SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
investments
The Painful Irony of Trump’s Plan to Build an American-Owned Gaza Riviera
Attempts to develop independent Palestinian economic growth through the Builders for Peace program 30 years ago were derailed by Israeli restrictions.
Mar 10, 2025
When I first heard President Donald Trump’s “Gaza Riviera” scheme, it brought back memories of the hopes Palestinians had three decades ago during the heyday of the Oslo Accords. Back then, I was serving as co-chair of “Builders for Peace,” a project launched by then-Vice President Al Gore to encourage American businesses to invest in the Palestinian economy to support the fledgling peace process.
We had prepared for our mission by reading the exhaustive World Bank study on the pre-Oslo Palestinian economy. The observations and conclusions were sobering, and yet hopeful. It noted obstacles that stifled the development of a Palestinian economy—problems like: Israel’s control of Palestinian land, resources, and power; its refusal to allow Palestinians to independently import and export; and the impediments Israel had created to Palestinian travel and even to conducting commerce within the occupied lands. The bank, however, concluded that if these Israeli restrictions on Palestinian entrepreneurs were removed, external investment would provide opportunities for rapid growth and prosperity.
We also read Sara Roy’s brilliant study of the cruel measures Israel had implemented to “de-develop” Gaza so as to stifle the development of an independent economy, thereby creating a cheap pool of day laborers for Israeli businesses or a network of small workshops that produced items for export by Israeli companies.
When Yasser Arafat spoke to us of the future of Gaza, he would say that with investment and freedom from occupation it could become Singapore; if denied both, it could become Somalia.
We also made a few exploratory visits to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to meet with business and political leaders to assess the possibilities before us and the challenges we would confront. In short order, both became quite clear.
When the project was ready to launch, my fellow co-chair, Mel Levine, and I led the first of a number of delegations of American business leaders (which included both Arab Americans and American Jews) to the Palestinian lands. Our first exposure to the problems we would encounter came as we attempted to enter via the Allenby Bridge from Jordan. American Jews and others passed easily, while Arab Americans were separated from the group and forced to undergo humiliating screening.
We convened a session in Jerusalem for Palestinians to meet with the Americans interested in investment opportunities, only to discover that in order to enter the city Palestinians had to secure a pass from the occupation authority. Since the passes only permitted them a few hours in the city, the time they were able to devote to our discussions proved limited.
Entry into and exit from Gaza was equally problematic. One scene on leaving Gaza has stayed with me. Hundreds of Palestinian men filled what I can only describe as cattle chutes, waiting in the sun for permission to enter into Israel. Straddling these chutes were young Israeli soldiers shouting at the Palestinians below, ordering them to look down and hold their passes above their heads. It was deeply disturbing.
In both Gaza and the West Bank, our meetings with Palestinian business leaders were hopeful. They were eager to discuss possibilities with their American counterparts, and the Americans were impressed. A number of partnerships were discussed.
Two projects were notable. One sought to manufacture leather products and another to assemble furniture. Both sought to take advantage of Gaza’s proximity to Eastern Europe so as to export there. As both projects required that the Israelis permit import of raw material and export of finished products, both projects failed. It appeared that the Israelis might have been willing to entertain such projects but only if the Americans and Palestinians operated through an Israeli middleman, thereby reducing the profitability of the ventures.
Even opportunities that the U.S. government tried to implement failed. One day I received a call from an official in the Department of Agriculture who told me that they had provided 50,000 bulbs for Gazans to develop a flower export industry. These bulbs he told me had been sitting in an Israeli port for months and were rotting. He said that the department was able to send another 25,000 bulbs but could only do so if the Israelis ensured their entry. This too proved fruitless as Israelis wanted no competition with their flower export industry, and therefore wouldn’t allow a competing Palestinian industry to develop.
After a few frustrating years, I saw then-President Bill Clinton who asked me how the project was developing. I told him about the frustrations we were encountering due to the Israeli impediments on investment in independent Palestinian economic growth. He appeared troubled and asked that I write him a detailed memo. The letter I sent to the president both outlined the specific problems we were facing and my complaint that his peace team was not taking these challenges seriously, as they insisted that any U.S. challenge to the Israelis would impede efforts to promote negotiations for peace. I told the president that since Oslo: Palestinian unemployment had doubled, poverty had risen, and Palestinians hope for peace was evaporating. To my dismay, the response I received from the White House appeared to have been drafted by his peace team, and was no response at all. At the end of Clinton’s first term, Builders for Peace (BfP) was disbanded and with it the hopes for Palestinian independent economic growth.
Over the next decade, absent any U.S. pressure on the Israelis to change their behavior, negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians continued to falter, Palestinians became poorer, Israeli became more emboldened and oppressive, and Palestinian attitudes hardened, leading to renewed violence.
There are two other memories from that period that need to be recalled.
One of the more optimistic projects BfP endorsed was a proposal by a Virginia-based Palestinian-American company to build a Marriott resort on the Gaza beachfront. Securing initial investment, they began construction, starting with the foundation and a massive parking garage. Because of the risks involved, they sought risk insurance from OPIC, the U.S. agency created to guarantee investment against risk. The project was endorsed by then-Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, a champion of our BfP, and supported by PLO head, Yasser Arafat—both of whom saw the resort hotel as laying the foundation for the future economic growth of a Palestinian state.
When Yasser Arafat spoke to us of the future of Gaza, he would say that with investment and freedom from occupation it could become Singapore; if denied both, it could become Somalia. Israel did everything it could to guarantee that Gaza would become Somalia—and they appear to have succeeded.
Against this backdrop, it was painful to hear of Trump’s insulting plan to build an American-owned Gaza Riviera. It reminded me of what might have been, but, three decades later, is being discussed without benefiting any Palestinians from its development.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Younger Wealthy’s Alternative Approach to Investments Doesn’t Extend to Taxation
But both the younger and older rich want to pay as little as possible in taxes on the income their investments—in whatever category—end up creating.
Aug 17, 2024
Enormously rich people tend to get bored easily, especially those on the younger side. Stocks and bonds, such a yawn. Wealthy Baby Boomers certainly do still get a kick out of watching their financial portfolios fatten. But their Millennial and Generation Z counterparts have an added expectation. The fortunes they’re investing, they’re expecting, will be filling their lives up with fun.
And what could be more fun than collecting classic cars! The ageless-auto “alternative asset class,” the Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index documents, has nearly tripled in value over the past decade. And investors in classic cars can even get to drive their investments!
Private equity fund managers, not surprisingly, are plugging themselves into this classic car frenzy. They’re doing their best to make investing in classic cars an effortless pleasure. Wealthy car collectors, thanks to their efforts, no longer need to bother checking under the hood of classic Bugattis and Ferraris. Private equity firms will arrange all that tiresome checking for them.
Billionaire and billionaire-wannabe fund execs are shelling out much more than ever before on candidates they’re counting on to keep our tax code rich people-friendly.
These private equity firms, notes auto analyst Benjamin Hunting, are buying up veritable fleets of fine autos they see as likely to appreciate strikingly over time, then offering deep pockets an opportunity to invest in these collections of classics. In return for providing this opportunity, private equity execs typically collect a 2% annual service fee and then claim 20% of the profits the sale of the cars eventually produces.
The classic car-loving investors, meanwhile, get to share the rest of the profits, on top of the joy rides some of the classic car funds invite them to take in their “alternative asset class” investment.
How secure as an investment do classic cars rate? An “elite automobile storage boutique” industry has emerged to make sure stashed-away collectible cars don’t get either scratched or stolen. One such outfit, the Vault in San Diego, uses biometric scans and personalized access cards “to guarantee that only owners, or their designated representatives, can get anywhere near luxury vehicles.”
Not all the Millennial and Gen Z super rich, of course, have taken the dive into classic car investing. Plenty of the wealthy in these age cohorts are flocking to other alternative investments, everything from fine wines and watches to sneakers and crypto. The overall “alternative asset” category, notes a new Bank of America study, has an amazing 94% of wealthy 43-and-unders interested in it.
This Bank of America Study of Wealthy Americanssurveyed 1,000 deep-pocketed adults of all ages and found that 73% of those not yet 44 years old consider themselves “skeptical” of any investment strategy that has them investing only in traditional stocks and bonds.
The wealthy who took part in the new Bank of America survey are all sitting on at least $3 million in investable assets. The younger ones among them turn out to have less than half their investable millions invested in traditional stocks and bonds. Their older counterparts have three-quarters of their investable assets in these classic categories.
The younger rich, the Bank of America study goes on to show, have almost a third of their fortunes in crypto currencies and other alternative investments like classic cars. The older rich have just 6% of their wealth sitting in these alternate asset classes.
But both the younger and older rich do share one intense investment fixation: Both age cohorts want to pay as little as possible in taxes on the income their investments—in whatever category—end up creating.
Under current federal tax law, profits from the buying and selling of assets, traditional and alternative alike, face a significantly lower tax rate than paycheck income. The top combined federal tax rate on ordinary paycheck income now runs 40.8%. But income from capital gains—the income from buying and selling assets—only faces a top 23.8% overall tax rate.
Private equity fund managers have an even lusher loophole—the so-called “carried interest tax deduction”—they will go to any lobbying lengths to forever preserve. This loophole, note analysts at Americans for Financial Reform, “allows private equity and hedge fund executives—some of the richest people in the world—to substantially lower the amount they pay in taxes.”
The loophole lets these fund execs “claim large parts” of their compensation for services rendered “as investment gains.” Ending this carried interest loophole could raise billions in new revenue.
To make sure that this ending doesn’t happen, private equity and hedge fund execs spent $547 million on political campaign contributions in the 2020 presidential election year cycle.
In the current cycle, just 11 private equity billionaires all by themselves have so far pumped over $223 million in contributions to congressional and presidential candidates, an amount that more than doubles, notes the Center for Media and Democracy, what moguls from 147 private equity firms plowed into political campaigns back in the 2016 election cycle.
In other words, billionaire and billionaire-wannabe fund execs are shelling out much more than ever before on candidates they’re counting on to keep our tax code rich people-friendly. For America’s richest, no big deal. They can easily afford these gargantuan political campaign outlays. And they also consider these outlays money exceedingly well spent.
Takes money, as the rich like to say, to make money. The American way! We need to change it. One place to start: passing the pending Carried Interest Fairness Act, legislation that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has introduced to eliminate the tax loophole that only “wealthy money managers on Wall Street” could love.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular