Sure it’s crazy – but Trump’s Gaza plan just might work

Are we to assume that those who call Donald Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip crazy have a better plan (“Trump’s Gaza game brazen and naive”, 8-9/2)? The nebulous two-state solution no longer fits the category. In less than 20 years since Hamas took control of the territory there have been the Gazan wars of 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2023. On each occasion Hamas has been defeated at the hands of Israel. How then is it conceivable for a lasting peace if Israel and Palestine are to share a common border under a new arrangement, particularly when the latter denies the former’s right to exist?

The expectation that Hamas – or any other faction – would have no political role in an autonomous Palestinian state is equally fanciful. Trump’s plan may be from left field but, unlike most, he has a record of achievement in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords and only wants a chance to break the nexus of its forever war.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

A two-state solution is now out of the question. It’s yesterday’s idea, championed only by those in denial, such as Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who are unable to accept reality. Israel would prefer to survive as a vibrant democracy in the Middle East without being perpetually at war. This is why Donald Trump’s idea for a reset in Gaza has merit. Any state that emerges must then be founded on a non-aggression pact with Israel.

Allan Kalus, Windsor, Vic

Trump’s so-called Gaza gambit is simply a conversation starter and it’s working because he has everyone’s attention focused on the issue (“Why Donald Trump’s naive plan to ‘own’ Gaza won’t work”, 8-9/2). Everyone is talking and writing about it, and at least it’s upbeat, positive, optimistic and outlining in broad brushstrokes the possibilities of the future compared with the dystopian existence of today. It would be wise to revisit the observation of journalist Salena Zito in 2016: “The media takes Trump literally but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously but not literally.” His thinking on Gaza and the predictable reaction is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

Jim Ball, Narrabeen, NSW

Donald Trump, the real estate New Yorker wheeler and dealer President, may not have read the history of the disputed Israeli land, as Chris Uhlmann has, but he does get the evidence of it in the political here and now.

We may soon get over the fun of mocking Trump’s idea to turn the rubble of Gaza into a Palestinian Riviera. Reality will force many to admit the Trump idea is the only, if not the best, plan since all the conflict began.

Uhlmann expertly summarises the stalemate and it reads like a depressing permanent logjam (“Trump fails to learn from history, and the Bible”, 8-9/2). Get over it, declares Trump. Temporary relocation of Palestinian refugees to neighbouring countries could be possible. The monster blocking this vision is Hamas, an organisation that appears even more despicable as we witness the barbarity of its fighters when releasing the gaunt hostages. The ongoing question will be how to control Islamist terrorism.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

Many knock Donald Trump and dismiss him as some sort of clown cum lunatic; how wrong they are (“The week woke died – Trump revels in status as ‘horrible human being’ ”, 8-9/2). Trump is no fool. He is a clever risk-taker. He will turn the US on its head in his second term.

In the case of Australia, we may not be ready for a Trump figure. Sadly our achilles heel is our political system; a system that has done us proud since Federation but one that also has serious weaknesses. The weakest link in our Westminster-inspired system of government is the Senate.

There was a time when the Senate comprised statesmanlike people who took their job in the house of review seriously. Unlike so many in the Senate today they did not see themselves as an alternative House of Representatives to push their own political agendas. The Senate is not a place for extremists, activists or clowns. The electorate is to blame here: we have elected these people. Changing this will take a minimum of six years but we can start at the next election where half the Senate is up for re-election.

Changing the lower house membership is the easy part but it won’t have the necessary teeth for reform unless we improve the quality of the Senate.

John George, Terrigal, NSW