From the river to the sea..."). They staked everything on that promise...and lost. Time and time again. They can either be adults and accept that and move on -or- they can periodically get curb-stomped by reality. Up until now they've chosen Option B.

All of it will come down to whether or not the new Board of Peace thing actually brings economic development to the Gazans. Were you aware there's a large pocket of natural gas just off their shore that's just sitting there waiting for somebody to do something with it? 1.1T+ cubic feet. What else could they actually build if they stopped their tunnel making and what not?

If the new board can rebuild the place and give the Palestinians something to do other than hate on Israel then it's 100% worth it.

The world has been serving up the Palestinians with low expectations for decades. They have a chance with this deal to do something worthwhile. I remain skeptical they can rise to the challenge.

How free of a society do you think Hamas runs?

I don't. Hamas operated a brutal authoritarian system as well. It may be that the Palestinians end up getting moved from one brutal authoritarian system to another. But the second brutal authoritarian system will lack even the minor saving grace of being run by people that are from the region and have some connection (familial or otherwise) with the population there.

Again, none of this is an argument that the deal is bad or shouldn't have happened - or that a better one is or ever was on offer. It's not even intended as a criticism of the deal. I personally think this is a very significant accomplishment and one that will merit a great deal of praise if it lasts for a while. Rather, it's just a discussion of the things that make this deal very different from what was ever on offer before, as a way of possibly explaining why this deal got to a "yes" when other ones did not.

It may be that the Palestinians end up getting moved from one brutal authoritarian system to another. But the second brutal authoritarian system will lack even the minor saving grace of being run by people that are from the region and have some connection (familial or otherwise) with the population there.

That's speculation. What incentive does this new, brutal authoritarian regime have? Is it motivated by wiping the Israelis off the map? What possible motivation would Qatar and the others have for that?

The Israelis have demonstrated dozens of times that they can reach out and touch whomever they want, at places and times of their choosing. Think it would be hard for them to eliminate most of the Qatari ruling hierarchy in one go? Would be beyond easy as Qatar is too small to matter. And the Egyptians have had to deal with the Palestinians and their nonsense (smuggling weapons and what not) for decades. They've also taken multiple runs at the IDF and gotten dog-walked each time. What does more chaos and misery on their border buy them?

Rather, it's just a discussion of the things that make this deal very different from what was ever on offer before, as a way of possibly explaining why this deal got to a "yes" when other ones did not.

Looking at this thread, a lot of the replies are so much soup grapes being squished between the toes of folks who just. Hate. Trump. That's irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that this deal really and truly signals that the US is back in the business of Kissinger-style Realpolitik. And that's a GOOD thing.

Per the plan, there will be a "Board of Peace" that's the civilian governing body, and there will be a multinational force that will be in charge of security. Those two bodies will have the U.S. involved, but won't just be the U.S.

I'll pose a hypothetical: what if the other ME states really don't give a whit about the Pals or Gaza? What if they were all bought off by Trump, using means that have nothing to do with Gaza? Trump putting himself in charge of that body, rather than the body being selected by the UN, alone, should be a huge red flag. What if the fix is in that the other parties commit to rubber stamping anything Trump wants in Gaza, without a thought to anyone else?

Steve

What possible motivation would Qatar and the others have for that?

To get rid of Hamas. Or prevent the PFLP from getting a foothold in Gaza.

Remember, Hamas is the Gaza offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood - and Egypt absolutely wants to crush the last lingering remnants of Hamas for that reason alone. BTW, that's why the "open-air prison" that international rights groups have condemned doesn't have a huge wide-open gate on the southern end - Egypt absolutely didn't want the Palestinians to have free movement or economic interaction with Egypt in order to keep Hamas out. And Jordan is violently opposed to the militant factions within the PLO/PA like PFLP.

As I mentioned upthread, you can kill (or at least really weaken) an idea - and one tool for doing that is brutal repression of anyone who tries to promote that idea. The new "Board of Peace" may be highly motivated to prevent any of the militant organizations from having even the slightest hint of a glimmer of the possibility of a foothold in Gaza. Because a power vacuum invites people to try to seize power, and the militant groups in the region will assuredly try to get a position in Gaza if they're not squelched. And if there's one thing these regimes in the area are good at, it's squelching.

What does more chaos and misery on their border buy them?

That's the point. They don't want chaos and misery, so they're going to choose the order of brutal repression of dissent and any political activity that they don't like. Freedom and self-determination is usually far more unruly and chaotic than an authoritarian regime - and it's a near certainty when some of the ideas that are jockeying for acceptance involve militant resistance and violent overthrow of the established governments in the region. Which is why if the BoP countries actually want to keep control of Gaza, they're more likely to take the "repressive authoritarian" route than the "lets give the Palestinians freedom and autonomy" route.

I'll pose a hypothetical: what if the other ME states really don't give a whit about the Pals or Gaza? What if they were all bought off by Trump, using means that have nothing to do with Gaza? Trump putting himself in charge of that body, rather than the body being selected by the UN, alone, should be a huge red flag. What if the fix is in that the other parties commit to rubber stamping anything Trump wants in Gaza, without a thought to anyone else?

It's a possibility, but I think it's a little unlikely. I don't think the other ME states really trust that Trump could make that work, and I suspect Trump doesn't want the headache of trying to make that work. Honestly, I suspect he'd much rather have Egypt take over Gaza again, repress Hamas and any other Palestinian militants the way they do the Muslim Brotherhood, and just make his money developing whatever piece of the action he has El-Sisi give him.

They're happy to let Trump pick the Board of Peace because they absolutely do not trust the UN to pick it (and neither does Israel). They know that Trump will fill it with the sort of people that like the way that the authoritarian states in the ME are run, because those are the people that folks like Trump can cut deals with.

I think you're misreading the direction that the fix runs. The ME countries know that Trump only cares about the economics/transactional side of it, and isn't going to care one carp about the decisions of the Board of Peace other than the ones that affect his business interests. Everything else is fair game. So that's the fix - they buy off Trump with the economic matters, and they get to run the area how they see fit as long as they don't step on what Trump views as important to him/U.S.

albaby They might be willing to let Gaza remain a perpetual failed state, as long as the war ends for just long enough that they don't have to placate their domestic populations.

Do you think the shiite nations will just sit quietly in the background while this evolves?
______________________________________________________________
Shiite nations:
Country Shia Population Percentage Notable Cities with Shia Majority
Iran Approximately 90% Tehran, Qom, Mashhad
Iraq Approximately 60-70% Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf
Azerbaijan Approximately 85% Baku
Bahrain Approximately 50% Manama

Significant Shia Communities
Lebanon: Notable Shia population, particularly in southern regions and Beirut.
Kuwait: Shia Muslims make up about 30% of the population.
Turkey: Significant Shia population, especially among the Alevi community.
Yemen: Home to the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam, particularly in the north.
Saudi Arabia: Shia communities are primarily found in the Eastern Province.
Afghanistan: The Hazara ethnic group predominantly practices Shia Islam.
India: Notable Shia communities exist, particularly in regions like Lucknow and Hyderabad.

Do you think the shiite nations will just sit quietly in the background while this evolves?

No. That is the other risk factor - and opportunity.

Their capabilities have been sharply degraded by Israel, which is part of why Hamas was in a position where they had to take this deal. It will be years before the Shiite countries can have the capacity to project influence into Gaza the way they did before. Having lost those lines of resources, Hamas was seriously weakened. But they will still try to make sure that Gaza stays unstable, and certainly can cause some amount of problems.

But the opportunity is that the Sunni nations will see this as a limited window to block Shia influence in Gaza. Letting Gaza become a failed state would leave it open for greater Shi'a influence if, as and when those nations begin to rebuild their capabilities.

We don't even yet know, though, whether the other ME states want to take control of Gaza in any meaningful way. If Hamas is determined to stay in power, they've got 10K-20K soldiers - and they've already started killing their political opponents and anyone who they think might be a potential threat in a post-war world. We'll see.

To get rid of Hamas. Or prevent the PFLP from getting a foothold in Gaza.

Okay.

Remember, Hamas is the Gaza offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood - and Egypt absolutely wants to crush the last lingering remnants of Hamas for that reason alone. BTW, that's why the "open-air prison" that international rights groups have condemned doesn't have a huge wide-open gate on the southern end - Egypt absolutely didn't want the Palestinians to have free movement or economic interaction with Egypt in order to keep Hamas out. And Jordan is violently opposed to the militant factions within the PLO/PA like PFLP.

Aha. So in other words, literally nobody wants a violent terrorist hellhole except maybe...the Iranians, who were also de-balled by the IDF and Trump early this year.

As I mentioned upthread, you can kill (or at least really weaken) an idea - and one tool for doing that is brutal repression of anyone who tries to promote that idea. The new "Board of Peace" may be highly motivated to prevent any of the militant organizations from having even the slightest hint of a glimmer of the possibility of a foothold in Gaza.

And that's a bad thing because...?

Because a power vacuum invites people to try to seize power, and the militant groups in the region will assuredly try to get a position in Gaza if they're not squelched. And if there's one thing these regimes in the area are good at, it's squelching.

This deal ensures there won't be a power vacuum. A Palestinian Weimar Republic absolutely would ensure that.

That's the point. They don't want chaos and misery, so they're going to choose the order of brutal repression of dissent and any political activity that they don't like.

Again, that's pure speculation. It will come down to whether or not the new entity can generate enough of a standard of living for the Palestinians.

Which is why if the BoP countries actually want to keep control of Gaza, they're more likely to take the "repressive authoritarian" route than the "lets give the Palestinians freedom and autonomy" route.

That's certainly a possibility. It depends on
-If the Palestinians are willing to grow and become a nation state
-How much appetite they have for getting their a$$es handed to them (again)
-What their standard of living looks like down the road

Aha. So in other words, literally nobody wants a violent terrorist hellhole except maybe...the Iranians, who were also de-balled by the IDF and Trump early this year.

Right. But also nobody wants to use their troops in a running gun battle against 15K Hamas soldiers in urban warfare in Gaza, where air or artillery support is fraught with repercussions.

I mean, Netanyahu and the right-wing portion of the Israeli government wanted to do that, but their motivations were very specific to them, and were supported by the presence of the hostages. None of the other ME folks face those incentives.

That's why there's some uncertainty as to what might happen. Everyone has said that they've agreed to a new occupation of Gaza...except that Hamas hasn't exactly agreed to lay down their guns and give up their presence in Gazan "politics," so we don't have a lot of certainty around that.

And that's a bad thing because...?

Because they might accomplish that goal through mass deprivation of human rights. You might still think it's worth it in order to keep a lid on Gaza, but it's still a bad thing if the new "Board of Peace" ends up instituting a repressive authoritarian regime in order to keep Hamas and the PFLP from gaining a foothold.

Again, that's pure speculation. It will come down to whether or not the new entity can generate enough of a standard of living for the Palestinians.

I agree we can only speculate at this point, but I disagree that it will come down to anything having to do with Palestinian standard of living. It entirely comes down to whether Hamas - the people with the guns - are either willing to stand down and cede power to the new regime and/or whether the new regime is willing to fight and kill Hamas if they don't.

The ordinary Palestinian people have almost no agency in what's going to happen in Gaza. That's the problem. It's always been the problem. Absent a strong democratic system where elections can be held and the outcomes of those elections can be enforced, the ability to determine who will be in the government often comes down to who has the guns, not who has the majority. Hamas has all the guns, they've spent the last ~20 years killing all the Palestinian people who might oppose them before 10/7, and it looks like they're already starting to kill all the Palestinians who might try to oppose them during this ceasefire period.

The Palestinian people (writ large) are not going to get to choose the future of Gaza. That's the whole point of the Peace Plan structure. The future of Gaza is going to be decided by the choices of Hamas and the various ME countries who are contemplated to contribute the security forces (I assume the U.S. will not be sending material troops, though I suppose that could be wrong). Not the Palestinian people, and long before there's any "standard of living" to be measured.

But also nobody wants to use their troops in a running gun battle against 15K Hamas soldiers in urban warfare in Gaza, where air or artillery support is fraught with repercussions.


That's why Hamas has to agree to this...or the IDF finishes the job. The Hamas clowns have a choice - they can put their weapons down and be a part of this -or- watch as their former hosts in Qatar, Turkey and elsewhere shout O'le as the Israeli bull known as the Mossad hunts them down. The single biggest reason for the peach deal moving forward was that Hamass' support among the Arab states is at an end.

Everyone has said that they've agreed to a new occupation of Gaza...except that Hamas hasn't exactly agreed to lay down their guns and give up their presence in Gazan "politics," so we don't have a lot of certainty around that.


And that's why this is a 20-step process, not a single signing ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri. Releasing the hostages and having the IDF partially withdraw was step 1.

Because they might accomplish that goal through mass deprivation of human rights. You might still think it's worth it in order to keep a lid on Gaza, but it's still a bad thing if the new "Board of Peace" ends up instituting a repressive authoritarian regime in order to keep Hamas and the PFLP from gaining a foothold.

They're not getting the US Constitution tomorrow in Gaza, nor should they. There will be a transition period. If that means some ex-Hamasnik gets arrested for putting up a few dozen Intifada forever! posters, then I'm fine with that.

I agree we can only speculate at this point, but I disagree that it will come down to anything having to do with Palestinian standard of living. It entirely comes down to whether Hamas - the people with the guns - are either willing to stand down and cede power to the new regime and/or whether the new regime is willing to fight and kill Hamas if they don't.

If Hamas doesn't stand down then the IDF flattens the rest of Gaza with the blessing of the surrounding Arab states and the US, that's what. As has been pointed out, the hostages were both a tactical asset and a strategic millstone around the Gazans' necks. If they keep up their nonsense without the tactical leverage of hostages in light of the deal then literally no one will have any sympathy for them. And certainly no blame for the Israelis should they decide to keep going.

Absent a strong democratic system where elections can be held and the outcomes of those elections can be enforced, the ability to determine who will be in the government often comes down to who has the guns, not who has the majority. Hamas has all the guns, they've spent the last ~20 years killing all the Palestinian people who might oppose them before 10/7, and it looks like they're already starting to kill all the Palestinians who might try to oppose them during this ceasefire period.

The Palestinian people (writ large) are not going to get to choose the future of Gaza. That's the whole point of the Peace Plan structure. The future of Gaza is going to be decided by the choices of Hamas and the various ME countries who are contemplated to contribute the security forces (I assume the U.S. will not be sending material troops, though I suppose that could be wrong). Not the Palestinian people, and long before there's any "standard of living" to be measured.

And...? So what?
Again: there's no George Washington over there. No Thomas Jefferson. No Alexander Hamilton or Ben Franklin. They need time for whatever passes for that to gain strength and find a voice.

And that's an acceptable outcome.

The future of Gaza is going to be decided by the choices of Hamas and the various ME countries who are contemplated to contribute the security forces (I assume the U.S. will not be sending material troops, though I suppose that could be wrong). Not the Palestinian people, and long before there's any "standard of living" to be measured.

Underlying this is the very large assumption that there's actual daylight between Hamas and the regular Palestinian Joe. I don't be believe there is much daylight. At. All.

That's why Hamas has to agree to this...or the IDF finishes the job. The Hamas clowns have a choice - they can put their weapons down and be a part of this -or- watch as their former hosts in Qatar, Turkey and elsewhere shout O'le as the Israeli bull known as the Mossad hunts them down.

That's why some observers are pointing out that we don't know whether this "peace deal" will actually bring any peace. Hamas hasn't agreed to putting their weapons down. They don't get to "be a part of this" under the agreement as written; they are required to be completely out of power under the terms. So it remains to be seen whether they'll agree to it or not. If they don't, and the IDF is called in to "finish the job," that just means years more of war....so not exactly a "peace deal" to get a break in the fighting for a few weeks.

If they keep up their nonsense without the tactical leverage of hostages in light of the deal then literally no one will have any sympathy for them. And certainly no blame for the Israelis should they decide to keep going.

People will have plenty of sympathy for the Palestinians, even if Hamas keeps up "their nonsense." And they will certainly have blame for the Israelis if they keep going - again, not for killing Hamas, but for the impact on the Palestinians who are not Hamas.

And...? So what?

So the Palestinian people aren't the ones who will decide what happens in Gaza, so your suggestion that the outcome in Gaza will depend on their choices - or what the standard of living is - is completely mistaken. It doesn't matter what the Palestinian people want. Hamas will do what it will, and Israel and the other ME countries will do what they will in response, and Palestinian people who are not part of Hamas will endure whatever happens after. It doesn't matter what they want. There isn't going to be an election, they're not going to have a say in what happens going forward.

I understand that you're fine with that, and you think that's appropriate given the circumstances - but you can't also then say that the outcome of this process depends on what the Palestinian people choose, or that it depends on whether the new regime delivers prosperity to them. They're not going to be given any choice in the matter, so the future of Gaza doesn't depend on what they would choose or whether they're happy or miserable.

That's why some observers are pointing out that we don't know whether this "peace deal" will actually bring any peace. Hamas hasn't agreed to putting their weapons down. They don't get to "be a part of this" under the agreement as written; they are required to be completely out of power under the terms. So it remains to be seen whether they'll agree to it or not. If they don't, and the IDF is called in to "finish the job," that just means years more of war....so not exactly a "peace deal" to get a break in the fighting for a few weeks.


That's right. That's also why for me the main thing was the hostage deal and getting every last living hostage returned home. The next move belongs to Hamas. If they choose the bullet, so be it.

People will have plenty of sympathy for the Palestinians, even if Hamas keeps up "their nonsense." And they will certainly have blame for the Israelis if they keep going - again, not for killing Hamas, but for the impact on the Palestinians who are not Hamas.

Sure. This is where your Joe Average Palestinian enters the chat. Is that the existence they want, standing between their elected leaders and the IDF? Or is it some other way forward. You mentioned an "uprising" earlier...

So the Palestinian people aren't the ones who will decide what happens in Gaza, so your suggestion that the outcome in Gaza will depend on their choices - or what the standard of living is - is completely mistaken.

No it isn't. The losing side never decides what happens when the war is over; you're forgetting that.
Hamas isn't some splinter group among the Palestinians; they *are* the Palestinians. Until the Palestinians decide otherwise by taking off their green bandannas and going back to their families.

There was a time when this would not have been tolerated. ~ges

And that time was 2017...

Trump in 2017: "Qatar has been a funder of terrorism at a very high level!"

This is where your Joe Average Palestinian enters the chat. Is that the existence they want, standing between their elected leaders and the IDF?

They don't have a choice. Hamas hasn't stood for an election in two decades. They don't wield power in Gaza by winning elections; they wield power because they have all the guns and have systematically killed all other political actors in the area.

There's no "entering the chat." This isn't silly social media stuff. Hamas death squads are already moving around Gaza in the areas where Israel has withdrawn, executing people that might be their opposition going forward. The average Palestinian has to support Hamas (or at least do absolutely nothing to oppose them) or get dragged into the street and shot.

No it isn't. The losing side never decides what happens when the war is over; you're forgetting that.
Hamas isn't some splinter group among the Palestinians; they *are* the Palestinians. Until the Palestinians decide otherwise by taking off their green bandannas and going back to their families.

I'm not forgetting anything, because the war isn't over until the fighting stops. Even the side that is losing gets to decide whether they stop fighting.

The Palestinians who aren't Hamas don't have any say in whether Hamas keeps fighting. Hamas isn't subject to civilian electoral control. So it doesn't matter what the rest of the Palestinians want. If Hamas chooses to keep fighting, the war will go on - even if the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians would choose to stop the war, the war will go on.

because the war isn't over until the fighting stops. Even the side that is losing gets to decide whether they stop fighting.


Today is why winning feels like. Don’t lose sight of that.

Today is why winning feels like. Don’t lose sight of that.

As I mentioned upthread, I think this is a good step. The hostage release and ceasefire are things to be celebrated.

However, those pointing out that those are really the only things that were know have been accomplished are not wrong. A great deal depends on whether Hamas chooses to disarm and dissolve, or whether they insist on maintaining their weapons and having a role in Gaza's future. I am open to the possibility of that happening, given that Trump was able to strong-arm the other ME countries into publicly signing off on a deal that throws Hamas under the bus. But given what lies in store for them if they do agree to it - basically a short life of poverty and irrelevance until they are killed by the Mossad or other Palestinians out for vengeance - it's hard to be exceptionally optimistic.

We can simultaneously recognize that this is a win and that the win is fragile and depends on whether Hamas chooses a very different kind of martyrdom. What are the odds on them doing the right thing, after all this time of doing the wrong one?

So that's the fix - they buy off Trump with the economic matters, and they get to run the area how they see fit as long as they don't step on what Trump views as important to him/U.S.

Trump has been expressing his (drippy) dream of Gaza being a hotel and resort complex. He is following speculation by the first son-in-law, that was talking about how valuable that land would be, if the Pals were "cleaned out".

Meanwhile "Bibi" has a base that wants Gaza and the west bank annexed. He said a Gaza government that included Hamas is unacceptable. A Gaza government that includes the PA is unacceptable. A Palestine on the west bank is unacceptable. But he was gushing about Trump today. So Trump is CEO of Gaza.

iirc, a few years ago, Kushner was a key player in a "deal" that bought off some Arab powers, to throw the Pals under the bus.

I don't expect the Pals to be well treated.

Steve

I understand that you're fine with that, and you think that's appropriate given the circumstances - but you can't also then say that the outcome of this process depends on what the Palestinian people choose, or that it depends on whether the new regime delivers prosperity to them. They're not going to be given any choice in the matter, so the future of Gaza doesn't depend on what they would choose or whether they're happy or miserable.

Taking a lesson from history, what do you think of a Marshall Plan for Gaza/Palestine? Instead of continuing to grind them under, help them rebuild. Worked with Germany and Japan. Both are allies now (at least until the Felon completely trashes that).

Taking a lesson from history, what do you think of a Marshall Plan for Gaza/Palestine?

How are Gaza/Palestine different from Argentina? Seems Argentina is the template for entities to receive "foreign aid" now.

Steve

"Taking a lesson from history, what do you think of a Marshall Plan for Gaza/Palestine?"

I get where you're coming from with that, but can you imagine the
uproar in MAGAville ??

Trump is going to be giving American farmers $Billions in bailouts,
soon enough. At the same time Trump is bailing out Argentina. And
by all accounts millions of Americans are going to be seeing some
ugly premium increases in their healthcare plans. And American businesses
are going to be passing more of the tariff costs onto the American consumers, right in time for The Holidays.

I don't see a Marshall Plan in the works for Gaza, but I've been wrong
before. Maybe Trump can get Israel to pay for it, like Mexico and the Wall.

There's no way to "simply remove everyone."

I went a little overboard there. Sorry about that.

But an impoverished local population living under a repressive local government would make a nice source of low cost labor for the luxury resorts (basically one small step removed from slave labor). Makes the profits in the resorts higher.

You’re right that you can’t simply remove everyone. You instead simply remove everyone that is in any way troublesome. And you don’t need to worry about where to send them. A couple dozen kilometers out into the Mediterranean is more than adequate.

Such is the nature of highly repressive governments.

—Peter

I don't see a Marshall Plan in the works for Gaza, but I've been wrong before.

Me, neither. It was more of a hypothetical. MAGA would scream, and the Felon and his lackeys don't have the brains to think of something like that.

Grinding people into the dirt they can understand. Creating future allies by helping them rebuild, they can't. And they probably don't know enough history to know that it worked once before.

Me, neither. It was more of a hypothetical. MAGA would scream, and the Felon and his lackeys don't have the brains to think of something like that.

It's a matter of what his nibs can personally profit from. Didn't I hear him talking about volunteering the US Army to dispose of all the unexploded ordinance in Gaza? Whistle up the Corps of Engineers to clear the rubble, while he's at it. Then he can build his gold plated resort, and make lots of lovely money, for himself.

ah, the net is a wonderful thing. from last Feb.

"The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too," Mr. Trump said. "We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings — level it out. Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area. Do a real job. Do something different."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-netanyahu-press...

Having appointed himself as Chairman of that "peace board", he appears to be following his plan.

Steve

Taking a lesson from history, what do you think of a Marshall Plan for Gaza/Palestine? Instead of continuing to grind them under, help them rebuild. Worked with Germany and Japan. Both are allies now (at least until the Felon completely trashes that).

It's possible that might be a wise move, at some point. But remember that the Marshall Plan came after years of de-Nazification - and wasn't just, or even primarily, about rebuilding Germany but all of Europe. And it came in the context of the onset of the Cold War - redeveloping those countries was driven by the geopolitical need to have a robust check against the nascent Soviet threat. The same is true, for the most part, of the Reverse Course in Japan.

So we're years away from that in Gaza, if it's even on the cards. If the plan is successful at purging Gaza of Hamas to the extent that de-Nazification worked by 1947-1948, that might be a possibility. But even then, once you've purged Hamas out of the region it's hard to see why any of the regional countries would be especially inclined to invest/rebuild that area when they have such pressing needs at home....

You’re right that you can’t simply remove everyone. You instead simply remove everyone that is in any way troublesome. And you don’t need to worry about where to send them. A couple dozen kilometers out into the Mediterranean is more than adequate.

Oh, that I think is definitely a possibility. Again, Egypt's approach to the Muslim Brotherhood is the likely template, if the Board of Peace ends up being a real thing and they actually try to exert control over the area. The more I have these discussions (and they're very interesting and helpful in organizing my thoughts), the more I suspect that the Board of Peace isn't likely to be something that the other ME countries care about. I don't think this Peace Plan is even primarily about Gaza's future. But that's for another post, I think.

once you've purged Hamas out of the region it's hard to see why any of the regional countries would be especially inclined to invest/rebuild that area when they have such pressing needs at home.... - albaby

---------------------------

Trump's rhetoric is more or less there is vast wealth in the neighboring countries and they could easily afford to rebuild and invest in a stable Gaza. Construction and tourism forming the basis for jobs and an economy for the Gazans.

Keyword is "stable" and I am very skeptical of that.

Trump's rhetoric is more or less there is vast wealth in the neighboring countries and they could easily afford to rebuild and invest in a stable Gaza.

Sure - but why would they? As I mentioned upthread, the neighboring countries have always been far more interested in the Palestinian cause than the Palestinian people. There are pressing needs in most countries in the region, and no particular reason why those wealthy countries would want to invest in the 25 miles of Gaza's coastline than, say, the 1,000 miles of Egypt's mediterranean coastline. Other than proximity to the wealthy denizens of Israel, but I think that's unlikely to be a major factor. Buy a piece in Sharm El-Sheikh or Alexandria, rather than rebuilding a war-torn enclave.

But remember that the Marshall Plan came after years of de-Nazification - and wasn't just, or even primarily, about rebuilding Germany but all of Europe.

The Marshal Plan spent a lot of money outside of Europe too, for example, they built wharves and dock systems in Northern Africa so that Europe could trade with them. It was comprehensive.

A Marshal Plan for Gaza could easily be funded by the natural gas deposits a few Klicks off the coast to the tune of 1/2 trillion $, (not a typo)which by rights belongs to Gaza. They have been denied access by Israel to even bathing in the Mediterranean.

I expect that the bombardments and starvation will shortly resume based on some trumped up event, as Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir have openly advocated through the present, with the finest propaganda on the planet.

Almost the entirety of Israel has been propagandized to regard Palestinians as vermin from the earliest ages in the education system.

Almost the entirety of Israel has been propagandized to regard Palestinians as vermin from the earliest ages in the education system.

And vice-versa, to be sure. One isn't going to get a favorable, or even nuanced, view of what Israelis are like coming up through the Palestinian education system, either. It is a major obstacle to the two peoples living together.

It's entirely possible that the fighting resumes, but Netanyahu has some very strong incentives for that not to happen. His right-wing coalition partners may be agitating for it, but Netanyahu has put all of his eggs in the Trump Basket and now can't afford to cross Trump. Plus, with the hostages out, he's now lost that section of the Israeli electorate whose support for the fighting was motivated by getting them back - renewing the fighting won't be nearly as popular as the beginning of the war (which was near-universally supported). Propaganda or no, after a few years people get weary of war; and in this case, also weary of the rest of the world condemning them. So I don't think Netanyahu has the ability to bring Israel along with him for a march back into full-blown invasion mode again.

Almost the entirety of Israel has been propagandized to regard Palestinians as vermin from the earliest ages in the education system.
****

Who had more freedom and more resources to know the truth?

Palestinians or "free" "democratic" Israel?

Last i checked Israel had one or two more colleges, a bit more freedom to read or research, maybe even a business or two.

All the eggs may be with Trump in his basket but that is a notoriously unreliable conveyance.

Also, do the Palestinians even have an educational system anymore? I would submit that the view of Israelis by Palestinians is one of fear more shaped by experience than propaganda.

Also, do the Palestinians even have an educational system anymore? I would submit that the view of Israelis by Palestinians is one of fear more shaped by experience than propaganda.

Yes, they do. The Palestinians go to schools, too. They have a literacy rate of close to 97% in the adult population. No one's views of other people form in a vacuum, and Palestinian children are certainly taught things about the Israelis - both inside and outside of school - just as much as Israeli kids are taught things about the Palestinians.

" Yes, they do. The Palestinians go to schools, too. They have a literacy rate of close to 97% in the adult population. No one's views of other people form in a vacuum, and Palestinian children are certainly taught things about the Israelis - both inside and outside of school - just as much as Israeli kids are taught things about the Palestinians.'


hi albaby, that's priceless. Take care bud.

...I suspect that the Board of Peace isn't likely to be something that the other ME countries care about.

I'm guessing it may be an Orwellian name. It's almost directly out of that book ("Ministry of Peace"). It almost sounds like it could be the "Ministry of Love", removing people a few dozen kilometers into the Med.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.