TRUMP'S "BOMB BACK BETTER" GAZA TAKEOVER

Am I the only who who has questions about this plan?!?

It seems like many in the media, as well as in the Arab, Israeli, and broader political communities, are reeling after Trump's comments about "owning" Gaza. I'm calling it his "Bomb Back Better" takeover—I think that has a nice ring to it.

Why do I call it that? Well, it reminds me of the “Burn Back Better” approach of Newscum in California, where he lets those fires burn, baby, burn in Pacific Palisades and other communities where fires conveniently clear land for "Smart Cities."

Similarly, in Lahaina, Joshie “Band-AID” Green Dew Deal famously said he wants to Build Back Better (with the government taking ownership of private property) exactly in the area burned where a major transportation corridor was planned under UN Agenda 2030 — planned in advance of the fires, mind you.

And now, with Gaza, we have Trump’s "Bomb Back Better"—a convenient way to clear land and start from scratch.

In fact, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had a similar idea about a year ago when he gave a talk at Harvard. He said, "I think we need to just finish the job," adding that he didn’t really know where the people would go but believed they should "clear it out and finish the job."

In yesterday’s video, I raised some questions for Trump about his "Bomb Back Better" plan which I wanted to reiterate here in this substack.

Isn't it convenient that Israel—one of the most well-prepared military forces in the world, where nearly all adults, unless they have a conscientious objection, undergo military training, serving two years in the army—is being portrayed as completely unprepared for a surprise attack on a day that they should’ve supposedly been on extra alert?

It’s so interesting that after all the horrible atrocities perpetrated against Israelis, they responded by bombing the living daylights out of Gaza.

I have personally traveled to Israel and visited the West Bank, though I did not go to Gaza. I had to pass through multiple military checkpoints, and the military presence was overwhelming. Despite its size, Gaza is seen as a major security threat to Israel. However, Israel controls everything that enters and exits Gaza, including cement, steel, electricity, water, and food…

In an upcoming video, I’ll do a deeper dive on how Israel came into being, and how the Palestinians were segregated in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. For now, the main focus of this video and substack is to consider important questions for Trump’s declaration that he wants to take ownership of Gaza and remove the Palestinians. They way I see it, Trump wants to “Bomb Back Better” (fulfilling the United Nation’s Agenda 2030 sustainable goal #11 to create “human settlements” that are sustainable and resilient.) Yup, that about sums it up!

In my research, I examined sources from various perspectives—Palestinian, Israeli, liberal outlets like NPR, and more conservative sources. One Israeli newspaper, in particular, posed a great set of questions, and that’s what I want to share with you.

Eight Tough Questions About Trump’s Gaza Takeover Plan

By David Baron, Israel Hayom, 02-05-2025

First. No Arab country has agreed to accept Palestinians from Gaza. Jordan, with its 2.39 million registered refugees, has no need or incentive to further burden itself with this historical headache. Egypt, for its part, neither wants nor likely has the ability to create a refugee crisis in Sinai, which could become a breeding ground for extremism and pose a threat to Israel across the border, and to the peace treaty itself.

Second. Even if Arab states were to agree, what about the Gazans themselves? Trump talks about relocating 1.8 million people as if they were 1.8 million pieces of furniture to be moved. But what if the Gazans refuse to leave? And to places that do not even want them? Like it or not, human beings have rights and, indeed, their own will. It would also be unwise to underestimate the historical and emotional connection that Gazans have to their land and homes, even if those homes have been reduced to rubble due to wars caused by Hamas.

Third. International law prohibits forcibly transferring a population unless there is a clear military necessity for a limited period. It also prohibits changing the ethnic, religious, or racial composition of a population. Trump's plan envisions a permanent transfer. Even if there is a humanitarian aspect to the proposal, such as clearing unexploded ordnance and rebuilding infrastructure, it is doubtful whether the end goal, a permanent exodus that would turn Gaza into an international zone, justifies the means.

Fourth. Speaking of international law, under what mandate would the US operate in Gaza? What authority would allow it to remove the local population and assume control? Interestingly, Trump referred to "owning" Gaza and developing it, language that aligns with his real estate background, where he has infused business terminology into politics. However, Gaza is not the Moon (though parts of it may look like it), where one can simply land and start developing as they please. Even the Moon is subject to international agreements. Does Trump's plan assume the approval of the UN Security Council? A bilateral deal with China or Russia, countries that have little interest in boosting Trump's geopolitical standing? Would Gulf states partner with the US on this, which would still require international legitimacy?

Fifth. Let's assume Arab states agree, but Gazans, or at least some of them, refuse. How would the evacuation be carried out? By force? Would Trump be willing to deploy US troops to Gaza, putting American soldiers at risk?

Sixth. Trump's entire election campaign was centered on "America First" and focusing inward, prioritizing domestic American issues. How does sending US troops and engaging in unprecedented involvement in the Middle East's oldest conflict align with that message? Trump himself has repeatedly spoken about the need for the US to withdraw from the Middle East ("only blood and sand," he once described it). Surely, he would not deploy American forces into one of the most volatile areas in the region, entangling the US for years to come. According to real estate developer Steve Witkoff, rebuilding Gaza would take 10 to 15 years. Trump has spoken about ending wars worldwide, yet a US military landing in Gaza would do anything but that.Even Trump's strongest allies were stunned by his Gaza vision, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. "The proposal is highly problematic," said Graham, a staunch supporter of Israel in the Senate. "I don't think voters in South Carolina will be enthusiastic about sending American troops to govern Gaza. We'll see how the Arab world reacts, but the plan has major issues on multiple levels."

Seventh. On a related note, direct military involvement in Gaza would cost American taxpayers a fortune. Does the US currently have hundreds of billions of dollars available for this project? Has its economy suddenly become strong enough to withstand such an expense? This, after all, is the same economic vulnerability that helped propel Trump into the White House just three months ago.

Eighth. How would this be perceived worldwide, not just in the Muslim world? Would an American plan to take over Gaza and relocate its population not ignite additional conflicts, precisely when Trump has promised to be a peacemaker and campaigned (in part) on that promise? One could argue, and hope, that his proposal is genuinely aimed at bringing peace to this troubled land by transforming Gaza into a Mediterranean Riviera. However, given what is currently known about the plan, and more importantly, what remains unknown. it would be rational, at the very least, to doubt whether it would bring the long-awaited peace.

Many questions remain about this surprising (or not-so-surprising if you’ve been following along) vision that seemingly materialized overnight from the White House. One can only hope that its architects have meticulously considered every detail and all possible consequences…

Regardless of its true intent, these questions demand serious answers. Sovereign nations exist for a reason, and any proposal that involves taking over another country should be scrutinized thoroughly. I am no fan of taking over other people’s countries—that’s why we have sovereign nations. What say you?