Reckless, unhinged, ludicrous? It’s hard to find the words for Trump’s latest outburst on the Gaza ‘Riviera’
Over the last fifteen months, I’ve slowly become desensitised to comments and actions that I would once have considered absurd. I’ve seen British politicians from across the political spectrum do medal-worthy mental gymnastics as they respond to serious, incisive questions with robotic voices, churning out platitudes about Israel’s right to defend itself, whilst ignoring the crucial caveat of compliance with international law.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect this to change any time soon. But at least I can find the words to describe my disdain for it. When I see the UK Government inviting Israeli generals to the UK, I think of it as a reckless approach to our international position to associate so closely with a pariah state. When the Foreign Office says that arms licences are “continually under review”, I see it as shifty and non-committal. And when I see the Opposition refer to “hate marches”, I see it as an embarrassing and increasingly desperate spin.
It may be frustrating, even abhorrent, but I can always find the words. When I first saw US President Donald Trump’s latest comments, I was genuinely dumbstruck – a rarity in an age where we have become almost totally desensitised to shock in politics.
It wasn’t the sentiment of what Trump was saying that surprised me so much. Even those with the most basic understanding of the history of Palestine are aware of the US’ longstanding role in undermining the self-determination of the Palestinian people, but never has it so directly, so brazenly, been articulated. In essence, he said the quiet bit out loud.
The exact details remain ambiguous, but you get the sense that this is only because of Trump’s aversion to detail-oriented policy.
Trump’s words were: “The US will take over the Gaza strip, we’ll own it.” When asked to clarify permanent occupation, he followed up by suggesting: “I do see a long-term ownership position.” Asked about deploying US troops, he simply replied: “We’ll do what is necessary.” Trump also said Palestinians from Gaza should move to an “area to resettle people, permanently” rather than return to Gaza.
Even though it’s vague, it’s unequivocal in one sense. In essence, the message is this: “Nothing is too extreme to be ruled out.”
And then there is that peculiar phrase of what he plans to turn Gaza into, a: “Riviera of the Middle East.” The first thing it evokes in my mind is the age-old racist trope that “a people without a land came to a land without a people” to “make the desert bloom.” You still hear this phrase bandied around, but it carries two sinister and simply incorrect implications: the first is that indigenous Palestinians did not tend to the land, or worse still, simply that they did not or do not exist.
The second implication is that Israel has improved the environment, rather than harmed it. Much more has been said on this elsewhere, but I think it is best summed up by an art piece by Darren Cullen. It simply depicts an armoured Israeli bulldozer destroying a Palestinian neighbourhood with the words: “In order to make the desert bloom, we must first create the desert.”
In the same vein, Trump’s comment about a riviera seems to imply that the ugliness of the rubble in Gaza is something innate, as though that is how it has always been. He conveniently ignores that it is the US that allowed the wholesale destruction of Gaza to occur in the first place. You would forgive Palestinians for being somewhat cynical about promises to return them to this apparent utopian riviera.
There is much to be said about Trump’s comments, so it is even more interesting how little has actually been said in response by the UK Government. The first out of the traps was Environment Secretary Steve Reed. He reiterated Palestinian people’s: “Need to be able to return to their homes.” If you think this is a strong statement, you must think about how low the bar is; this is simply a statement of international law.
But in the same breath, he praised Trump for his perceived role in obtaining a ceasefire and said that the UK Government would not provide a “running commentary” on Trump’s remarks.
It is not enough to utter platitudes on Palestinians’ right to return when forced, rather than proactively make a bold statement condemning Trump’s comments at this critical time. This soft, diplomatic approach is wholly inappropriate in the face of incendiary remarks that call for the dispossession of millions of people from their lands.
This soft approach was summed up even better by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer when pressed at Prime Minister’s Questions. Again, the government is limping to the bare minimum by saying: “Palestinians must be allowed to rebuild.” However, he followed this up with: “On the way to a two-state solution.” What does “on the way” even mean? It’s another example of dithering and delay. Surely, Trump’s rhetoric, now more than ever, shows why the UK must immediately recognise Palestine, like 146 other United Nations member states. If we don’t, there simply may not be a Palestinian state left to recognise.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.