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
palestinian rights
Trump’s Illegal Gaza Plan Is the Logical Extension of Decades of Bipartisan US Policy
That no one in the Democratic Party leadership has called for Netanyahu’s arrest or even objected to his being invited has likely emboldened Trump and Netanyahu to announce their support for ethnic cleansing.
Feb 13, 2025
On February 4, in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States “will take over the Gaza Strip,” “level the site,” have all Palestinians removed, and enable people “from all over the world [to] be there” to enjoy what he appears to envision as an international resort area.
While many observers are dismissing Trump’s statement as a bizarre and spontaneous scheme on which he will likely not follow through, the announcement appeared to be the result of at least some degree of planning, as he read from prepared notes from a proposal assembled well ahead of Netanyahu’s visit.
While this may be among the most extreme anti-Palestinian initiatives to have ever come out of Washington, it is the logical extension of decades of bipartisan U.S. policy in support of Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank, as well as recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, and support for Israel’s decades-long siege of and successive devastating wars on the Gaza Strip. In denying Palestinians equal rights, either through a viable two-state solution or a binational state with guaranteed rights for all, the United States has contributed to the emergence of violent extremists on both sides, and has given the far more powerful Israelis license to escalate their imposition of a kind of apartheid system.
The one cause for hope is that the U.S. government’s now open, on-record support for such a flagrant settler-colonial project—as opposed to its prior platitudes about a two-state solution it never had any intention of forcing Israel to accept—might enable the emergence of a stronger movement in support of human rights and international law in Israel and Palestine.
Trump has rationalized expelling Palestinians in order to rebuild Gaza on the terms of the United States and Israel by noting that much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble, and can no longer sustain the population. While he referred to the Palestinians’ plight as a result of “bad luck,” it is in fact the result of deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure by U.S.-backed Israeli forces. A growing international legal consensus hasdescribed this ongoing siege as genocide, made possible through bipartisan support for unconditional military aid, five U.S. vetoes of otherwise-unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and attacks on human rights groups and international legal institutions that have sought accountability for the actions of the Israeli government.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared earlier this week on X that the United States would “Make Gaza Beautiful Again.” While members of Congress from both parties expressed skepticism, others were supportive. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said the proposal was a “good idea,” and asked a reporter, “Do you want to be part of it?” U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) also appeared to be open to the idea, calling it “provocative” but saying that it is “part of the conversation.”
Arab states, including such Trump-backed autocratic regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, roundly rejected Trump’s plan, which would require them to absorb a new round of Palestinian refugees. Germany, Russia, China, Spain, Turkey, Brazil, and other nations, as well as various United Nations agencies, condemned the proposal as illegal. The proposal was reportedly influenced by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who said publicly last year that “Gaza’s waterfront property... could be very valuable” and that “from Israel’s perspective, [he] would do [his] best to move the people out and then clean it up.”
The Israeli Intelligence Ministry had already prepared a plan in October 2023 to physically remove all Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai desert, as ministers in Netanyahu’s government have repeatedly called for the expulsion of Palestinians in Gaza and colonization of the region. That same fall, the Biden administration proposed to the Egyptians that they accept an exodus of Palestinians into the territory. Although the State Department later claimed the administration’s proposal was only meant as a short-term measure, the Egyptians doubted that Israel would allow the refugees back, in light of Israel’s historic refusal to honor the right of return of previous waves of Palestinian refugees.
Now such plans are coming to fruition. Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to prepare plans to organize the removal of Palestinians from Gaza. Although Jordan and Egypt, whom Trump suggested could take the bulk of refugees, have made it clear that they will not accept Palestinians forced out of Palestine, they cannot stop Israel, with the backing of the United States, from expelling them.
Compounding the horror of Trump’s proposal is that, while many Palestinian families have lived in Gaza for centuries, the majority of current residents are themselves refugees or descendants of refugees forced out of other parts of Palestine between 1947 and 1950. When asked about what would happen if the Palestinians wanted to return to Gaza, Trump—after describing how he planned to turn the territory into a new Riviera—dismissed the question by saying, “Why would they want to return? That place has been hell.”
That no one in the Democratic Party leadership in Congress or elsewhere has called for Netanyahu’s arrest in keeping with the International Criminal Court, or even objected to his being invited, has likely emboldened Trump and Netanyahu to announce their support for this ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. With the majority of congressional Democrats continuing their support for unconditional military aid to Israel despite its slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the threatened expulsion of 2 million more, these two right-wing leaders appear to believe there is little stopping them.
The one cause for hope is that the U.S. government’s now open, on-record support for such a flagrant settler-colonial project—as opposed to its prior platitudes about a two-state solution it never had any intention of forcing Israel to accept—might enable the emergence of a stronger movement in support of human rights and international law in Israel and Palestine. Supporting unconditional military aid to a government committed to ethnic cleansing may prove even more difficult for members of Congress to justify than providing such assistance to a government in its terror bombing of crowded urban areas and then restricting relief supplies.
What is at stake here is not just a new threat to the rights of the Palestinians, but a threat to the entire international legal order. With Trump’s plans to colonize Gaza, congressional Democrats may finally be forced to choose which side they are on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Harvard Is Wrong to Impose the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
A principled leadership of Harvard and of all the other great universities of this country should be giving leadership and effective direction to the movement against the war on the Palestinians—not figuring out how to destroy it.
Feb 11, 2025
Harvard's decision to impose the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism on its campus underscores the university's complete failure to rise to the occasion of opposing Israel's crimes against humanity, its subservience to the Israeli lobby, and its actual complicity in the mass killings carried out by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.
Not only does Harvard refuse to examine its likely investments in companies profiting from the destruction of Gaza (those investments are secret). But it actively silences opposition to that killing by large numbers of its own students through punishments and suspensions. How times have changed since a previous Harvard administration finally listened to the cries of its students for divestment from the white racist apartheid South African regime in the 1980s! The days when Harvard would welcome a Nelson Mandela to its campus to sing the glories of its protesting students who helped to end apartheid are over because of Mandela's outspoken championing of Palestinian rights during his whole political life.
Even though American Jews are among the leaders of the opposition to Israel's crimes against Palestinians, Harvard will now label these vast numbers of Jews as antisemites because of the loud opposition they are organizing against Israel's indiscriminate attack on Palestinians, against the calls of Israeli leaders to destroy Palestinians through starvation and onslaught, and against Israeli apartheid and denial of basic rights to Palestinians and their parents who once called the land their home.
Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?
The issue here is far beyond free speech. It is about playing a major role in silencing opposition to monstrous murder and destruction. In all its expressed concern about what it labels antisemitism and about the discomfort of some of its students who support the Israel's war, there is no mention at all about the reason that so many of its students condemn Israel's actions in Gaza—where it will take years just to remove the bodies of thousands of Palestinians buried under the rubble of their homes, schools, and hospitals. It is as if Israel's policies in Gaza are irrelevant to the upheaval that the Harvard administration seeks to crush. Harvard students were risking their futures not primarily for their rights to free speech but to maintain a semblance of integrity and as an expression of their grief while their own country provided Israel with full-throated support for its attack on Palestinian children.
Antisemitism is a centuries-long curse that must be opposed and challenged whenever it rears its ugly head. The Holocaust is a crime that stands out against all others in the modern age and whose lessons must never be forgotten. One of those lessons is "never again." And that is the lesson that the vast majority of young Jews who condemn Israel for its deliberate destruction of Palestinian society are acting on—as their forebears condemned white South Africa for its brutal apartheid system. The vast movement against Israel's racism and killing is not calling for Israelis to be murdered or driven into the sea. The call is for an end to the war on Palestinians and for equal rights for both peoples whether in the same country or in separate independent states. To pervert the fight against antisemitism into a weapon to be used to subdue opposition to what we have seen each day in Gaza is morally reprehensible. A principled leadership of Harvard and of all the other great universities of this country should be giving leadership and effective direction to the movement against this war on a people—not figuring out how to destroy it.
Why is the assertion by large numbers of American Jews that "the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" labeled antisemitic? It may be true or it may not be true. But why is it antisemitic? Why can a student at Harvard say that the United States is a racist endeavor without being charged with racism? They can certainly be challenged, but what does racism have to do with such a claim? Why would drawing a comparison between the brutal October 7 Gaza uprising and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis be considered antisemitism? It may be right, wrong, or partially wrong. Let the facts speak. But why is it antisemitic? "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" is wrong. But why is it just fine for Israelis to deny Palestinians that same right without being called on the carpet for doing so? The chant "from the river to the sea" may be mistakenly experienced by many Israelis as calling for the violent destruction of Israel. Clearly the violent destruction of any people cannot be tolerated. But why was it just fine when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party enshrined the same slogan in its documents in the not too distant past? And why is the call by millions of Israelis today for the expansion of the state of Israel into wider areas of the Middle East—even beyond the river to the sea—just fine with our country's leaders?
When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its legal ruling that "Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid," is that antisemitism? Or just a statement of fact? When the ICJ preliminarily ruled that South Africa (now joined by Ireland) had made a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, was that because Ireland and South Africa are antisemitic? When the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, were they motivated by antisemitism or by the facts of the matter?
We applaud Harvard's commitment to oppose antisemitism whether directed against Israeli Jews, Zionist Jews, or anti-Zionist Jews. Would that Harvard was just as concerned about the pervasive doxing and harassment of its students for their support of Palestinian life by pro-Israel zealots—in some cases with dire consequences for those students' careers.
So the question is: Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?
Harvard University should be faithful to its better angels. To oppose antisemitism and Islamophobia, of course. But to jettison its imposition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism on its faculty and students. To insist that the rights of all its students be respected. But also to stand, as it has at times in the past, on the side of justice. There is a monstrous crime that poses a threat to the very existence of a people that must be ended. There are hostages on both sides that must be released. Let's hope that this first phase of the cease-fire in Gaza can be turned into the beginning of a necessary process that brings immediate peace, food, and medical care to the people of Gaza; ends land seizures and attacks in the West Bank; begins the reconstruction of Gaza; allows self-determination for Palestinians as well as Israelis; and even moves toward the reconciliation of two peoples who wish the same things for their children and who, some day, can do great things together.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Obscene Gaza Business Proposal Is the Final Phase of a Slow-Motion Genocide
His proposal was not about rebuilding Gaza for the sake of its people but about finishing the job Israel was unable to finish.
Feb 07, 2025
A friend texted if I had watched the press conference between U.S President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Fortunately, I did not watch it live,” I wrote back. It took me nearly 24 hours to be in the right state of mind to endure watching two narcissistic figures standing on stage, lavishing praise upon each other.
As I listened carefully to Trump’s opening remarks, I also caught Netanyahu’s sneaky eye movements at key points. With a smug expression on his face, he repeatedly cast stealthy glances at Ron Dermer, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, as if silently acknowledging him for crafting Trump’s words. It was evident that Trump’s speech bore the unmistakable imprint of the Israeli minister.
Trump wants the world to believe that the genocide of Gaza should be celebrated as a chance to “build back better”—just without the very people whose homeland it is.
I watched Netanyahu, an indicted war criminal, skillfully exploit Trump’s narcissism through calculated flattery. Their interactions were not just awkward; they were profoundly revealing. Netanyahu’s effusive praise was a calculated move, designed to keep Trump firmly in his corner and ensure continued support for Israel’s policies.
Trump, for his part, appeared more focused on basking in the admiration than grappling with the complex realities of Israeli destruction of Gaza and the lives of more than 2 million human beings. When he answered questions, his sentences were often disjointed, filled with rambling, and devoid of substantive insight, highlighting his preoccupation with self-praise.
From the moment Trump had entered the political arena, Netanyahu recognized an opportunity to cultivate a relationship that would serve Israel’s interests. Trump’s personality—marked by a craving for admiration, a fragile ego, and an insatiable desire for validation—made him uniquely susceptible to flattery. Netanyahu, a seasoned con artist, adeptly tailored his approach to appeal to Trump’s vanity.
Netanyahu’s comments at the press conference were particularly telling. While he spoke at length about the importance of U.S. support for Israel, he made no mention of the Palestinian people or their rights. This erasure was not accidental; it was a deliberate attempt to sidestep Israeli occupation, displacement, and genocide.
Trump, for his part, offered vague platitudes about peace and prosperity without addressing any recognition of Palestinians as a distinct people with legitimate rights. While he expressed vague sympathy for the suffering, he never mentioned the Palestinian right to self-determination, freedom, or equality. The omission is not accidental; it is a calculated move to delegitimize Palestinian aspirations and reinforce the narrative that their plight is merely a humanitarian issue rather than a political one rooted in decades of occupation and systemic injustice.
What was most striking about the news conference was its lack of substance. While the dire situation in Gaza and the West Bank grows increasingly grim, neither leader offered any a coherent response. Instead, they spent the majority of their time recounting past “achievements” and reiterating their commitment to a relationship that has increasingly come to symbolize one-sided support for Israeli policies.
One of Trump’s most grotesque proposals was his so-called vision for Gaza’s future. He spoke of creating jobs from the very destruction Israel has inflicted upon the besieged territory, as if the complete obliteration of an entire society were merely a business opportunity.
Would anyone have dared to suggest that the destruction of European cities at the hands of the “old Nazis” as a job creation opportunity? How about the opportunity for redeveloping the concentration camps in Poland? Would the survivors have accepted that narrative? Yet Trump wants the world to believe that the genocide of Gaza should be celebrated as a chance to“build back better”—just without the very people whose homeland it is.
Rather than holding Israel accountable for its destruction, Trump wants to reward it. His proposal was not about rebuilding Gaza for the sake of its people but about finishing the job Israel was unable to finish. After all, what better way to disguise forced displacement than by dressing it up as “urban renewal”?
Trump views Gaza not as a humanitarian catastrophe but as a gentrification project—like a rundown building in New York City awaiting developers to swoop in and transform it for their own benefit. The difference, of course, is that this is not about real estate—this is about the systematic destruction of a people, their history, and their right to exist.
The Netanyahu-Trump news conference was more than just an embarrassing spectacle; it was a lesson in what happens when leadership is self-interest and performative politics. Both individuals have long been known for their narcissism and their willingness to prioritize personal gain over the public good, and Tuesday’s event was a perfect encapsulation of those flaws.
Trump proposal is not rebuilding. Gaza is not an economic development project. This is the final phase of a slow-motion genocide—wrapped in the language of business and diplomacy.
Trump’s suggestion for new opportunities following a war of destruction would be like scavenging for crumbs in a landfill and calling it a feast. The idea that the Gaza genocide should be reframed as an economic opportunity is not just obscene—it is the final project of dispossession.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular