"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Americans love that Mark Twain quote. In just two weeks in the White House, Donald Trump wantsthe United States to "take ownership" of Gaza, buy Greenland from Denmark (or rather, force Denmark to sell it through tariffs), occupy all of Canada (the second-largest country in the world), and the Panama Canal.
These are echoes of the past. Pure historical rhyme. The last time the United States annexed a territory was in 1898 when it conquered Hawaii. The closest precedent of buying a territory was in 1917 when the US acquired - precisely from Denmark - what are now the US Virgin Islands for 35 million dollars at the time, which today would be 591 million euros. That is also the last purchase of territory from another country.
The unexpected announcement of occupying Gaza, carrying out an ethnic cleansing by expelling the population living there, and transforming the territory into a tourist area seems to follow Trump's unfulfilled promises and threats, of which we had two good examples this week when the US president committed to postponing the trade war against Mexico and Canada in exchange for vague promises from both countries that are practically impossible to verify in practice and, furthermore, in the case of the latter, had already been announced in December to preemptively appease Trump.
Talking about occupying a country is easier said than done. A military intervention abroad must be approved by the US Congress, so Trump cannot send soldiers just like that. However, the law has been twisted on many occasions. Reagan did not seek that authorization to escort Kuwaiti oil tankers taking oil from Iraq in 1988 and 1989, which culminated in several naval battles between the US and Iran. Neither did Obama with the interventions in Libya, Syria, or Iraq against the Islamic State, which Trump continued, again without asking for permission from anyone.
In the case of Gaza, Trump could argue that it is a humanitarian mission, which would initially exempt him from that requirement. It is true that George Bush Sr. sought permission from Congress to intervene in Somalia and try to prevent a famine in 1992, but those were different times. The current president has no interest in listening to Congress.
However, Trump has another problem: his voters. And although his ally, the Fox News network, says this is just "a reconstruction plan," Gaza, although very small - equivalent to the municipality of Granada - is a war zone where a fragile ceasefire is in place that could break at any moment. A large part of Trump's followers oppose military adventures abroad.
And while some evangelical and Jewish voters may support him, the more nationalist sector of 'Trumpism' would strongly oppose it, as Republican Senator Rand Paul did on Wednesday by tweeting: "I thought we voted [in the November 5 elections] for the US to be for Americans. We have nothing to gain from considering another occupation that sinks our finances and spills the blood of our soldiers."
Another option could be a humanitarian intervention under the auspices of the UN. But that seems even more difficult. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volcker Turk, stated that "any deportation or forced transfer of people without legal basis is strictly prohibited". The European Union - which has a country, France, with veto power in the UN Security Council - described Gaza as "an integral part of the future Palestinian state." The countries in the region also do not want it. And that is a critical problem for Trump, who does not want to use American money.
In reality, the plan unveiled on Tuesday by the US president is a reissue of the 'Deal of the Century', which he and his son-in-law Jared Kushner unsuccessfully promoted in his first presidency. According to that plan, Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank would be deported to Egypt and Jordan, where they would stay permanently. Saudi Arabia would finance the operation, which would amount to several tens of billions of euros. The reconstruction of Gaza - estimated at around 35 billion - does not seem to be considered, given that its inhabitants would be expelled.
But now Saudi Arabia has fewer resources and all its energy is focused on achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda, an ambitious - and controversial - development plan launched by the country's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is very close to Kushner and Trump. So the funding is not clear.
A year ago, Kushner mentioned in a public appearance the tourism possibilities "of a boardwalk in Gaza" and recommended that Israel move the enclave's population "to the Negev Desert and finish the job." Kushner heads the private equity fund Affinity Partners, which has launched several projects in Israel and has investments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, has previously mentioned the tourism opportunities of a Gaza without Palestinians.
Trump, therefore, could do it 'by force' or by stretching US legislation. But the problem is ethnic cleansing. With 2.1 million Palestinians, many of them Hamas sympathizers - and certainly very few close to the US, the country that has footed a third of the bill for the war for Israel - Gaza could become a new guerrilla war. And there is nothing that scares the American public more than a new conflict in the Middle East. They had enough with Afghanistan and Iraq.
To avoid that, there is only one option: forced deportation. Which, in turn, is opposed by the entire international community and would be a total blow to the prestige of the US because how can one reject Russian ethnic cleansing in Ukraine and, at the same time, carry out one in Palestine?