Trump's Latest Will To Power: Gaza

Pres. Trump seems to leveled another shock and awe, this one across the Near East with his declaring that the U.S. will take over Gaza and clear and rebuild the territory. As part of the proposal, the Palestinians living in Gaza would be removed to other countries (and Trump has called on other Muslim countries to take them in), although it is not clear whether this would be permanent or temporary (but long term--perhaps a decade or more). Here are some articles on the subject:

• "Trump lays out exactly how he plans for US to seize control of Gaza"--New York Post. 
• "Why Arab nations may secretly approve of Trump’s Gaza ‘takeover’ proposal"--New York Post.
• "Israeli defense minister orders IDF to plan for Gazans to leave in line with Trump’s controversial proposal"--New York Post.  
• "What Trump REALLY meant when he said the US would take over Gaza: Experts decipher US President's plan to turn destroyed Palestinian territory into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'"--Daily Mail. 
• "Crazy Talk, Vol. 2: Trump's Radical Plan to Take Over Gaza"--PJ Media. 

     If you don't have time to glance at the articles, the gist is that the left has gone crazy over Trump's plan, suggesting that it is ethnic cleansing and illegal under international law. The Arab countries have declared that they are not going to take any Palestinians (although they privately may be relieved to see the U.S. impose a solution). Alternatively, some see Trump's declaration as a way to pressure Muslim countries to come up with a workable solution that doesn't involve the failed so-called "two state solution" which neither side wants. 

    I'm not going to discuss the practicality of the solution because it could very well work--at least to the extent of ridding Israel of a troublesome population. As the author of the "Crazy Talk" article cited above observes, ethnic cleansing works: "Stalin cleared Poland and Czechoslovakia of Germans (and the Soviet Union of Poles), and removed huge sources of friction in Central Europe." Actually, the World War II allies--both east and west--moved many peoples around after the war in order to create true ethno-states and a lasting peace. They knew something that we've forgotten: multicultural, multiethnic states are inherently unstable.

    Rather, there are three points that interest me.

    First, I read an article or saw a video where someone (and I can't remember the source) pointed out something amazing about this whole situation: no one is questioning Trump's power to decide the fate of Gaza, but only fighting over the technicalities of his plan: is it legal under international law? will other states take in the Palestinians? 

    Second, I had expected to see Israel object to the plan because it would essentially entail handing over what they view as Israeli territory to another power. Perhaps Israel feels that it wields so much influence over the U.S. that it will eventually have Gaza handed over to it after the U.S. has invested billions into rebuilding the area. Perhaps Israel is so desperate to have a solution it is willing to trade territory (probably in the form of Gaza becoming a U.S. protectorate) in exchange for peace. Or perhaps Israel is going along because they see it as impossible and will never happen anyway, so why not play along?

    Third, I wonder at the eschatological implications. There is a book by Chris White called Mystery Babylon - When Jerusalem Embraces The Antichrist: An Exposition of Revelation 18 and 19 which raises some good arguments why the latter-day Babylon may actually be Jerusalem based on the text of Revelation chapters 18 and 19. (See, e.g., Rev. 18:24 indicating that the blood of prophets was to be found in Jerusalem). 

    Joel Richardson has disagreed with the idea that Jerusalem could be the Babylon of the last days (although not directly addressing White's book) and  briefly sets out his arguments in his own book titled Mystery Babylon (PDF) as well as at least one YouTube video on the topic. His main objections seem to be: (i) because the Jews are "the chosen people," they (and by extension, their capital city) cannot be in league with the anti-Christ; (ii) because Babylon is to be utterly destroyed but Jerusalem will be made the capital of Christ's earthly rule following the Second Coming, Babylon and Jerusalem cannot be the same; (iii) Babylon is described as being near a sea or ocean, but Jerusalem is not; and (iv) Babylon is described as a major hub of trade, finance, and wealth, but Jerusalem is none of these. 

    I think the first two objections can be dealt with summarily, and from my perspective living in the Western United States, the distance from Jerusalem to the Mediterranean Sea (35 miles) is insignificant. The fourth one, though, might be addressed by Trump's plan for Gaza should it come about. Trump has claimed that the U.S. could build Gaza into the Riviera of the Eastern Mediterranean, such that it would attract wealth and business. This could quite literally turn Israel (and by extension, Jerusalem) into a center of finance and trade. Yes, right now Jerusalem is no City of London, New York, or Shanghai, but in 20 years?

    It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.