The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Bannon, however, who led Trump’s 2016 election campaign, has argued that Trump would be able to secure a third term.

“I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run again in 2028. I’ve already endorsed President Trump,” Bannon told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday.

“A man like this comes along once every century if we’re lucky. We’ve got him now. He’s on fire, and I’m a huge supporter. I want to see him again in 2028,” he added.

When asked how Trump would bypass the constitutional ban on a third term, Bannon replied, “We’re working on it.”

“I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives, let’s say that. We’ll see what the definition of term limit is,” the former Breitbart News chairman said. “We’ve had greater longshots than Trump 2028. We’ve got a lot of stuff we’re working on. We’re not prepared to talk about it publicly.”

When asked if he was implying a violent revolution or an insurrection, Bannon said, “No. We are big believers in democracy.” The strategist said that the Trump supporters intend to mobilize their voting base, including low-propensity and low-information voters.

Trump has repeatedly joked about the possibility that he could serve more than two terms. In January, he told a crowd of supporters in Nevada, “It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve, not once but twice or three times or four times.”

Earlier this year, Republican Congressman Andy Ogles proposed to amend the Constitution to allow presidents who did not serve two consecutive terms to serve three terms in total. “It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration,” Ogles said in January.

Trump was first elected in 2016, defeating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He ran for reelection in 2020 but lost to former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump won his second term last year, defeating Biden’s hand-picked successor, Kamala Harris.

The two-term restriction was included in the US Constitution in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt serving an unprecedented four terms in office. Before him, presidents had only served one or two terms.

The South African government has yet to issue an official response after Rubio accused Rasool of being a “race-baiting politician” who harbors animosity toward Americans and President Donald Trump personally.

“South Africa’s ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country,” Rubio said in a post on X, adding, “We have nothing to discuss with him, and so he is considered persona non grata.”

Rubio did not provide specific reasons for the expulsion but shared a link to a Breitbart story about Rasool’s recent speech at a webinar hosted by a South African think tank, during which he criticized the Trump administration’s policies.

“What Donald Trump is launching is an assault on incumbency, those who are in power, by mobilizing a supremacism against the incumbency – at home and… abroad as well,” Rasool told the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) forum on Friday. He described Trump’s MAGA movement as “a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA.”

“I think that there is also an export of the revolution,” he added, claiming it was “no accident that Elon Musk has involved himself in UK politics” and that “Vice President Vance addressed the Alternative for Germany [AfD] to strengthen them in their election campaign.”

The diplomatic rift comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Pretoria. Trump recently signed an executive order cutting aid to South Africa, citing a controversial land expropriation law that he claims discriminates against white South Africans.

The South African government maintains that the law aims to address historical disparities, as white farmers still own the majority of farmland despite making up only about 7% of the population. The government has set a target of transferring 30% of farmland to black farmers by 2030.

Rasool’s expulsion is an uncommon move in diplomatic relations, though lower-ranking diplomats have been subjected to similar actions in the past. The last time the US declared a foreign ambassador persona non grata was in 2008, when it expelled Bolivia’s ambassador in a reciprocal response after Bolivia accused US envoy Philip Goldberg of interfering in its internal affairs.

The Committee, which holds from 12-14 March, will also consider statutory issues relating to the work of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and make recommendations, as appropriate, for consideration by the African ministers of finance, planning and economic development during the ministerial segment on 17-18 March.

Opening the expert’s segment, Ethiopia’s State Minister of Finance, Semereta Sewasew said the theme of this year’s conference of ministers underscores the urgency of unlocking the continent’s economic potential through enhanced intra-African trade. She stressed that the AfCFTA is more than just a legal framework; it is a transformative initiative designed to deepen Africa’s economic ties. By facilitating trade, harmonizing policies, and dismantling barriers, the agreement aims to foster industrialization, job creation, and poverty alleviation, which are vital to achieving the goals laid out in Agenda 2063, Africa’s blueprint for sustainable development.

Minister Sewasew noted that despite the ambitious objective of the AfCFTA, infrastructure gaps, financing constraints, and varying capacities among member states pose significant hurdles to its implementation. She called upon the delegates to propose actionable recommendations to ensure the AfCFTA translates into tangible progress, especially for women, youth, and small and medium enterprises, which are critical to Africa’s economic backbone.

She also highlighted Ethiopia’s commitment to regional integration through substantial investments in infrastructure, such as the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, which strengthens trade links across the Horn of Africa. Additionally, Ethiopia’s energy resources, particularly from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, position the country as a leader in regional energy cooperation.

For his part, Antonio Pedro, Deputy Executive Secretary of the ECA, highlighted the AfCFTA’s role as a development blueprint and a political platform for Africa to assert its collective interests on the global stage. He called for a re-evaluation of Africa’s import dependencies, urging member states to leverage local production capabilities for commodities like fertilizers and refined petroleum.

Mr. Pedro noted that intra-African trade remains low, accounting for only 14.4% of total trade on the continent and said that the AfCFTA presents a unique opportunity to enhance trade within Africa, projecting that intra-African trade could increase by 45% by 2045 if tariffs and non-tariff barriers are reduced.

He stressed the essential role of infrastructure development in realizing the AfCFTA’s potential saying that an estimated $ USD 411 billion is needed for transport infrastructure to support increased trade, including investments in railways, vessels, and trucks.

The outgoing Chair of the Conference of African Ministers from Zimbabwe noted progress made by the ECA over the last year in supporting member states in areas such as macroeconomic stability, development planning, and industrialization. He reaffirmed the commitment to building on these achievements and advocating for a fair global financial system as Africa seeks to transform its economies through the AfCFTA.

The Conference serves as one of the premier forums for dialogue and the exchange of views among African ministers responsible for finance, planning and economic development and governors of central banks on issues pertinent to the continent’s development Agenda.

The contacts with Sudan, Somalia and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland reflect the determination by the U.S. and Israel to press ahead with a plan that has been widely condemned and raised serious legal and moral issues. Because all three places are poor, and in some cases wracked by violence, the proposal also casts doubt on Trump’s stated goal of resettling Gaza’s Palestinians in a “beautiful area.”

Officials from Sudan said they have rejected overtures from the U.S., while officials from Somalia and Somaliland told The Associated Press that they were not aware of any contacts.

Under Trump’s plan, Gaza’s more than 2 million people would be permanently sent elsewhere. He has proposed the U.S. would take ownership of the territory, oversee a lengthy cleanup process and develop it as a real estate project.

The idea of a mass transfer of Palestinians was once considered a fantasy of Israel’s ultranationalist fringe. But since Trump presented the idea at a White House meeting last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed it as a “ bold vision.”

Palestinians in Gaza have rejected the proposal and dismiss Israeli claims that the departures would be voluntary. Arab nations have expressed vehement opposition and offered an alternative reconstruction plan that would leave the Palestinians in place. Rights groups have said forcing or pressuring the Palestinians to leave could be a potential war crime.

Still, the White House says Trump “stands by his vision.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a secret diplomatic initiative, U.S. and Israeli officials confirmed the contacts with Somalia and Somaliland, while the Americans confirmed Sudan as well. They said it was unclear how much progress the efforts made or at what level the discussions took place.

Separate outreach from the U.S. and Israel to the three potential destinations began last month, days after Trump floated the Gaza plan alongside Netanyahu, according to the U.S. officials, who said that Israel was taking the lead in the discussions.

Israel and the U.S. have a variety of incentives — financial, diplomatic and security — to offer these potential partners. It is a formula that Trump used five years ago when he brokered the Abraham Accords — a series of mutually beneficial diplomatic accords between Israel and four Arab countries.

The White House declined to comment on the outreach efforts.

The offices of Netanyahu and Ron Dermer, the Israeli Cabinet minister and Netanyahu confidant who has been leading Israel’s postwar planning, also had no comment.

But Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a longtime advocate of what he calls “voluntary” emigration of Palestinians, said this week that Israel is working to identify countries to take in Palestinians. He also said Israel is preparing a “very large emigration department” within its Defense Ministry.

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.

And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.

“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.

The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.

Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky. 

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.

Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding. 

In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.

And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.

The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon. 

Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.

The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.

Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.

Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.

There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.

Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.

It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.

The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.

What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?

Posting on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump criticized Zelensky, stating that the Ukrainian leader had “talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won.” He further claimed that Zelensky “refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls.” 

“A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,” Trump warned.

Trump’s assertions follow high-level talks between US and Russian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday. The delegations discussed future Ukraine peace talks and a potential summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The discussions, which lasted 4.5 hours, did not include Ukrainian or other European representatives. The exclusion has drawn criticism from Kiev and its EU backers, with complaints that their interests are being sidelined in critical negotiations affecting regional security.

In response to the US-Russia talks, Zelensky addressed the media, expressing surprise and concern over Kiev’s absence from the meeting. He emphasized the importance of Ukrainian participation in any peace negotiations, stating that decisions made without Ukraine could undermine the nation’s sovereignty and the prospects for a lasting peace.

Ukrainian politicians and media have responded with anger to the talks in Saudi Arabia. Reactions have ranged from accusations that Trump is “capitulating” to Putin and “betraying” Ukraine, to criticism of the EU for its role in the developments.

EU officials have expressed frustration over Washington’s unilateral peace efforts after learning that the bloc would be excluded from US-Russia talks. French President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting on Monday, attended by leaders from Germany, the UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark, along with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO chief Mark Rutte. The discussions centered on the possible deployment of EU troops to Ukraine and the commitment of European NATO members to increase defense spending. However, according to several attendees, no concrete decisions were reached on either issue.

Talking to reporters after the Riyadh talks on Tuesday, Trump called for Ukraine to conduct elections, suggesting that Zelensky’s leadership lacks legitimacy. Zelensky canceled the presidential elections in Ukraine last year, citing martial law due to the ongoing conflict.

Russia has also said it considers Zelensky – whose term expired in May 2024 – “illegitimate” and recognizes the Ukrainian parliament and its speaker as the only legitimate authority in the country. Russian officials have warned that any international treaties Zelensky signs could face challenges, and have expressed doubt about his ability to secure lasting agreements.

Trump’s posting reads:

Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us — We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues…..

The announcement came hours after the two leaders held a phone conversation to discuss the Ukraine conflict and other topics.

“The first time we’ll meet in Saudi Arabia, see if we get something done,” Trump told journalists at the White House.

Trump indicated that several meetings with Putin could take place in the coming months, saying, “We expect that he’ll come here, and I’ll go there, and we’re going to meet also, probably in Saudi Arabia.”

Trump did not name a specific date for what he called “the first meeting” with Putin, but said it would take place in the “not so distant future.” He noted that both leaders know Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and that the kingdom could be “a very good place to meet.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that Putin invited Trump to visit Moscow during the phone call. He did not provide a time frame on when this might take place. Trump confirmed that the two leaders had agreed to “work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations.”

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were considered by Moscow as potential venues for a summit between the two leaders, Reuters reported in early February, citing two Russian sources familiar with the matter. Russian officials visited both nations last month, the report said.

Neither the Kremlin, nor Riyadh or Abu Dhabi commented on the report at the time. On Wednesday, Reuters reported that bin Salman and Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, were involved in talks that led to this week’s release of US national Marc Fogel, who was imprisoned in Russia on drug smuggling charges. In return, Washington agreed to release Russian crypto businessman and computer programmer Aleksandr Vinnik from US custody.

Putin and Trump had a phone conversation on Wednesday, both Moscow and Washington have confirmed. The talk lasted for about an hour and a half, during which the two leaders discussed a broad range of issues, primarily the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

The phone call turned out to be “lengthy and highly productive,” Trump said in a post on his Truth social media platform. “We discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, Energy, Artificial Intelligence, the power of the Dollar, and various other subjects,” the US president wrote.

The two leaders have agreed they “want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine,” Trump said, announcing an “immediate” start of negotiations to resolve the Ukraine conflict.

Wednesday’s call represents the first official top-level contact between Moscow and Washington since Trump took office in January. While phone conversations between Trump and Putin have been rumored for weeks, none have been officially confirmed, with both sides stating only they had been maintaining contact through various unspecified government channels.

The proposal was part of an executive order signed on Friday, which also suspended US financial assistance to the country over concerns about land expropriation policies and South Africa’s legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

”We don’t want to move elsewhere, and we are not going to ask our children now to move to another country. We have interests of future generations and to make sure our culture is passed down to future generations; that cannot be done abroad,” Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, stated at a media briefing in the capital, Pretoria.

Flip Buys, chairman of the Solidarity Movement, has echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that while Afrikaners may disagree with the ruling African National Congress (ANC), they remain dedicated to their homeland and see no need for refugee status.

The South African government has criticized the US executive order, calling it misleading and based on misinformation. Officials have pointed out that Afrikaners remain among the country’s most economically privileged groups and dismissed the claim that they face state-endorsed discrimination.

Afrikaners are descendants of European settlers, primarily from the Netherlands, who arrived in present-day South Africa in the 17th century. When the country transitioned to a multiracial democracy in 1994, ending decades of apartheid, white farmers continued to hold the majority of agricultural land. The South African government has since aimed to redistribute 30% of farmland to black farmers by 2030.

South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation noted that US aid to the country primarily funds HIV/AIDS prevention programs and described the resettlement provision as inconsistent with the US government’s broader immigration policies.

President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signed legislation allowing for land expropriation without compensation under conditions deemed just and equitable, aiming to address historical land ownership disparities dating back to the apartheid era. The law has sparked controversy, with critics warning of potential economic repercussions and international backlash.

Despite the political tension, Afrikaner groups have stressed their focus on finding domestic solutions rather than supporting sanctions or seeking international intervention.

“We are committed to finding solutions locally. Afrikaners want recognition as a group, not privilege in their country of birth,” Kriel reaffirmed.

Nujoma passed away in a hospital in country’s capital Windhoek on Friday, Namibian President Nangolo Mbumba said in a post on X early Saturday morning.

During the past three weeks, the iconic politician had been fighting an illness, from which he “could not recover,” he wrote.

“It is therefore with utmost sorrow and sadness that I announce… to the Namibian people, our African brothers and sisters and the world at large, about the passing of our revered freedom fighter and revolutionary leader, H.E. Dr. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma,” Mbumba said.

The president announced a period of national mourning for Nujoma, who, he said, “lived a long and consequential life during which he exceptionally served the people of his beloved country.”

Nujoma was born in 1929 to poor farmers from the Ovambo tribe, the eldest of ten children in the family.

Namibia elects first female presidentRead more Namibia elects first female president
Between 1966 and 1989, the exiled politician directed a guerrilla war against apartheid-era South Africa, which used to rule Namibia.

He played a key role in talks with the major foreign powers that produced UN Security Council Resolution 435, which set out a plan for a free and fair election in Namibia.

Nujoma returned to his home country in 1989 after a US-brokered deal had been reached to secure South Africa’s withdrawal from Namibia in exchange for a pullout of 50,000 Cuban troops from neighboring Angola.

Namibia gained its independence the next year, with Nujoma becoming its first president and serving three consecutive terms in office between 1990 and 2005.

One of his well-known quotes was: “A people united, striving to achieve a common good for all the members of the society, will always emerge victorious.”

In a recent and highly controversial statement, former US President Donald Trump proposed that Israel would hand over the Gaza Strip to the United States following the conflict. His plan includes relocating Palestinians and transforming Gaza into a major development project. The Gaza Strip, a pivotal area in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has faced decades of bomadments, resulting in significant destruction and lifetime of displacement. Trump’s proposal can be percieved as an extension of the US-Israeli alliance, where the US has historically supported Israel. However, the idea that Israel can simply hand over Gaza is a sick joke and evil entitlement that overlooks the complex history and the rights of the Palestinian people.

The proposal raises substantial political and ethical concerns. The idea that Israel could hand over Gaza as if it owns the territory is fundamentally flawed. Gaza is not Israeli property, and the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and control over their land. The concept of resettling Palestinians to make way for US development projects disregards their fundamental human rights and is as an act of colonialism.

The United States often prides itself as a champion of human rights and democracy. However, its foreign policy actions frequently contradict these principles. The proposal to take over Gaza is an example of this hypocrisy. While the US claims to support human rights, it has a long history of supporting regimes and actions that violate these rights when it aligns with its strategic interests. From Latin America to the Middle East and Africa, US foreign policy has often prioritized economic and geopolitical gains over the rights and well-being of local populations.

Trump’s background developer is evident in his vision for Gaza. He envisions transforming the war-torn region into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” which could attract significant investment and create numerous job opportunities in his opinion. However, this so called economic development cannot justify the displacement of its residents. The proposal to relocate Palestinians to make way for US development projects reflects a perspective that views people as consumers and commodities, rather than as individuals with rights and aspirations.

The international community has overwhelmingly supported a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian claims to land. Trump’s proposal undermines these efforts and disregards international law, which recognizes the rights of Palestinians to their homeland. Forced displacement of Palestinians and the idea that their land can be handed over to the US for development projects violate their right to self-determination and return.

The proposal also has broader geopolitical implications. It could further destabilize the region, exacerbate tensions, and lead to increased violence. The US taking control of Gaza could be perceived as an act of imperialism, fueling anti-American sentiments and providing propaganda material for extremist groups. It also sets a dangerous precedent for how powerful nations can impose their will on weaker ones, undermining the principles of sovereignty and international law.

Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza and resettle Palestinians is fraught with ethical, political, and legal issues. While aiming to promote economic development, it overlooks the rights of the Palestinian people and disregards international law. Furthermore, it exemplifies the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, which often prioritizes strategic and economic interests over human rights. Any plans for Gaza’s future should prioritize the rights and aspirations of its residents and seek solutions that promote peace and justice for all parties involved.
Moreover, the implications of such a proposal extend beyond Gaza and the Palestinian people. If the international community were to entertain the idea that powerful nations can dictate the fate of disputed territories, it would set a worrying precedent for global politics. Countries with vested interests in strategic locations could attempt similar takeovers under the guise of development or security concerns. This would erode the foundations of international law and diminish the authority of institutions such as the United Nations, which advocate for sovereignty and self-determination. Allowing the US to assume control over Gaza would not only violate Palestinian rights but also weaken the global order meant to prevent such power imbalances.

Additionally, the historical context of US involvement in the Middle East further complicates this proposal. The US has a long record of intervention in the region, often with devastating consequences, from the Iraq War to its role in Libya and Afghanistan. Each of these interventions, framed as efforts to bring stability and progress, has often resulted in prolonged conflicts, humanitarian crises, and power vacuums that extremist groups exploit. The idea of American-led redevelopment in Gaza, without the consent of its people, risks repeating these same mistakes. Sustainable peace and economic growth in Gaza must come from policies that respect the will of its people, rather than external forces imposing top-down solutions that disregard historical grievances and the region’s complex socio-political landscape.