Trump’s real-estate instincts clash with his America First worldview happymamay

When the real estate developer becomes the American president, it is not surprised if the US foreign policy includes severe assistance in the development of real estate.

This is likely to be the largest conclusion that must be extracted from the amazing suggestion of Donald Trump to the United States to take over Gaza and turn it into a resort for all people in the world to enjoy – “Riviera for the Middle East”, with his words.

It also provides the latest repetition of a question that continued as long as Trump participated in the highest level of American policy.

Should the Trump development plan in Gaza be taken, which includes the resettlement of more than two million Palestinians and “ownership” of the literally disputed lands or seriously? Both, or not?

Trump’s proposal is flying in the face of the deep desires of the Palestinian people and its rejection by the Arab countries that must play an integral role in resettlement of those who were displaced from the war -torn Gaza.

It also sparked Awal from the protest by the international community, as well as the local critics of the Democratic Party.

“The development of a war torn like a golf resort is not a peace plan, it is an insult,” said Louisiana, a Democratic Congress member Troy Carter, said. “Serious leaders are following real solutions, not real estate deals.”

Some of the most stable Republican allies in Trump seemed cautious about the president’s suggestion that the American forces could occupy Gaza, spoiling the rubble and removing the uncomplicated Israeli decree.

“I think most Caroline South Caroline will not be excited to send Americans to control Gaza,” said Lindsay Graham, who is South Carolina in the US Senate on Wednesday. “I think this may be a problem, but I will remain an open mind.”

Senator Rand Ball was more severe.

“I thought we voted for America first,” wrote on X.

Paul highlights what was a clear contradiction in the first weeks of Trump’s presidency. While Trump gave US foreign aid and pledged to focus on US local concerns, he also wine his statements to talk about American expansion.

His interest in obtaining a continuous Greenland, and according to administration officials, Jad Killer. His talk is no longer made Canada the “51st State” and the restoration of the Panama channel as a joke.

Now Trump, one of the most right -wing critics of the American invasion and rebuilding Iraq, proposes a new state building project in the Middle East.

As for the ideas specified behind Trump’s latest proposal, it may be a shock for some, but it should not be a great shock.

The President talked about “cleaning” Gaza and resettling the Palestinians in statements to reporters on the Air Force a day after his inauguration.

During the presidential campaign, the conservative radio host, Hugh Hiite, told Gaza that it could be “better than Monaco”, but the Palestinians “did not take advantage of” the “best location in the Middle East”.

This is also not the first time that Trump has seen an external policy as an exciting job opportunity.

During meetings with Kim Jong Un from North Korea in 2018, President Trump marveled at the “great beaches” in the nation, which could have “best hotels” one day.

These ambitious dreams have been suspended – and will require Trump’s vision in Gaza, which requires a great commitment to American blood and wealth at a time when their foreign enlargement is restored, it is certain to meet the same fate.

But Trump’s proposal is Gaza is a noticeable shift in America’s commitment to two international solutions to the Palestinian situation.

The generous interpretation of the American strategy is that it is designed to receive the Middle East and forcing them to commit more of their own resources and political will, to find a long -term solution to the situation in Gaza.

But such a strategy will come with risks.

It stops stopping the Israeli fire, multi -step in balance. Palestinians can look at Trump’s comments as a sign that the United States is not interested in permanent peace, while Israeli militants who represent a major part of the ruling Benjamin Netanyahu alliance may celebrate it as a green light for Trump for more expanded Israeli settlements.

The Arab countries – some of which worked with the first Trump administration to produce normal relations with Israel in Abraham’s agreements – may doubt whether Trump in his second term could be a reliable partner negotiating.

There are now years of evidence that Trump’s focus can turn a moment notice. In the end, he could abandon all attempts by the solid peace in the Middle East, as the Palestinians and their Arab allies blame for what they might consider their decision to reject the possibility of eliminating a better life than previous conflicts.

Then it returns to commercial wars with Canada, the residential units in North Korea, mining sites in Greenland or some other challenges that do not divide his party or require centuries of hostility with grandparents’ fears.