Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Deported!

Khalil was a student at Columbia University in NYC during last year's pro-Hamas demonstrations and takeover of parts of the campus.  He is described as a Palestinian born in Syria.  He came to the US on a student visa and also has a green card.  He is married to an American citizen who is said to be 8 months pregnant.  If he wants to be with his wife and soon to be child, then they can voluntarily leave the United States when he gets deported.  Because I don't give a damn.  

Section 1227 of the Immigration and Nationality Act lists numerous grounds upon which an alien residing in the US can be deported.  Just as there is no "right" to come to the US - it is a "privilege" -  there is no "right" to remain in the US as an alien.  Among other things, Section 1227 states:  "Any alien who has engaged in, is engaged in, or at any time after admission engages in - any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence or other unlawful means, is deportable."  

On March 8, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Khalil, and he is currently being held at a detention facility in Louisiana.  A US District Court Judge in NYC has delayed his deportation, and has given the government and Khalil's attorneys until next Wednesday to submit briefs in support of their positions.  Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has announced that it withheld $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia.  Good.  Columbia did nothing to protect its Jewish students and other students last year.   

So why had Mahmoud Khalil come to the attention of the US government?  He was one of the leaders of the student "protests" at Columbia last year.  He distributed pro-Hamas flyers.  And he was involved with CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest).  This group not only advocates for the end of Israel, they advocate for the end of the United States of America.  Here are some examples.  CUAD calls for the liberation "from Turtle Island to Palestine."  What is Turtle Island?  The way some leftwing groups refer to all of North America.  

Here's more from CUAD:  "...we cannot separate the struggle in support of a free Palestine with the struggle against US imperialism."  And:  "We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance."  The group also praised the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which, as a reminder, included the taking of Americans as hostages.  

Let us not forget what these pro-Hamas demonstrators did last year.  They blocked access to parts of the University at Columbia, including taking over buildings.  They intimidated Jewish students.  Here is a question for those who support Khalil:  do you favor bringing into the United States members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah?  If you answer "yes," you are a sick moron.  If you answer "no," then why in the world would you favor bringing in or keeping anyone who actively supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah?  

Of course, those on the left are unable to distinguish between "speech" and "actions."  Here is Bernie Sanders, socialist, US Senator:  "No, Mr. President, you cannot illegally arrest and detain US residents because of their political views or opinions.  In America, we have a little something called the First Amendment."  Here is Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader in the US Senate:  "If the administration cannot prove he (Khalil) has violated any criminal law to justify taking this severe action and is doing it for the opinions he has expressed, then that is wrong."  These two Senators ought to read Section 1227 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Never to be outdone, the leftwing New York Times on 3/12/25 ran an Op-Ed by Michelle Goldberg, which  screamed:  "The Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare."  No, it's not.  But nice to see that now the Times now supports free speech.  No, the threat to free speech exists across our country, in the universities, in the mainstream media and in Hollywood - places where conservative viewpoints have not been accepted for years.  Goldberg says that Khalil has not been charged with any crime.  Irrelevant.  She too should read Section 1227.  

Goldberg quotes the ACLU:  "It is a direct attempt to punish speech because of the viewpoint it espouses."  Wrong again.  Think of it this way.  Back in 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazis) planned a march in Skokie, Illinois.  At the time, Skokie had about 40,000 Jewish residents, including many Holocaust survivors.  The US Supreme Court said the march could go forward.  These sick, evil bastards were Americans who had First Amendment rights.  But with regards to resident aliens, the Supreme Court has previously supported the right of the government to deport these people as the government's "power of self preservation."  

I think of this analogy.  Many on the Left have supported Biden's open border policy, notwithstanding the criminal gangs entering the US.  I usually hear the same argument - US citizens engage in criminal conduct at a rate that exceeds that of illegal aliens.  Does that really make sense to anyone?  Let's have more crime and criminals here because US citizens are worse?  Try telling that to the victims of these illegal aliens.  The US government has a right, nay, an obligation, to protect its citizens, and to protect the country from those who seek its violent overthrow.  Deport Khalil!  And others like him.  

Ukraine, Part VII (A Public Brawl in the Oval Office)

I watched the entire 50 minutes or so of the meeting between President Trump, VP Vance and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.  As much of the world now knows, the last 6 or 7 minutes did not go well.  So what happened?  I'd like to dispense with what I consider to be a minor issue - Zelenskyy showing up in his wartime garb, instead of a suit.  When Trump met Zelenskyy outside as he was arriving at the White House, he made a lighthearted comment to the effect of "I see you dressed up for your visit."  It was not nasty.  During the 50 minutes, one reporter asked asked Zelenskyy something like this:  "Don't you own a suit?  Why aren't you wearing a suit?"  Trump very graciously stepped in and said "I like his outfit," or something to that effect.  And let's not forget Elon Musk's attire at the recent cabinet meeting.  He wore a t-shirt with what appeared to be a long coat (sports jacket?) over it.  Anyway, enough about that.

Here's a question - as a deal had not yet been signed by the two leaders, why was there an informal press conference?  Why was the media there?  Isn't the usual procedure to make the deal first, then have either a formal joint press conference, or an informal one such as the one we saw?  Why didn't that happen?  Why didn't these discussions occur behind closed doors, before going in front of the media?  I know that many on the Left believe it was a set-up, an ambush.  Unfortunately, arranging this get together backwards could lend credence to that idea.  And so could VP Vance's unwarranted attack on Zelenskyy.

But let's back up.  It is no secret that many of the world's countries are in search of these rare earth minerals, such as lithium and cobalt.  After all, they are components in many technological devices, such as electric batteries, electric vehicles and solar panels.  And given how Trump, and much of America, views China, we don't want to have to depend on the Chinese for these minerals.  Especially if we end up in armed conflict with China.  Unfortunately, while the US has oil and gas, we are lacking in these minerals.

Zelenskyy's focus was on getting "security guarantees."  It was a mistake.  Trump was not about to commit to sending US troops to Ukraine.  And Trump did not want to keep spending US taxpayers' dollars for a war that might continue for another 3 years, or more.  The US spent over $2 trillion in Afghanistan.  While not even securing a victory.  I cannot imagine that Zelenskyy would not know Trump's position on endless wars.  Nonetheless, Zelenskyy pushed for "guarantees."  He explained how Russia had violated countless agreements previously.  And, of course, he was right about that.  

We can go back to the December, 1994 "Budapest Memorandum."  That was when three former Soviet Republics, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, agreed to give up their nuclear weapons.  In exchange, the UK, France, the US and Russia, all signed off on "security assurances" for those former SSR's.  But that did not stop Putin from doing what he wanted - to reestablish the Soviet Union.  He wants those former Soviet Republics back.  He has said so publicly.  The 1994 "security assurance" signed by Russia meant nothing to him.  Nor would any current peace agreement mean anything to him.  So Zelenskyy's concerns are reasonable.

But where did Zelenskyy go wrong?  Trump wanted the deal for those rare earth minerals.  Reasonable people can argue about whether or not Trump was taking advantage by asking for a 50% interest in the future development of those minerals.  And maybe it requires US investment for Ukraine to be able access those minerals for their own benefit.  Once the USA had that ownership interest, once Ukraine had an agreement to jointly harvest those minerals with the USA, that's about as good a security agreement as anyone could get.  After all, Russia would have to think twice about further incursions into Ukraine, if it meant harming interests of the United States.  We want those rare earth minerals, and I have little doubt that any president would make it clear that we will protect our interests.  That is the security guarantee.  The best that Zelenskyy could get.

 Having said that, Vance was also wrong.  Zelenskyy explained how Russia had violated every agreement.  Vance said that Biden talked tough, but that did not stop Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  So now it was time for Trump's diplomacy.  Zelenskyy erred again by asking what kind of diplomacy, given all the failed efforts previously.  Vance already had no love for Ukraine.  Vance replied that it was "disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media."  Vance had also claimed, incorrectly, that Zelenskyy had expressed no gratitude to the United States.  He had many times previously, and even earlier in the meeting.  

I agree with the assessment of the Wall Street Journal as to what should have happened next:  "Mr. Zelenskyy would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump."  Instead, when Trump spoke up after Vance, Zelenskyy tried to speak over him.  He tried to keep arguing his case for security guarantees.  That was a mistake.  And one that led Trump to say:  "You either make a deal or we're out."  Later that day, Zelenskyy appeared on Fox News with Bret Baier.  When asked by Baier if he should apologize, he replied that he did not do anything wrong.  Foolish.  Even if he believes that, an apology can be in order when the other party has been offended.  Especially when you want billions of dollars from that party.   

During this meeting, Trump again said that he supports NATO, but that he wants the European countries to step up their contributions.  As they should.  Especially with regards to Ukraine, which is in their backyard.  The US cannot keep sending armaments to Ukraine if we are depleting our own supplies.  It was clear from Trump's comments that he believed a deal had been made.  But as someone who has also made deals his entire career, I have never believed that I had a deal until it was signed off on by all the parties involved.   

I do not believe that Trump wants to see Ukraine fall to Russia.  Zelenskyy should have his ambassador to the US (you may have noticed her holding her head in her hands as the conversation turned ugly) contact Secretary of State Rubio, and tell him that Zelenskyy would like to apologize to Trump.  And ask if Trump will take his call.  And if Trump wants a public apology, Zelenskyy should do so.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that Zelenskyy is not as smart as I thought he was.    

Ukraine, Part VI

To make matters worse, I think it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who said that Ukraine will not get all their territory back, and will not be allowed to become a member of NATO.  Why would any of that ever be said out loud before the signing of a peace deal?  That does not sound like "peace through strength."  But it does sound like peace at any cost - in other words, appeasement of our enemy, Russia.  

When I first heard some of these comments by Trump, I thought of a post I wrote the first year of the blog, called "Fools, Liars and Thieves," written on 12/12/09.  I gave quotes from 2 former presidents about war.  First, Jimmy Carter:  "War may sometimes be a necessary evil.  But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good."  I strongly disagreed with Carter.  WWII was fought by the US and our Allies in order to defeat Nazism and totalitarianism - threats to the entire world.  It may be tragic that the war had to be fought, but it was definitely not evil.

Hitler was evil for starting that war, for invading other countries.  For causing the Holocaust.  But there was nothing evil about the Allies fighting back.  I contrasted Carter's remarks with those of Teddy Roosevelt.  Roosevelt:  "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

"To further the ends of despotism."  That is certainly what Trump's words have sounded like.  None of them sound like "peace through strength."  It sounded like peace at any cost; akin to Biden's exit from Afghanistan at any cost.  Trump's comments even sounded like Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time," after he ceded the Sudetenland to Hitler in the Munich Agreement.  Chamberlain's actions probably constituted the most well known case of "appeasement" of a totalitarian dictatorship in the 20th century.  It was the opposite of "peace through strength."  Winston Churchill called it "a total and unmitigated defeat."  Of course, Churchill was correct, as after the Munich Agreement the Nazis very quickly continued their aggressive invasion of other countries.      

So what is going on?  Has Trump really given up on "peace through strength?"  Is he really willing to sell out Ukraine, a friend and ally of the US.  I wish that Zelenskyy had not publicly responded to Trump's comments.  Trump has proven on multiple occasions that he has somewhat of a thin skin.  If he is verbally attacked, he escalates.  

The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial of 2/20/25, about Ukraine, started with this sentence:  "One challenge in the Trump era is distinguishing when the President is popping off for attention from when his remarks indicate a real change in policy and priorities."  They expressed their concern that "President Trump's rhetorical assault on Ukraine in recent days appears to be the latter, and perhaps it is a sign of an ugly settlement to come."

Perhaps.  I suppose that cannot be ruled out.  But in discussing this issue with a friend, he reminded me that Trump often has something else at play.  Some plan, which may not be immediately apparent.  When he made his Gaza comments, did he really mean that the US would take over Gaza?  Or was it his way of telling the Arab world that they need to figure out how to get rid of Hamas, or Trump will let Israel level Gaza?

So, for now, I remain concerned.  I hope that Zelenskyy refrains from further negative comments about Trump.  And I hope that Trump realizes that Ukraine is a friend, and that Putin/Russia are mortal enemies.  And I hope that Trump has something up his proverbial sleeve, the likes of which I have not yet been able to ascertain.   

 

Ukraine, Part V

(Note.  After Russia's invasion of Ukraine three years ago, in February, 2022, I did a 4 part post simply titled "Ukraine."  The first 2 parts were "My Take," Part III was "A Reply To Some Of The Comments I Received," and Part IV was "Some Comments By The Media."  It was not the first time Russia invaded Ukraine - recall their invasion of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014.  Now, we have a war of words between President Trump and President Zelenskyy that I'm trying to understand.  Plus, my concern about some of the things Trump is saying.)

Douglas Murray had an interesting Op-Ed in the 2/20/25 New York Post, the conservative New York paper.  Murray is a Senior Fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.  His article discusses "10 Ukraine-Russia war truths we ignore at our peril."  Lets take a look.

Trump:  "You've (Ukraine/Zelenskyy) been there for three years, you should have ended it three years - you should have never started it, you could have made a deal."  No, Russia - unprovoked - invaded Ukraine in February, 2022.  Ukraine did not start this war.  No deal could be made with Russia.  Russia has one goal in mind - Putin has even said so - the return of the USSR.  When the former Soviet Republics gained independence, Putin called it the worst catastrophe of the 20th century.  Ukraine also has one goal - it's survival as a free and independent country.  

Trump referred to Zelenskyy as "a dictator without elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a country left."  Zelenskyy is not a dictator.  Yes, elections were due to be held again last year, but with the country at war, and under martial law, the Ukrainian constitution allows for postponing elections.  As the WSJ pointed out, Churchill also postponed elections when England was fighting for its survival against Germany.  

Trump:  "...I hate to say it, but he's (Zelenskyy) down at 4% approval rating."  No, he's not.  The poll results I've seen have Zelenskyy's approval rating at either 52% or 57%.  And let's not forget one very important fact.  Ukraine is a friend of the United States.  Russia is a sworn enemy, making pacts with other enemies of the US, such as China and Iran.  Whatever Putin says or swears to cannot ever be trusted.  He lies.  He has had political opponents killed, or exiled to Siberia.  

Putin says he will not agree to any peace deal unless there are new elections in Ukraine.  Why does he care about that?  Putin has held office as either President or Prime Minister since 1999.  So, let's not pretend that Putin has some interest in democracy.  No, I believe Putin sees a way to get a "puppet" of his elected, just as has done with Belarus.  And credit to the Ukrainian people for holding off the Russian military for 3 years now.  During that time, the Russian military has been degraded, which is a benefit to the USA and the Western world.

Trump claims the US "has spent $200 billion dollars more than Europe, and Europe's money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back."  According to Murray, the US has spent $183 billion in aid to Ukraine.  But $58 billion of that is money spent here in the USA in American industry.  It is akin to the many Congressional authorizations of money for Israel, often requiring Israel to spend that money here in the US by purchasing US manufactured planes and armaments.  

In their 2/18/25 editorial, the New York Post said that Trump wants Ukraine to sign over half of that country's revenue from natural resources, ports and infrastructure indefinitely.  As a payback to the US.  But that would be billions of dollars more than the US has spent.  Said the Post:  "it's a demand that a victor might make of a country that started and lost a war, to teach a lesson."  

So, what gives with all these comments from Trump?  That's Part VI.

The Bibas Family

Yesterday, the Jewish world received the devastating news that the Bibas boys and their Mom were likely dead.  The Dad, Yarden, the Mom, Shiri, 4 year old Ariel and 9 month old Kfir, were all abducted from their home in Israel by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023.  Those boys became the face of all the hostages - those adorable faces with their bright orange-red hair.  And the abduction of these boys, one a baby, proved to the world (at least those with even an ounce of moral clarity) just how evil Hamas is.  Hamas had already murdered the grandparents, and shot the family dog.  

The Dad, Yarden, was released alive on February 1.  Shiri's and the boys' bodies were to be released today.  Israel confirmed that the two boys' bodies were returned.  The third casket, however, did not have the Mom's body.  It was the body of an unknown individual.  A fourth body was also released - that of 83 year old Oded Lifshitz.  But remember, this is Hamas.  Who knows what cruel "joke" they think they're playing on the Dad, by not returning Shiri's body.  

If you think that Hamas presented a dignified transfer of these bodies, then you do not know Hamas.  The coffins were paraded through a cemetery, in front of a cheering crowd of civilians.  Imagine that - cheering civilians.  And it's worse.  With the coffins was a mock picture of Netanyahu, made up to look like a vampire.  And these words were on the picture:  "The war criminal Netanyahu and his Nazi army killed them with missiles from Zionist warplanes."    

Is it "possible" that Israeli bombs killed any of the hostages?  Maybe.  But give me a break.  Which is more likely?  That Israel accidentally killed them?  Or that Hamas, which killed 1200 people on October 7, 2023, the same Hamas that tortured hostages and raped women, murdered Shiri and Ariel and Kfir?  I'm going with the murderous bastards of Hamas.  The same Hamas that has promised to repeat the events of October 7 "over and over and over" again.  

Hamas continues to bill themselves as the "resistance," and Israel as the "occupation."  The resistance to what?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  They've had 20 years to build a modern society society, to prove themselves worthy of being a member of the international community.  Yet, they chose to build hundreds of miles of underground tunnels, so that they could sneak into Israel, and kidnap and kill Jews.  How is Israel the "occupation," when it hasn't occupied Gaza for 20 years?  Israel is the "occupation" to these bastards, because it exists anywhere, on any of the land.  

Yet, much of the world, including our so-called allies in Europe, don't get it.  Even some of my fellow Jews still don't get it.  This is not about land.  It never has been.  It has been about one thing only - the destruction of Israel and the killing of all the Jews.  If Hamas wanted a modern, prosperous society in Gaza, they could have had it.  They must have received billions in aid from Arab countries, Europe and even the US.  

Just today, 3 buses exploded simultaneously around Tel Aviv, in central Israel.  It appears the buses were not in operation at the time.  Clearly, this was a terrorist attack.  Was it meant as a warning of some kind, or were the timers on the bombs fortunately set at a time when the buses were parked?  We'll see.  

The idea, the suggestion, that Hamas can continue to play any role in the future of Gaza, is sick beyond words.  Perhaps Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, said it best:  "While Israel is forced to release convicted terrorists - many who have taken innocent lives - Hamas is returning bodies, including those of babies...Hamas is not a political movement.  It is not a resistance group.  It is a death cult, driven by a singular mission - annihilation of Jews."

As for me, I alternate between extreme sadness and extreme anger.  There are no words that can adequately express all of my feelings; at least none that I use in the blog.  But, I guess I can say that I hope that these new Nazis rot in hell forever alongside the Hitler Nazis.

Trump's Gaza Plan - Crazy or Brilliant? Part II

I think it's safe to say that an article online on CNN by Stephen Collinson, is representative of Democratic and leftwing thinking about Trump's plan for Gaza.  Collinson:  "To see an American president endorse what would be the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from their home, in an exodus that would subvert decades of US policy, international law and basic humanity, was breathtaking."  Well, decades of US policy has clearly not resulted in peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  So, who gives a damn about failed policy.  International law?  Would not be an issue if UNRWA  had not insisted on working with the worst extremist/terrorist elements in Gaza, by forcing people to stay in what they have called "an outdoor prison," instead of resettling them as millions of other refugees did after WWII.  

Basic humanity?  If the Dems and the Left cared about basic humanity, they might ask themselves this:  "do I want to live in area where Hamas uses me and my family as human shields, where my children and I may die from the constant wars, or would I rather live in peace somewhere else?"  Because Israel is not going anywhere.  And for UNRWA and Hamas to teach the children of Gaza that the goal in life is to kill all the Jews, is pure evil.  You see, people like Collinson have no plan, other than another 100 years of war and dying.  

Collinson:  "The president's obliviousness to the aspirations of Palestinians and his assumption that they'd prefer a modern housing development elsewhere showed a stunning naivety about the causes of the conflict."  If I had to guess, it would be to say that Collinson believes the conflict is over land.  It is only in this sense - the Palestinians want all the land, including Israel.  And they don't care how they get there, even if it takes another 100 years of killing Jews, and tens of thousands of their own people dying.  The leaders of Hamas openly admit that the more dead Palestinians there are, the more martyrs there are.  Not to mention the propaganda value of dead Palestinians, in whipping up hatred of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide, as the useful idiots of the Left fall for it every time. 

But even the Left has to once in a while admit reality.  In explaining why Jordan and Egypt do not want to take in the Palestinians, Collinson said this:  "Jordan...fears the Hashemite Kingdom would be fatally destabilized by a new influx (of Palestinians)."  And Egypt?  "Egypt's military fears a massive influx of Palestinians that would include Hamas sympathizers of the Sunni Islamist Muslim Brotherhood."  

A reminder.  From 1948 until the 6 Day War in 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).  Since then, Egypt has renounced ownership of Gaza, just as Jordan has renounced ownership of the West Bank.  They don't want the Palestinians.  So, all this talk about the "poor Palestinians," is nothing other than lip service.  If your neighbors were being bombed and killed, but you could take them in and provide safe and better living conditions, would you do it?  Well, the Egyptians and the Jordanians won't.  They don't give a damn about their fellow Arabs.  They just pretend that they do. 

Again, we see a glimmer of reality from Collinson, who calls Trump "an outsider president who lives to shake things up and who is beloved by his voters for rejecting the orthodoxy of elites and the conventional approaches that have failed."  So, if the past has failed - and it clearly has - why do so many Democrats and the Left want to keep repeating it?  

As Elliot Kaufman wrote in that 2/6/25 Op-Ed in the WSJ:  "Even as Arab states claimed Israel was slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately, they insisted Gaza's borders stay shut.  When Palestinians tried to flee the war, as is their human right, Egypt forcibly closed the border - with the support of the international community."  Including the Biden Administration.

Rather than give credence to Trump's bold proposal, the Dems and the Left prefer to stick with failed policies.  They refuse to acknowledge the reality of staying the course.  Kaufman summed it up best:  "The humane solution, by liberal lights, is to sacrifice another generation of Palestinians to permanent refugee status and a forever war on Israel.  That's what life in Gaza holds for them."

How about we get behind President Trump on this?  Peace rather than war.  Economic prosperity rather than squalor.  

Trump's Gaza Plan - Crazy or Brilliant? Part I

Looking back on the last 100 years or so, three events stand out as having had a significant impact on the Middle East, and specifically the Arab-Israeli conflict.  First, in 1917, we had what came to be known as the "Balfour Declaration."  Then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote to Lord Rothchild the following:  "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."  Prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire controlled much of the Middle East for 400 years.  Following the Allies' victory, Britain controlled the area of what later became Jordan, Israel and the West Bank.  British authority came from the League of Nations in what was called the "British Mandate," also referred to as "Mandatory Palestine."  

To be clear, there was never a country called Palestine on that land.  There was a Kingdom of Israel 2000 years ago, and the country of Israel since 1948.  But the geographic area was called "Palestine," and was home to Jews and Arabs.  Yes, I've seen online articles referring to Palestine as if it was a country run by the Arabs.  Simply not true.  The second significant event  was the 1947 UN General Assembly voting to partition the land of the British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  The Arabs immediately rejected the idea, and made war on the new country of Israel.  But, the Arabs had been killing Jews since the 1920's.  And while the Jews sided with the US and the Allies in WWII, the Arabs sided with Hitler.  

Now we come to the third significant event - Trump's outline for the future of Gaza.  Steve Witkoff has been Trump's emissary to the Middle East, and was instrumental in bringing about the current cease-fire and release of the hostages.  Based on his speaking with people there, and his own observations, Witkoff said this:  "There's 30,000 unexploded munitions.  Buildings that could tip over at any moment.  There's no utilities there whatsoever.  No working water, electric, gas.  Nothing.  G-d knows what kind of disease might be festering there."

So, Trump has a different idea.  Move the people out of Gaza, at least temporarily.  Then, "level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings.  Level it out.  Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area...do something different.  If you go back, it's going to end up the same way it has for 100 years."  Exactly!  It's been war after war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack after terrorist attack.  Until October 7, 2023, when much of the Jewish world woke and acknowledged the failure of the two-state solution.  

Trump has consistently shown that he thinks "outside the box," especially when it comes to the Middle East.  It wasn't just moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.  It wasn't just recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  During his first term, Trump acknowledged the reality that the Palestinians would never make peace with Israel.  So, he said, let's make peace deals between Israel and the other Arab countries.  Which is how the unthinkable happened with the Abraham Accords.  No one thought that was possible.  But Donald Trump did.  

Here is how The Jewish Press described the situation since Israel's rebirth in 1948:  "Over the next 78 years, the Western nations tolerated the Arabs' bloodlust and hatred, blaming most of it on the Jews for their insolent survival of Arab hostility, until yesterday, when an unusually practical American president put a stop to the charade."  Trump said the Gaza strip "has been a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades and so bad for the people anywhere near it."  Said the Wall Street Journal of Trump's idea:  "however preposterous, does have the virtue of forcing the world to confront its hypocrisy over the fate of the Palestinian people."

The Journal:  "The best the world can come up with is to mouth the 'two-state' platitude and let Gaza remain a hell-hole where Hamas will revive its reign of terror, and Palestinians who want something different will be tossed off buildings."  In a 2/6/25 Op-Ed in the Journal, Elliot Kaufman wrote that UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees) has had the singular goal of keeping the Arabs in Gaza as permanent "refugees."  Refugees from where?  From Israel, because they claim Israel has no right to exist, and the Jewish people have no right to live there.  Think about that.  Every other actual refugee group following WWII, moved on.  

They moved to other countries around the world.  Even 700,000 to 800,000 Jews living in the Arab world were forced to leave their homes where their families had lived for hundreds of years.  But Kaufman explains that UNRWA's "job is to keep them (the Arabs of Gaza) in forever refugee status down into the third, fourth and soon fifth generation.  This way, they stay poor and crowded in Gaza's permanent refugee camps, whipped up for a final return to overwhelm the Jews."  

So, is Trump's idea crazy or brilliant.  If by "crazy" people mean difficult to achieve, I agree.  But the idea is brilliant because Trump is looking for a better life for all the people in the area, and he has a plan to get there.  Do I think Trump will ask US taxpayers to pay for the cleanup and rebuilding?  No.  I think pressure will be put on the wealthy Arab countries (think Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar) to foot the bill.  And maybe some pressure on the Europeans.  

When Robert F. Kennedy was running for president in 1968, he often repeated a quote originally attributable to George Bernard Shaw:  "some people see things as they are and say 'why?'  I dream things that never were and say 'why not'?"  But we know Trump will never get credit from the Democrats and the Left.  So, let's look at a typical Democrat reaction - in Part II.