Bought and Sold for English Gold

 The relief and joy are certainly palpable today, as we watch the long-overdue ceasefire in Gaza finally being implemented. My heart too swells to hear about hostages being released after years of captivity and desperately-needed food and medical supplies finally being allowed to flow unhindered into the Strip. 

Everything that's happening today is undoubtedly good news, compared to all that has gone before, the last two years. 

And yet, I can't help but feel a bit queasy about what comes next. 

I don't just mean the fragility of the peace itself—though that is considerable. (Even if Israel pulls back from its occupation of Gaza City, it may continue to conduct periodic strikes in the enclave—no doubt claiming a military justification each time, but also endangering civilians. Hamas, meanwhile, has not really committed to disarm nor fully accepted the proposed peace deal.)

I also mean that the details of Trump's peace plan itself are quite troubling. It appears to envision a role for various Gulf autocracies and Arab states in the running of daily affairs in Gaza; maybe even a role for the Palestinians themselves—fancy that! 

But in the meantime, Trump and Tony Blair (Tony Blair!) are apparently to exercise interim responsibilities for governing Gaza, as heads of something with the Orwellian-sounding title of the "Board of Peace."

So what we're actually talking about here is the U.S. President and a former UK Prime Minister (who is best known for co-leading an unlawful invasion and occupation of another Middle Eastern state two decades ago) informally seizing control of Gaza for an indefinite period, potentially extending far into the future. (The "Special Relationship," as Harold Pinter portrayed it, redivivus.)

How do we think they will use that power? What exactly do we know about Trump's plans for Gaza? In the past he has talked about sponsoring a total ethnic cleansing of the Strip's civilian population. He famously floated plans to bulldoze Gaza and transform it into a beachfront resort—emptied of Palestinians—for the benefit of big developers—no doubt including members of his own family. 

We know that Trump does not care about the human rights of Palestinians. What appears to have motivated him to finally intercede in the conflict was the threat of losing his family's lucrative business deals with Qatar—after Israel struck Hamas negotiators in the Gulf state. 

With Trump, when struggling to understand the motives for his behavior, often all we have to do is to follow the money. It seems that he decided the current Israeli occupation and devastation in Gaza was bad for business—and so he sought to end it, which is surely a good thing. 

But what will he replace it with? It appears the answer is: quasi-permanent rule by Trump himself, with the help of a disgraced former leader of the British government, for the benefit of Trump's family and Gulf state autocrats seeking to cash in on the redevelopment of the enclave. 

Trump may be trying to get his "Riviera of the Middle East" after all. 

That's why—even though I am certainly relieved to see the daily killing and starvation in Gaza come to a halt for now—I'm queasy at the sight of people celebrating Trump for the outcome—in the same way that Byron was dismayed to see King George III being feted in Ireland, despite being the cause of the country's suffering. Let us have no parades for would-be colonial overlords, please. 

After all, people really need to pay attention to the details of what Trump is actually proposing here. His much-vaunted "peace plan" is actually a proposal for the indefinite return of an indirect form of British colonialism, with Trump himself as a kind of one-man East India Company, proposing to govern the enclave autocratically, in a twisted public-private partnership designed for the enrichment of one man—plus his family and authoritarian business cronies. 

If implemented fully, Trump plan will certainly bring about an easing in the current daily suffering of Palestinian civilians. But it may come at the expense of any long-term prospect for Palestinian freedom or statehood—all so that Trump and a would-be British colonial administrator can enrich themselves. 

"We're bought and sold for English gold," as Robert Burns once said, of an earlier form of English imperialism. Except in this case, its not only English gold or Blair's gold; it's also Qatari gold; Gulf autocracy gold; Saudi gold; Trump's gold. Follow the money.