The Palestine plan
It shows how much the West has changed since Iraq
Well the first thing to say is obviously, what a change from the era of democratization:
9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.
…
19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
Emphasis added. There’ll be a committee of apolitical technocrats headed by Trump, maybe with Blair — two Westerners — whose goal is economic growth. Then the PA will take over when it has reformed itself “faithfully”. And after that, there “may” be a “path” to Palestinian self-determination.
Compare and contrast with the US/UK declaration from 2005:
We warmly welcome the Iraqi Governing Council’s announcement of a timetable for the creation of a sovereign Iraqi Transitional Administration by the end of June 2004, and for a process leading to the adoption of a permanent constitution and national elections for a new Iraqi government by the end of 2005.
This announcement is consistent with our long-stated aim of handing over power to Iraqis as quickly as possible. It is right that Iraqis are making these decisions and for the first time in generations determining their own future.
I don’t find this surprising, and I think it’s broadly the right approach. Israel is not going to accept a democratic government in Gaza when the last election was won by Hamas and when many Gazans still support them. It would be like having elections in post-war Germany without denazifying first. Meanwhile, Gazans desperately need peace and development.
Still, it’s remarkable how little mainstream pushback there has been. Imagine if in 2005, Bush had said Iraq should be ruled by technocrats until some unspecified future point!
Plus, essentially this is a protectorate. A Western one or an Arab one? That’s not clear yet. Despite Trump and Blair, the Arabs will provide the guns:
15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces.
Here is a second, more speculative point: there seems to be a disjuncture between the populist right’s rhetoric and behaviour. From how they talk, you’d think that the new right hated neoliberalism. Patrick Deneen wrote Why Liberalism Failed. Marco Rubio said: “Our challenge is an economic order that is bad for America… our nation does not exist to serve the interests of the market. The market exists to serve our nation and our people.” Sohrab Ahmari in Tyranny Inc. attacks “the world we inhabit today: a system that allows the asset-owning few to subject the asset-less many to pervasive coercion”…. Wow, you’d sure think that markets suck!
But when you look at how they act in power, of the two institutions of the “End of History” defined by Francis Fukuyama, they seem much more keen on free markets than on democracy. Trump is bailing out Javier Milei, an old school libertarian. And this plan looks very like another libertarian dream: the Charter City.
Is this hypocrisy? Maybe not, or at least not the kind of hypocrisy you might be thinking of. I think many populist policymakers sincerely believe that free markets are best for population welfare; when they, or intellectuals in their movement, rail against markets and “neoliberalism” they are being hypocritical by attacking a cause that has always been a whipping boy. Everyone “knows” that the neoliberal era is over, so if you hope to be the intellectual cutting edge of the new right, then you’re going to have to say bad things about it. But nobody has actually come up with a better plan for national prosperity.
If you found this interesting, please help good ideas to spread by liking and sharing it. Also, why not subscribe? Subscribing helps me to keep writing and producing ideas. A paid subscription costs just £3.50/month (about $5). Yearly subscribers get a great big 40% discount, plus a free copy of my book.
A thought-provoking analysis. Thank you
That isn't a US/UK declaration from 2005, that is a US/UK declaration from 2003 announcing that in June 2004 they would replace the Coalition Provisional Authority, an unelected occupational government headed by Paul Bremer, with a unelected technocratic Iraqi government headed by Ayad Allawi who was tasked with setting up the actual elected government via elections before the end of 2005. This actually did happen within the planned timeline, but we didn't know it would at the time.
In many ways it's a similar situation except without the timetable.