Speech Writing: For Trump On Gaza

On Monday I wrote about Trump’s tariffs, and one of the key points I made in my article is that his tariffs seemed to have little support inside his administration. By contrast, Trump’s announcement on Tuesday that he wants to ‘take over’ the Gaza Strip and turn it into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’ was praised by Secretary of State Marco Rubio who wrote on social media “The United States stands ready to lead and Make Gaza Beautiful Again.” Again, whereas Trump’s tariffs frightened financial markets, his Gaza Strip suggestion seems to have little discernable impact.

On the assumption then that both tariffs and taking over Gaza are expressions of Trump’s desire for glory, the latter seems much better than the former because it is liked by his inner circle and not objected to by investors. Still, the world’s press was generally negative, and even his MAGA base was split by it (says WSJ).

Instead of writing my usual long and complex analysis, I thought I would, for a change, pretend I am Trump’s speechwriter and defend his proposal in a relatively short political speech (1,000 words) designed to be read out on TV. It has some nice attacks on his opponents in it, also some nice ideas such as the creation of a right wing utopia, still the end in particular is more playful than usable.

Most blame the people of Gaza for Hamas’s atrocities and the resulting destruction of their city, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blames the people of Israel, but I blame the United Nations!

It has been clear for many years now that the United Nations' plan for a two-state solution is unrealistic, yet they have both refused to admit that fact, and refused to explore new solutions.

That cowardice, stubbornness and blindness is, I argue, the true cause of the terrible atrocities and the resulting destruction.

Do you agree? Think very carefully for a moment. Why does it matter?

It matters because it is these people, as well as their followers, such as Sleepy Joe, who dominate the debate and criticise me despite all the blood on their hands.

So if you agree, I call upon you to close your hearts and minds to their vicious voices and embrace my novel arguments.

Accepting the impossibility of a two-state solution and impossibility of the two sides living together peacefully, it is clear the people of Gaza must give up their land and move!

Have the good sense and courage to grasp this point perfectly firmly and build your analysis on top of it!

Do you worry that nobody will take them? If you do, don't!

Realise the population of Gaza is not really large compared to the population of the Arab world. For example, the neighbouring Egyptian population currently grows by approximately 1.7 million a year due to an excess of births over deaths, thus even if Egypt were to absorb the entire population of Gaza by itself, doing so would still only add the equivalent of 14 months of natural population growth.

Realise too, the population of Gaza is small compared to the numbers we in the West have allowed to come to our countries. To give one small example, Germany welcomed 1.2 million refugees from the Syrian War, and for Germany to take Syrians is a lot harder than for say Jordan to take Palestinians.

The upshot is that the Arab world can, of course, find space for these people; furthermore, when they take these people, they will not be doing anything more than we in the West have done ourselves.

Still, following my plan, the Arab world will not have to take them at great cost to itself, which is the terrible way the Germans took the Syrians!

Look, everybody of sense today, especially in Germany, now realises the immigration policies of effeminate leaders such as Angela Merkel and Olaf Scholz were disastrous.

Immigration must be profitable!

No man owes strangers favours, and even in a man’s gifts to his friends, he aims at profit eventually. For example, the father “invests” in his son because he enjoys watching him flourish, and hopes he will care for him in old age, and hopes he will carry forward his ideas, giving him immortality.

But won't taking the people of Gaza cost large sums? No!

Profit is possible because following my plan, the United States will own the land, and develop it, and then rent or sell it, thus generating revenue and sharing profits with those who take the displaced so they can invest in the flourishing of those they take.

Thus both the people of Gaza and the countries that take them will profit. The people of Gaza will get new homes and schools and hospitals instead of a pile of rubble, and those who provide those homes and schools and hospitals, will get a shareholding in an exciting new real estate development.

What is the business vision?

The United States government will create a sort of world city catering to nomads and tourists. It will be inspired by cultural ideas such as Hilton’s Shangri-La, architectural ideas such as King Charles’s Poundbury crossed with Santorini and Marrakech, and political ideas such as Jan Sramek’s California Forever right-wing utopia.

In this city there will be no free healthcare nor social security, but nor will there be any onerous taxes. The creation of this city will therefore be a radical new experiment in government and national building.

What rights will the people of Gaza have to this land after it is built? The answer is that they will have no rights to it, though the countries that take them in may grant them a share of the city revenue if they wish through their shareholdings.

But where, you may well ask, is the profit in this great project for the United States, if so much of the net revenue is paid to others?

There are many answers to that question because there are many rewards for doing good and noble things.

Most obviously, the United States will have solved a problem that has been a thorn in the side of world affairs for generations, thus bringing geopolitical stability. At a personal level, the honour of achieving that, whether it is recognised by a noble peace prize or not, will certainly contribute to my contentment in retirement.

There are many other things I might add. For example, the idiot neocons spent a trillion dollars trying to create world peace and harmony through their absurd wars and campaigns for democracy. What did they leave behind? Nothing but debts, and dead and broken bodies, and tyrannical regimes like the Taliban. To now do all that they were trying to do without hardly firing a shot would greatly benefit us by utterly humiliating the old right and elevating the new right, thus giving worthy Americans great pleasure and reforming the minds of the rest.

For me personally, what excites me most of all is, I think, the opportunity to oversee the creation of a new city that embodies my grandest ideas!

You might think that would be a small thing for me, since I rule America, but in this new city, there will be no broken constitution, no horse-trading politicians, no gormless layers.

By starting afresh, the utopia all great men such as myself dream of creating can be achieved.

For me, then, the chief good is, I think, the creation of utopia.

For others a model to imitate.

And for the children, simple things such as more money, lots of it, also peace, harmony, and, of course, cheap oil.