President Trump’s role in relation to other countries resembles that of the Fool in Shakespeare. He provides a sort of running satire on how rulers behave, and his antic wit expresses, amid the foolery, certain truths. In relation to Gaza, the prevailing idea of the ‘international community’ is that, because of the 7 October massacres and Israel’s subsequent decapitation of the Hamas leadership, the answer is ‘a two-state solution’. This orthodoxy is tragi-comic in its lack of reality. Mr Trump looks at the matter differently. He sees how a place like Dubai – within living memory just a swelteringly hot port with a strip of sand – has become the preferred permanent, luxurious residence of thousands of peaceful people from all over the world (including, incidentally, increasing numbers of British who can’t stand staying here any longer). He asks himself whether Gaza, which is also hot and coastal, isn’t a ‘riviera’ where piles of money may be made. His idea is not a policy. But it might be America’s equivalent for the Palestinians of Balfour’s declaration for the Jews, a dream on which something could eventually be built.
Like so many things at present, the recent poll in which young people welcome the thought of a dictator reminds me of the 1970s. I remember arguing with fellow undergraduates about this 50 years ago. They said democracies are too spineless: only a dictator can get things done. My point was that freedom was more important than getting things done. Years later, I realised that I was creating a false antithesis. There is usually no reason to think that a dictatorship will be more efficient than a free country.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in