The year is 2025, and the echoes of past political earthquakes continue to reverberate. This week, the world recoiled – or in some corners, cheered – at a proposal emanating from a meeting between then-President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The suggestion? A radical, and some would say ethically repugnant, reshaping of the Gaza Strip. Trump reportedly proposed the ‘permanent’ resettlement of Gaza’s two million Palestinian inhabitants into neighboring countries, coupled with a full American takeover of the territory, envisioning it as a future ‘Riviera of the Middle East.’

The immediate response was, predictably, one of widespread condemnation. Egypt and Jordan swiftly and unequivocally rejected the notion of absorbing displaced Palestinians. The United Nations issued a stark warning, characterizing such deportations as tantamount to ethnic cleansing, a grave violation of international law. Saudi Arabia followed suit, reaffirming its unwavering support for a Palestinian state, seemingly a direct rebuke to Trump’s plan. Within this maelstrom, Netanyahu’s response proved more ambiguous, stating the idea was ‘worth paying attention to.’ Meanwhile, voices from the far-right in Israel reportedly welcomed the proposal, hinting at a complex and deeply divisive undercurrent of support.

Let’s unpack the layers of potential implications here. The term ‘ethnic cleansing,’ as used by the UN, refers to the forced removal of a particular ethnic or religious group from a territory, often involving violence and intimidation. The international laws breached by mass deportations are numerous, including those pertaining to human rights, the right to self-determination, and the prohibition of forcible transfer of populations. The idea of an American takeover of Gaza raises thorny questions of sovereignty, international law, and the potential for a neo-colonialist dynamic, where a powerful nation exerts control over a weaker territory.

Trump’s vision of Gaza as the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’ presents a jarring juxtaposition. It embodies a certain strain of developmentalist thought that prioritizes economic growth and aesthetic transformation over the rights and agency of the people affected. Imagine, for a moment, the sheer scale of logistical, humanitarian, and ethical challenges involved in resettling two million people. Where would they go? What resources would they have? How would they rebuild their lives after experiencing such trauma and displacement? Furthermore, it ignores the long-standing political and historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reducing it to a real-estate development opportunity.

The concept of ‘permanent’ resettlement itself is fraught with danger. It implies the abandonment of any hope for Palestinian self-determination or a viable two-state solution. It risks perpetuating a cycle of displacement and resentment, fueling further conflict and instability in the region. The fact that this plan appears to have garnered some support from the Israeli far-right further underscores the deeply entrenched divisions and competing narratives that continue to shape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In conclusion, Trump’s audacious proposal for Gaza represents more than just a fleeting political idea. It reflects a deeply troubling worldview that prioritizes geopolitical expediency and economic development over human rights, international law, and the principles of self-determination. It should be viewed with profound concern and subjected to rigorous scrutiny, lest it pave the way for further destabilization and injustice in an already volatile region.

Cet article a été fait a partir de ces articles:

https://www.economist.com/the-world-this-week/2025/02/06/politics, https://www.economist.com/the-world-this-week/2025/02/06/this-weeks-cover, https://www.economist.com/the-world-this-week/2025/01/30/the-weekly-cartoon, https://www.economist.com/the-world-this-week/2025/01/30/politics, https://www.economist.com/the-world-this-week/2025/01/30/business