Dazzling rhetoric hides partiality as a self-appointed ruler steps into history
The 20-point Gaza peace proposal of 29 September 2025, proclaimed by US President Donald Trump as if unveiling destiny itself, demands scrutiny – not only for itsall-or-nothing approach and lack of parity, but also for this pressing question: why rely on a biased broker?
In a thrilling, yet chilling, replay of Napoleon’s self-coronation on 2 December 1804, Trump appointed himself de facto governor of Gaza on 29 September 2025 – a day he hailed as one of the greatest in the history of civilization.
The Coronation of Napoleon, oil on canvas by Jacques-Louis David, 1805–07
As politicians so often do, Trump insisted he had merely been asked to take the role. Yet even if true, that would hardly justify accepting it. Refusal, in fact, might have been the wiser choice – raising the odds of genuine peace.
Newspeak in action
Trump intends to head a so-called “Board of Peace,” a term that ominously echoes Orwellian newspeak – language engineered to reshape thought itself.
This kind of rhetoric inverts meaning, as when war is called peace. It slims the vocabulary, reducing words like “terrible” or “awful” to a single term: “ungood.” Authority is dressed in a positive light, as with the Ministry of Love, which oversees torture. And it erases subtle distinctions, collapsing everything worse than bad into “plusungood.”
The “Board of Peace” is a textbook case of newspeak in action: a name that promises harmony while masking control (semantic inversion), simplifies authority into a single, reassuring label (reduction of vocabulary), recasts power as benevolence (positive framing of authority), and wipes out subtle distinctions about its actions or impact (suppression of nuance).
Detractors may argue that in oldspeak – the traditional, straightforward language of the past – the proper term for Trump’s apparatus would be “Colonial Council” or, more scorching, “Protectorate Administration.”
Israel’s greatest friend ever
Given that the Gaza role demands impartiality, it is striking that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly hailed Trump as the “greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.”
At the 29 September 2025 press conference, Netanyahu remarked on Trump’s Gaza regime: “The fact that you’re taking this on I think helps a lot to make sure that everything flows in the direction that we want.” Independence? Apparently, no masks are needed anymore.
According to talk show host Tucker Carlson – whom Russian President Vladimir Putin deemed trustworthy enough to grant an interview – Netanyahu publicly boasted that he controls both Trump and the US, a claim the prime minister later denied.
Even if Trump has not been pulled by Netanyahu’s strings like a puppet on a stage, his foreign, economic, and military policies leave little doubt where his allegiance lies – blending theatrical flair with uncompromising support that will mark his presidency indelibly in the annals of US-Israel relations.
During his tenure, Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and affirmed Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, vetoed UN resolutions critical of Israeli policies, and inundated the country with advanced military aid, from F-35s to precision munitions. This flow of weapons, remarkably, continued unabated during Israel’s war on Gaza, which the UN classified as genocide.
In 2025, Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court after it had issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza war. Critics may argue that inviting an indicted war criminal to the White House borders on complicity.
Trump also barred the Palestinian delegation from attending the 2025 UN General Assembly in New York – a brazen affront to international norms that, astonishingly, drew only muted condemnation and underscores the urgency of relocating the UN headquarters to a nation that truly respects the rule of law.
Against this backdrop – and given Trump’s mercurial temperament – designating the US president as governor of Gaza invites striking, if unsettling, analogies.
Pundits may say that Trump’s Gaza appointment is like naming a bull keeper of a china shop, putting Henry VIII in charge of marriage counseling, or entrusting Hannibal, Rome’s deadliest enemy, with the eternal city’s defenses.
Staunch Romans would never have approved such a choice, nor would Palestinian nationalists accept Trump as their protective ruler – yet another built-in obstacle threatening to unravel the peace ploy.
A Palestinian negotiator relying on Trump’s assurance that Israel will honor its commitments once his key bargaining chip – the hostages – has been relinquished is like a mouse trusting a cat’s promise that a befriended cat will not eat it. In nature, the mouse will almost certainly be devoured by both; in politics, the likely outcome is no different.
A dishonest broker in the West
Trump’s Gaza appointment epitomizes a larger problem: the US posing as an honest broker in the Middle East.
Washington is widely seen as a biased mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict, consistently shielding Israel with massive financial and military aid – granting it unrivaled access to the world’s most advanced military technology – vetoing UN resolutions critical of it, and pressuring Palestinians to compromise, all of which erode its credibility as an honest broker.
This unwavering support has persisted throughout the history of the Jewish state. As of January 2025, US aid to Israel totaled an estimated $298 billion, adjusted for inflation.
Even US presidents who occasionally took a more critical stance towards Israel still greenlit massive aid packages. Take President Barack Obama: Broadly supportive overall, he sometimes took issue with Israel, especially over settlement expansion, and pressed for concessions to advance peace.
During his administration (2009–2017), the US provided the Jewish state with over $26 billion in assistance, covering both military and economic aid. Adjusted for inflation to 2025 dollars, this amounts to roughly $38 billion. In addition, a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – the most generous military aid commitment in US history – signed in 2016, pledged $38 billion from 2019 to 2028.
By consistently privileging Israel’s political positions and security, the US is seen less as a neutral mediator and more as a partisan actor in the Middle East conflict.
Palestinians, confronted with a partial mediator offering a peace plan that places them squarely between a hammer and an anvil, would be wise to seek a truly honest broker. To find one, they must look East.
An honest broker in the East
Unlike the US, Russia maintains strong ties not only with Israel but with virtually all key Muslim states, deftly balancing alliances while asserting influence on the ground. Its past engagement in Syria – preserving stability, brokering ceasefires, and protecting strategic interests – demonstrates its capacity for constructive mediation.
By safeguarding its own interests, Russia emerges as a credible arbiter: a superpower invested in regional stability rather than favoritism, and thus a potentially more reliable mediator for Palestine. With deep, far-reaching regional credibility, bolstered by boots on the ground, Moscow is better positioned than the US to act as an honest broker in the Middle East.
In its new role, Russia could help regional stakeholders resolve the root causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict – contentious matters egregiously neglected in the US Gaza peace ploy. The next fateful act is about to unfold.
