News
October 03, 2025
Trump has licensed Netanyahu to ‘finish the job’ in Gaza. His plan is peace, maybe – or else
Trump has shown he can, if he is so motivated, simply require Israel to do things. Why, then, won’t he make Israel let more aid into Gaza or give up any designs on ethnically cleansing Gaza?
Donald Trump has signaled a hands-off approach to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, effectively giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leeway to "finish the job," according to recent statements and observations. This stance raises critical questions about the potential future of the region, particularly concerning humanitarian aid and the long-term prospects for peace.
While the exact meaning of "finish the job" remains open to interpretation, it suggests a continuation, and perhaps intensification, of Israel's military operations in Gaza. This has fueled concerns regarding the already dire humanitarian situation within the territory. Observers point to Trump's demonstrated ability to influence Israeli policy, evidenced by past instances where he successfully pressured the Israeli government to take specific actions. This begs the question: why isn't Trump leveraging his influence now to alleviate the suffering of Palestinian civilians?
Specifically, the lack of pressure on Israel to allow significantly more humanitarian aid into Gaza is drawing criticism. International organizations and aid agencies have repeatedly warned of a looming famine and widespread disease due to the limited access to food, water, and medical supplies. Trump's silence on this issue, coupled with the implied green light for Netanyahu, raises concerns about the priorities being placed on military objectives over humanitarian needs.
Furthermore, the question of potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza remains a sensitive and volatile subject. Although explicit plans have not been publicly confirmed, concerns persist about forced displacement and the long-term implications for the Palestinian population. The absence of a clear and firm stance from Trump against any such actions has further amplified these anxieties.
Ultimately, the long-term consequences of Trump's approach remain uncertain. His plan, if it can be called that, hinges on the idea that allowing Netanyahu to pursue his objectives will ultimately lead to peace. However, critics argue that this strategy risks exacerbating the conflict, deepening resentment, and undermining any prospects for a lasting resolution. The alternative – "or else," as the situation is being characterized – remains shrouded in ambiguity, leaving the future of Gaza and the wider region hanging precariously in the balance.
While the exact meaning of "finish the job" remains open to interpretation, it suggests a continuation, and perhaps intensification, of Israel's military operations in Gaza. This has fueled concerns regarding the already dire humanitarian situation within the territory. Observers point to Trump's demonstrated ability to influence Israeli policy, evidenced by past instances where he successfully pressured the Israeli government to take specific actions. This begs the question: why isn't Trump leveraging his influence now to alleviate the suffering of Palestinian civilians?
Specifically, the lack of pressure on Israel to allow significantly more humanitarian aid into Gaza is drawing criticism. International organizations and aid agencies have repeatedly warned of a looming famine and widespread disease due to the limited access to food, water, and medical supplies. Trump's silence on this issue, coupled with the implied green light for Netanyahu, raises concerns about the priorities being placed on military objectives over humanitarian needs.
Furthermore, the question of potential ethnic cleansing in Gaza remains a sensitive and volatile subject. Although explicit plans have not been publicly confirmed, concerns persist about forced displacement and the long-term implications for the Palestinian population. The absence of a clear and firm stance from Trump against any such actions has further amplified these anxieties.
Ultimately, the long-term consequences of Trump's approach remain uncertain. His plan, if it can be called that, hinges on the idea that allowing Netanyahu to pursue his objectives will ultimately lead to peace. However, critics argue that this strategy risks exacerbating the conflict, deepening resentment, and undermining any prospects for a lasting resolution. The alternative – "or else," as the situation is being characterized – remains shrouded in ambiguity, leaving the future of Gaza and the wider region hanging precariously in the balance.
Category:
World