Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
For the sixth time, America has used its veto power in Security Council to oppose an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. On previous occasions when veto power was used by America only its blind support for Israel was seen as the cause. In the backdrop of the 'Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust' ( Great Trust) policy proposal discussed in White House in August this year and the current ground invasion of Gaza city by Israel the motive behind the latest veto appears to be more sinister and diabolic.
Let us recapitulate the recent events relating to Gaza that preceded the use of veto on ceasefire proposal on 18 September. During his first meeting with newly elected president Trump in February where he was told by the president that he envisaged a Mediterranean Riviera in Gaza under American management, Benjamin Netanyahu got more support for ethnic cleansing and new settlements than in his wildest dream. On his return the first action he took was stopping aid distribution by UNRWA in Gaza and thereby subjects the Palestinians to starvation with a view to breaking down their will to remain in Gaza. Forcing the hungry Palestinians to go to the few food distribution sites of the new- fangled American private company, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in southern Gaza, served two purposes: (a) killing and injuring Palestinians seeking food aid to terrorise them; and (b) bringing them within the area that aid agencies and civil society bodies described as a 'concentration camp'. When criticisms over Israel's policy of 'weaponising food' and slaughtering food seekers at distribution sites of GHF became strident, president Trump sent his Middle-East envoy Mark Witkoff to visit Israel in August. He was seen in a cordial meeting with Netanyahu which was followed by visit to a GHF site with selected journalists. But no statement was issued by him, either on his meeting with Netanyahu or on the field trip. He was next seen in Moscow meeting President Putin and inviting him on behalf of president Trump to a bilateral summit meeting on Ukraine. This raised questions by Middle-East observers about his earlier visits to Israel. What did he discuss or tell Benyamin Netanyahu this time? What message from president Trump did he carry relating to the Gaza war? Why was nothing said by him in public or to the media about his visit to Israel? If it was meant to effect a ceasefire to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza and release of Israeli hostages why didn't he visit Qatar, the Gulf country that had acted as a mediator successfully in the recent past leading to ceasefire twice? To these questions, relating to Witkoff's visit was added the one about the timing of the White House meeting in August on the proposals on post-war Gaza reconstruction (Great Trust). Why was a plan for post-war Gaza drawn up and discussed that envisaged Gaza Palestinians leaving 'voluntarily' when their views were not known? Was it drawn up in pursuance of the views on Gaza's future made public by president Trump in February at his meeting with Netanyahu? Before answers to these questions were available or were up in the air, came the surprise bombing of Doha, capital of Qatar by Israel on September 9.The September 14 visit by secretary of state Mark Rubio that followed the bombing was seen as a possible dressing down of the Israeli prime minister for his reckless attack of an US ally in the Middle-East. But nothing was said by Mark Rubio during or after his visit to Israel that could be assumed to be an expression of displeasure. On the contrary, the strong mutual relation between America and Israel was reiterated. What is more significant is that before Mark Rubio's visit, the Israeli invasion of Gaza to capture the city had already begun, killing Palestinians, destroying high-rises and endangering the lives of hostages. On the day of his visit, Israel ordered full evacuation of Gaza city, a step it had not taken so long. At his next stop in Doha, the priority issue in discussion with Qatar leaders should have been an immediate ceasefire to save lives in Gaza, including those of hostages for which Qatar would be requested by the secretary of state to mediate. But mediation for a ceasefire was not on the agenda, which appeared to consist of assuring Qatar that such bombing by Israel would not take place again, parroting what president Trump had said earlier.
Fast forward to September 18, the United States (US) vetoes a proposal supported by 14 members of Security Council for unconditional and immediate ceasefire and release of hostages. From the chronology of events ending on the latest veto by the US, it becomes obvious that Trump administration has not been interested in a permanent ceasefire in Israel's war in Gaza that has taken a toll of hundreds of thousands of civilians and continue to do so at present. What then does the present American administration want? Based on what has happened to the Palestinians, their hearths and homes and their cities and towns during the past two years and the brutal invasion of Gaza city now underway in full fury, the answer can be found by any intelligent person. President Trump wants Israel to 'finish the job', an utterance made by him on several occasions when the issue came up for discussion. From this simple extrapolation, it can be assumed that both Witkoff and Mark Rubio during their last visit to Israel advised Netanyahu to quickly finish the job, which ironically rhymes with Hitler's 'final solution' about the Jews in Europe.
A devastated Gaza, with nothing standing upright, a vast wasteland and the surviving Palestinians corralled in a concentration camp awaiting rehabilitation, what allure does this 'demolition ground' (Trump's favourite description of Gaza) hold for America and by implication, for Israel? Is it only for the money to be earned by developing the strip into a Mediterranean Riviera and a high tech hub, initially conceived by Trump together with his wily son in law and subsequently concretised in 'Great Trust' by policy planners?
Initially that real estate vision might have tempted Donald Trump, a veteran of murky projects in America (New York and Florida) and UK (Golf course in Scotland). But subsequently, something bigger may have emerged as a possibility that serves more than one purpose, the mother of all purposes, to put it grandiloquently. What about an American base in Gaza with the facade of a tourist and high-tech hub? Imagination and ambition could not soar higher than this dream project and it appears once in a century. President Trump and his cronies may not have been able to stop salivating ever since the idea struck them.
But why would America want to build a base in Gaza? The answer is: why not? Look at the geography and the security footprints of America in the Middle-East. The answer is so simple and straightforward that one who could not guess it would hang his/ her head in embarrassment.
Middle-East has long been strategically important to America for two reasons. Firstly, the Arab countries have collectively the largest reserves of oil and gas in a region in the world, amounting to 50 per cent. Guarding these reserves through treaties, commercial contracts and above all, with military might has been in America's interest. Secondly, through the Suez Canal passes bulk of globally traded goods including oil and gas by ships and it is in America's interest to protect this lifeline of global economy. America has sought to protect its interests in this sensitive area through military agreements with Arab countries that have seen it establishing air, ground and naval bases in many places. According to Centre for Strategic and International Studies, as of now there is/are a naval support base in Bahrain (9,000 personnel); a permanent base in Egypt, Iraq (2,500 personnel), and Jordan (3000); several permanent bases in Kuwait (13,500); the biggest airbase of Abu Obaida in Qatar (8,000); permanent bases in Saudi Arabia (3,000); and a permanent air base in UAE (3,500). In addition to these bases, America maintains the warships of its Sixth Fleet headquartered in Italian port of Naples. If Gaza is taken over by America after Israel 'finishes off' the war, then many of these regional military bases can either be terminated or reduced in size, both in terms of manpower and hardware. The Sixth Fleet can be transferred lock stock and barrel to a deep-sea port in Gaza. The prospects make a strong strategic and economic sense even to generalists like president Trump.
A military base with air, ground and naval forces and hardware in Gaza will serve another important purpose not mentioned earlier. It will militarily contain both Iran and Russia's sphere of influence and prevent these two countries from attacking America's allies. The military base in Gaza, will change the geo-politics of the Middle-East to the advantage of America until space warfare takes over with the help of artificial intelligence (AI).
Analysts may point out that the establishment of a military base in Gaza requires a shift in the military strategy and posture of America of such a magnitude the precedence for which is not available to support it. If by 'precedence' is meant the past then the observation is valid. But that precedence has just been created under Trump administration through a number of policy changes and actions that include substituting Pentagon with Department of War, declaration to take over Greenland from Denmark and attacking Venezuelans ships without declaring a war. Under president Trump America has revived the spirit of imperialism of yore and is already flexing its muscles. Establishing a military base will be of a piece with these recrudescences of vintage imperialism.
How will the world react to the takeover of Gaza by America? The reactions are predictable and they will be mixed in tone and nature. First to react and denounce this move will be Russia, China, Iran and North Korea on geo-political ground. The Arab leaders who matter most in Middle-East calculus will keep quiet and may even participate in the reconstruction and development of Gaza. For the same reason that led them to have American bases on their soil and waters, they will welcome a military base in Gaza. Their regimes will feel protected thereby. Israel will most happily welcome a military base in Gaza as it will relieve them of many of the military activities that they are obliged to undertake now for protection. If in the scheme of things for post-war Gaza space is allowed for some Jewish settlements, which is most likely, Israel would have best of both the worlds. America will not grudge this as Israel is preparing the ground by 'finishing the job' in Gaza on its behalf.
Most interesting will be the speculation about how the Europeans will react to the new strategic makeover in Gaza. The informed guess is Europe will be divided. The majority of European countries will be won over by the argument that having a military base in Gaza will give them greater protection from any future Russian threat. But some European countries will take a moral high ground and question the legality of America's takeover of Gaza. If non- recognition of Israel's occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and creeping annexation of the West Bank has not deterred Israel from occupying the Palestinian land such moral posturing by a few European countries will not stop America from its neo-imperialist project in Gaza.
The only people that will not approve of the taking over of Gaza will be the Palestinians of Gaza. Hungry, destitute, uprooted from homes, bereaved at the deaths of near and dear ones, rendered invalid mentally and physically and with no friends among neighbours, they can only draw consolation from the fact that men and women, young and old, all over the world, have gathered in streets, campuses, boats and in sundry public places for days on end, shouting 'Free Palestine'.
The world has not seen such a display of love for an oppressed people in a long time.