Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump just showed us why he’s not winning the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon

Published

on

Trump just showed us why he’s not winning the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon

UPDATE (Feb. 4, 2025, 8:35 p.m. E.T.): During a joint press conference Tuesday night with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump said: “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we’ll do a good job with it, too.”

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday and King Abdullah II of Jordan does the same on Feb. 11, one question keeps bubbling up to the surface: Can Donald Trump, the self-professed “peacemaker” who has eyed the coveted Nobel Peace Prize for many years, go where no U.S. president has gone before by striking a transformational, comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East?

Trump’s critics would answer with a big eye roll. And yet his pressuring of Netanyahuto sign onto the first stage of a three-phase ceasefire deal with Hamas — three more hostages were freed over the weekend in return for more than 100 Palestinian prisonersthe fourth round of prisoner exchanges since the deal took effect in mid-January — at least gives some credibility behind the ambition. Trump clearly has Middle East peace on his mind, and the Trump administration’s desire to expand the 2020 Abraham Accordswhich normalized relations between Israel and four Arab countries, is never far from its lips. As national security adviser Mike Waltz said before Trump even stepped foot into office for his second term, Israeli-Saudi normalization is a “huge priority” for the team.

Trump clearly has Middle East peace on his mind.

But Trump can kiss all of this goodbye if he intends to move forward with his ongoing calls to expel the Palestinian population from Gaza, an idea he referenced during his joint press conference with Netanyahu at the White House. While he didn’t specifically use the word “expel” in his remarks, his suggestion that Palestinians might want to think about packing up their things and going to another area while reconstruction commences has caused shock and trepidation across the Arab world. Trump even suggested that his plan was in the works, with various countries contacting him and pledging assistance. Whether or not that’s the case, Trump appears increasingly invested in making this relocation scheme a reality. “Gaza is a demolition site right now,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “You can’t live in Gaza right now.”

If this were just another one-off, rambling comment from Trump, perhaps it could be dismissed as a nothing-burger. But it isn’t. Trump has referenced this idea on earlier occasions, first on Jan, 28, when he name-dropped Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah for help in taking Gaza’s population in, and again on Jan. 31, when he was signing executive orders in the Oval Office. Asked by a reporter about Egypt and Jordan’s refusal to play along, Trump matter-of-factlystated that they didn’t have a choice: “They will do it. They will do it. They’re gonna do it, OK? We do a lot for them, and they’re gonna do it.”

Trump’s pretensions aside, Egypt and Jordan have their own reasons for not wanting to turn themselves into Trump’s enforcers. The most obvious, of course, is that such a proposition is extraordinarily unpopular in the Arab world. Countries throughout the Middle East disagree on a lot of things, but dislocating more than 2 million Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and opening the door to Israeli annexation of the coastal enclave — a fantasy ultranationalist Israeli ministers like Bezalel Smotrich surely dream about — certainly isn’t one of them. If there was any dispute about that, the Arab League put it to rest over the weekend, when it released a statementthat such plans “threaten the region’s stability, risk expanding the conflict, and undermine prospects for peace and coexistence among its peoples.”

Egypt and Jordan also have self-interested reasons for dismissing any Gazan relocation effort. Jordan, for one, is already hosting more than 2 million Palestinianswho are registered as refugees, making approximately half of the kingdom’s population of Palestinian origin. As a resource-poor country, Jordan doesn’t have the luxury of sustaining a new influx of new refugees and wouldn’t want to, even if Washington or its Gulf allies picked up the tab (the U.S. already provides Jordan with $1.45 billionin foreign aid every year). For Egyptian President Sisi, the issue is less about economics and more about security. This is the same guy, after all, who led a 2013 military coup against a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood-led government (Hamas was established in 1987 as an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), killed more than 800 peoplein the process and jailed tens of thousands more in an attempt to snuff out any resistance. If Sisi wasn’t willing to let Palestinians into Egypt when Israeli military operations in Gaza were at its height, he’s unlikely to do so when the guns have fallen silent (for the time being).

Encouraging or compelling Palestinian civilians to leave Gaza, even if it’s ostensibly to accelerate reconstruction, is liable to kill Trump’s diplomatic agenda in the Middle East.

Encouraging or compelling Palestinian civilians to leave Gaza, even if it’s ostensibly to accelerate reconstruction, is liable to kill Trump’s diplomatic agenda in the Middle East. At the top of the wish list is an Israeli-Saudi normalization accord, something his predecessor Joe Biden couldn’t finalize before his term ended, despite a year-and-a-half of talks with Israeli and Saudi officials. Such a deal would be a groundbreaking accomplishment for Washington in a region often associated with sunk costs, self-defeating policies and missed opportunities. And just as important for Trump, it would be an extremely impressive achievement he could rightfully brag about.

Yet none of it will happen if Palestinians are forced to leave their own lands. It would snuff out an expansion of the Abraham Accords before the Trump administration even got the ball rolling. Although the Saudi government may have been open to a normalization deal with Israel before the war in Gaza, it’s no longer content with token Israeli concessions on behalf of the Palestinians. The Saudis now want a concrete pathway toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said in September, “The [Saudi] kingdom will not stop its tireless work towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. We affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.” The Saudi foreign minister reiterated that position in Novemberand it’s about as clear as it can get: Normalization without a Palestinian state (or at least a tangible process that leads to one) is impossible.

Trump, therefore, needs to ask a fundamental question: What’s more important to him? Doing something all of his predecessors couldn’t do — shepherding formal diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab world’s most important state — or catering to the whims of Israel’s ultranationalists by proposing a cockamamie scheme that equates to deporting more than 2 million Palestinians from their own homes? The first is difficult to achieve but still doable; the second would cause more problems than they’re worth by compromising Washington’s diplomatic relationships in the Middle East, pushing his dream deal further away, and even risking the collapse of a ceasefire deal in Gaza he helped usher into being. And in this scenario, Trump can forget about seeing his name in the annals of Nobel history.

Daniel R. DePetris

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Published

on

The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Democrats are heaping praise on the peace deal struck between Israel and Hamas, which unlocked the release of all living hostages in Gaza. But there are two words most Democrats are omitting when discussing the peace agreement: “Donald” and “Trump.”

In statement after statement, Democrats on Capitol Hill lauded the end to the fighting, the liberation of hostages and the hope of a new chapter in the Middle East, applauding “all involved in succeeding to broker the ceasefire agreement” and touting the “power of diplomacy” for getting the globe to that moment.

“After two years of abduction and torture, every living hostage is finally home. Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., wrote on social media. “Against all odds, the timeless call to ‘Let My People Go’ has been answered.”

Notably, however, there was no mention of Trump.

The same could be said for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Jeffries called the agreement “an extremely welcome development.”

“The world will be a better place with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with the Palestinian people able to achieve the dignity and self-determination they deserve. We must all recommit to achieve that outcome,” Jeffries said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eventually gave Trump a shout-out Monday afternoon, after ignoring the president’s role when the deal was first announced.

In a 175-word statement, Schumer commended “the enormous advocacy of the tireless hostage families, President Trump, his administration, and all who helped make this moment happen.”

While he didn’t necessarily avoid Trump, he was careful to bookend his praise within a statement that celebrated the living hostages coming home and a call to build a lasting peace in the region.

And the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., posted on X that he was “deeply relieved to see the living hostages released from Gaza today.”

“May their freedom mark a process of healing for them and their families, and the beginning of a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Meeks said.

There was no mention of Trump.

The divide between celebrating the deal while ignoring the man who helped broker it highlights the politically tricky terrain Democrats find themselves in. They want to laud the potentially historic peace agreement without giving credit to Trump, a figure they and their voters largely loathe and whose actions throughout the war have drawn criticism.

It’s the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, which has pitted pro-Israel Democrats against progressive lawmakers who sharply criticized the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza — a discourse that has played out publicly.

Republicans, for their part, are taking note of the lopsided reaction. On Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., criticized Democrats for not explicitly giving Trump “any credit,” accusing them of being fearful of the blowback from their base.

“They’re afraid, again, as I said in the press conference, of their Marxist base,” Johnson told reporters. “They’re afraid of the radical left, the growing number of radical leftists in the Democrat Party who will attack them if they say anything positive or affirmative about President Trump and his work, and it is a great shame and a great danger to the country.”

The speaker noted that he was “heartened” by the comments of some Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Trump’s rival from the 2016 election. In an appearance Friday on CBS News, Clinton said, “I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after.”

Of course, some congressional Democrats have joined Clinton in calling out the president.

Sen. Jon Ossoff — who faces a tough re-election next year in Georgia — praised the White House. “I commend the efforts of the Trump Administration and international partners to achieve this moment and will vigorously support the hard work ahead necessary to secure peace, security, and freedom for all people in the Middle East,” he wrote in a statement.

In a post on social media, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., called it an “amazing day for the families” of returned hostages. “And for @POTUS and all the negotiators who made this day possible,” he said.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a vocal supporter of Israel, also congratulated Trump the day he announced the peace deal.

And asked during a Sunday appearance on BLN how much credit Trump deserves for the deal, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Trump “should get a lot of credit.”

“This was his deal,” Kelly added. “He worked this out.”

Of course, Trump has played into the stewing domestic political divide over the situation in the Middle East, criticizing his Democratic predecessors as recently as Monday during his speech before the Knesset.

“All of the countries in the Middle East could have — what we’re doing now — it could have happened a long time ago, but it was strangled and set back, almost irretrievably by the administrations of Barack Obama and then Joe Biden,” Trump said in his hour-plus remarks.

Kevin Frey

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for BLN. He previously served as Washington correspondent for Spectrum News NY1. A graduate of George Washington University, he grew up in Pennsylvania. When he isn’t roaming the halls of Congress, you’ll find Kevin singing with a local choir.

Mychael Schnell

Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration

Published

on

Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration

Officials in the state of Washington have agreed to water down a child abuse law after pressure from the Trump administration and local Catholic leaders.

Catholic bishops and the Trump administration had filed lawsuits seeking to overturn a bill signed by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat and a Catholic, that required faith leaders of all denominations to report allegations of abuse they received in private religious settings — including confession. Though the Catholic Church has a documented history of enabling child sexual abuse, the sponsor of Washington’s bill said the legislation was inspired by reports of abuse within Jehovah’s Witness churches.

Catholic leaders have argued that being forced to report admissions made during a confession amounts to religious discrimination. And after a federal court temporarily blocked the law in July, Washington’s attorney general said late last week that the law will be pared back:

Clergy in Washington will remain mandatory reporters under stipulations filed today by the state Attorney General’s Office and the plaintiffs in lawsuits against the state over Senate Bill 5375. Under the stipulations, however, the state and county prosecutors have agreed — as the court ordered — not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths. The stipulation now awaits approval by the court.

Most states have so-called clergy-penitent privilege laws that effectively shield religious leaders from having to report child abuse claims they hear in confessional settings. A 2022 report by Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, detailed how this loophole has protected churches from prosecutions and civil lawsuits from victims seeking accountability. Washington had sought to join the few other states without such protections.

In Washington, the governor had denounced the lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops in his state, with Ferguson saying that he was “disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.”

Jean Hill, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said in a statement last week that “preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.”

Ja’han Jones

Ja’han Jones is an BLN opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog. He is a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

Published

on

Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

About a month after Election Day 2024, as Donald Trump prepared to return to the White House, the Republican appeared on “Meet the Press” and explained his victory to NBC News’ Kristen Welker.

“I won on groceries,” he saidadding: “I won an election based on that.” Looking ahead, Trump concludedin reference to food prices for consumers: “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

After returning to power, the president began boasting about his successes on the issue, assuring Americans that he had lowered the cost of groceries — despite the administration’s own data, which shows grocery costs have gone up this year, not down.

Complicating matters, the president’s own team fears that the problem will soon get worse, as a direct result of the Republican White House’s own agenda. The Washington Post reported:

The Trump administration said that its immigration crackdown is hurting farmers and risking higher food prices for Americans by cutting off agriculture’s labor supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that ‘the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

According to the Labor Department’s assessment, which was first reported by The American Prospectthe administration needs to act “immediately” to prevent the problem from getting worse.

The Post’s report noted that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that, in the aftermath of Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the U.S. farm workforce will become “100% American.” Trump’s Labor Department doesn’t see that as realistic, since Americans lack the will and skills to replace migrant farmworkers.

“The Department concludes that qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers,” the agency said.

In other words, the president who claimed that he won a second term based on food prices, and who vowed to bring consumer costs at grocery stores “way down,” is already lying about his recent record. But making matters even worse is the fact that his own administration expects the problem to get worse, as food production slows as a result of the White House’s campaign against immigrants, which is likely to reduce supply, pushing prices up.

At that point, Trump will have to choose between competing campaign promises: Will he let immigrants stay and help stabilize food costs, or will he deport these workers and risk the fury of consumers who’ll see prices at their local grocery store climb?

Steve Benen

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending