Beg to differ. Saudi Arabia’s drawcard is the Hajj which all pious Muslims are bound to do at least once in a lifetime. For the rest of us? No.
That's more than a little out of date, Saudi's Vision 2030 hinges heavily on general tourism and attracting the kind of expat population that currently goes to the Emirates. All the developments around Neom are heavily predicated on tourism.
Sorry to double post. I said the idea of Saudi not liking a tourism rival is not that big, but if we do get the Middle Eastern Riviera that is a reason for Saudi to step into the argument. It is a powerful nation in the area. Yes it will not use guns but it could try and make things difficult
I stand corrected. Seriously though, it’s all a part of how he sees the art of the deal. Unsettle the folks you’re negotiating with! And whatever you do, don’t give the impression you’re reasonable.
As regards the former it is possible that the ruling family are trying to tone down the country’s fundie image. Can’t see that washing over here: plenty of pleasanter places closer to home.
As regards the former it is possible that the ruling family are trying to tone down the country’s fundie image. Can’t see that washing over here: plenty of pleasanter places closer to home.
The plan is for tourist enclaves within the country (and at one time people thought of Dubai as a desert), and they've been active on it for the last few years, including making presentations at the most recent Davos.
In any case, Hugal's point doesn't depend on any of this working, all he's saying is that another reason they'd object would on the basis of possible future competition.
Jeremy Bowen on BBC News perceptively points out that Trump's proposal effectively puts the skids under Phase 2 of the cease-fire agreement (the IDF is reportedly preparing a plan to 'enable' any Palestiians who want to leave Gaza' to do so). When the agreement collapses, Trump's friend Netanyahu will be off the hook, and can resume his war and remain in power. So much for Trump the Peacemaker.
Seconded.
There was a BBC Radio 4 interview with a critic of Netanyahu which effectively said the same thing.
It's simply Trump giving his pal wriggle-room to avoid a cease-fire and to continue until Hamas is 'destroyed' - as though by eliminating Hamas in and of itself resolves the issue.
I hold no brief for Hamas. But 'eliminating' them means killing, maiming and radicalising thousands of Palestinians who happen to be in the way of the Israeli right's loopy expansionist plans and Trump's obscene pipe-dream of a Las Vegas on the Med'.
Interesting that he um-ed and ah-ed when asked about the West Bank.
He'll back Netanyahu there too.
I don't think there's any prospect of Gaza becoming 'Las Vegas On Sea' but I do think there's every likelihood of resumed hostilities, lots, lots, lots more bloodshed and destruction and even more destabilisation.
That said, I've heard reports that Americans and even Canadians are talking about buying 'condos' in Gaza once the fighting stops and the entire strip is levelled to the ground.
You couldn't make it up.
'You create a desert and you call it peace.'
You create a desert and call it 'Trump-Vegas'.
I knew we'd get outrageous ideas from Trump. I hadn't expected anything as bat-shit as this.
But he knows that, one presumes, he's just buying Netanyahu more time to 'complete' the destruction of Hamas and kill even more people in the process.
Besides the very valid arguments on here about re settlement there is a smaller but important argument. Saudi relies very heavily on tourism. I can’t see them being happy about Trumps idea.
Sorry, but I'm not clear how Saudi Arabia having a big tourism industry connects to their opposing Trump's annexationist schemes for the West Bank.
(Overall, I agree his plan is ridiculous, not least because it can't possibly have any support from the major actors in the region.)
Saudi sees itself as the big Middle East tourist draw. Over this side of the pond there are a lot of adverts for it. If Trump wants to turn Palestine in to the Middle Eastern Riviera then that will challenge Saudis tourism dominance. As oil becomes less and less of a money maker Saudi is looking to tourism as a replacement over time.
Maybe he's hoping to build somewhere to move to in four years that won't extradite him back to the US. If that means ethnically cleansing Gaza to make space then I doubt he'd lose sleep over it.
But it got him the news cycle yet again. Which in Trump world is a win.
And it's moved the news on from whatever Elon Musk is up to.
Undoubtedly. At the same time, I’m still minded to think that’s coincidence. They are not Machiavellian genii, either together or individually. So even if we get to live in Bladerunner, I still maintain that’ll be by accident.
Maybe he's hoping to build somewhere to move to in four years that won't extradite him back to the US. If that means ethnically cleansing Gaza to make space then I doubt he'd lose sleep over it.
If he thinks he'll be safe there, I think he'll be grossly mistaken. And that's not a threat. I just look at how much fear and paranoia that there is in Israel, somewhat understandably, and it's something I can humanize.
White people, even centuries later, have myths about ghosts coming out of old Native American burial grounds to haunt them. That blood is fresher.
As an aside, I noted that the Kennedy Centre made an award to the Grateful Dead. I wasn’t a DeadHead but I thought they were a remarkable live band (illegal substances or not.)
I was surprised to discover that Trump counts some DeadHeads amongst his supporters. That really is hard to figure. The late Jerry Garcia would be both turning in his grave and laughing his head off!
In view of the thread, it may be time for an apocalyptic lament? (Recorded over 50 years ago. Never gets old for me.)
Trump has at least one fan in my neck of the woods Someone has written a letter to our local newspaper praising him and saying that he is has the right ideas, seeing off all those fools who think climate change is a real thing.
Solipsism (philosophy) means IIRC that all that we can know for sure to exist is our own consciousness. The colloquial meaning is selfishness so extreme that other people and their needs don’t matter. Not sure that applies completely to Trump. He needs other people to love and admire him. I think.
It did occur to me that MAGA is not really about the USA strengthening its position as World Leader. It seems to be more isolationist than that. More like the needs of other countries don’t matter.
The good news is, Donald is a lame duck president. Every day that goes by his power gets weaker. The courts are finally catching up to his most egregious executive actions (orders). He should be hitting a wall around March 17, which is the deadline for a new budget resolution.
I am thinking this because while the Republican Congress has dallied, many of the programs he has been cutting will affect Republican districts more than Democratic districts. I am thinking the Republicans will have to grow some balls by that time.
And, since we are at it. How many plane crashes have there been in the US since DJT has been inaugurated? Food prices don't seem to be coming down either.
Seeing this administration in action makes me glad that presidential elections are run by individual states.
I predict Trump's downfall, if indeed he has one, will come about largely via the combined effect of American decentralization and the American court system.
And this is not meant as a slight against congressional Democrats, as I recognize they are pretty much hamstrung by the trifecta.
It did occur to me that MAGA is not really about the USA strengthening its position as World Leader. It seems to be more isolationist than that. More like the needs of other countries don’t matter.
Apart from his outrageous vision for Gaza, his foreign-policy can best be described as "bolstering American influence in its own hemisphere, withdrawing from everywhere else." Which I think was actually the classic isolationist position.
After he decided that refugees fleeing war and persecution aren't welcome in the US, Trump has now decided that rich white South Africans do count as refugees. Did the illegal migrant from South Africa who's pulling his strings have anything to do with that, I wonder?
After he decided that refugees fleeing war and persecution aren't welcome in the US, Trump has now decided that rich white South Africans do count as refugees. Did the illegal migrant from South Africa who's pulling his strings have anything to do with that, I wonder?
Thst seems to be the general suspicion.
I'm also hearing from South Africans themselves that the number of white South Africans interested in migrating would not be a huge one, and not significant enough to be an electoral boost for Republicans.
After he decided that refugees fleeing war and persecution aren't welcome in the US, Trump has now decided that rich white South Africans do count as refugees. Did the illegal migrant from South Africa who's pulling his strings have anything to do with that, I wonder?
Thst seems to be the general suspicion.
I'm also hearing from South Africans themselves that the number of white South Africans interested in migrating would not be a huge one, and not significant enough to be an electoral boost for Republicans.
What matters more is that yet another conspiracy theory of the far right is being mainstreamed.
The courts are finally catching up to his most egregious executive actions (orders).
Finally? He only started issuing executive orders less than three weeks ago, and courts have been issuing temporary restraining orders within a day or two of lawsuits being filed.
I think many of the US judiciary will do their best with the unconstitutional EOs. But with this SCOTUS, who can rule out the unconstitutional being rationalised as constitutional after all?
I think many of the US judiciary will do their best with the unconstitutional EOs. But with this SCOTUS, who can rule out the unconstitutional being rationalised as constitutional after all?
It's hard to predict. I know that Gorsuch and Coney Barrett have voted and written against Trump's positions(in regards to both ideological and electoral disputes) at one point or another. So I speculate that neither of them have any sentimental desire to do the man's bidding in all cases.
Not sure if Kavanaugh's ever ruled against Trump, but I know in his anti-Roe opinion, he expressed what sounded like a sincere desire to banish ANY rulings about abortion from the high court, in line, I assume, with his personal view of the constitution. So he MIGHT be amenable to procedural arguments against Trump.
Thomas and Alito are surefire pro-Trump, being the the closest the court has to TV evangelists deciding the nation's laws. This despite having both been appointed by a family dynasty now rhapsodized as the avatars of moderate, inclusive Republicanism.
I don't know enough Roberts to say how he'd vote. His media reputation seems to be of a patrician conservative, somewhat unnerved by recent perceptions of the court as radical-right, so make of that what you will.
I would assume Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would all be anti-Trump, though I don't know enough about their respective jurisprudence to know if there could be a few wild cards there.
Not sure if Kavanaugh's ever ruled against Trump, but I know in his anti-Roe opinion, he expressed what sounded like a sincere desire to banish ANY rulings about abortion from the high court, in line, I assume, with his personal view of the constitution. So he MIGHT be amenable to procedural arguments against Trump.
From the sounds of it, Kavanagh concurred with the majority allowing JD Vance access to Trumps financial records.
I think many of the US judiciary will do their best with the unconstitutional EOs. But with this SCOTUS, who can rule out the unconstitutional being rationalised as constitutional after all?
There are a number of academics, mostly integralists, who are willing to argue in the opposite direction. Vance was re-tweeting Vermule earlier.
Are they doing that to appear impartial? How significant were the matters?
In the case of Gorsuch's opinion supporting lgbqt rights, I think it was based on his textualist legal theory. AIUI, the relevant laws forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation, but Gorsuch figured that if a man married to a man can't get coverage from his husband's plan, he's being discriminated against as a man, because a woman married to a man would be able to get coverage.
Obviously, textualism is loved by anti-choicers, because the constitution doesn't explicitly state a right to privacy, and the gun lobby, because the Second Amendment doesn't say guns can ONLY be used as part of a militia.
Not sure why Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted against Trump in the cases they did, and I can't remember what the issues were. I doubt any of the judges were overly concerned about advertising their impartiality, since it's not like they have to impress anyone but themselves.
Are they doing that to appear impartial? How significant were the matters?
In the case of Gorsuch's opinion supporting lgbqt rights, I think it was based on his textualist legal theory. AIUI, the relevant laws forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation, but Gorsuch figured that if a man married to a man can't get coverage from his husband's plan, he's being discriminated against as a man, because a woman married to a man would be able to get coverage.
I think the manner in which the Federalist Society elevates people relatively earlier in their career is that they occasionally end up with a true believer, whose particular reasoning might be unique to themselves.
Are they doing that to appear impartial? How significant were the matters?
In the case of Gorsuch's opinion supporting lgbqt rights, I think it was based on his textualist legal theory. AIUI, the relevant laws forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation, but Gorsuch figured that if a man married to a man can't get coverage from his husband's plan, he's being discriminated against as a man, because a woman married to a man would be able to get coverage.
I think the manner in which the Federalist Society elevates people relatively earlier in their career is that they occasionally end up with a true believer, whose particular reasoning might be unique to themselves.
Yes, I think that's the case. Though factor in that Trump, unlike other GOP presidents, was specifically looking for people guaranteed to overturn Roe, and both he and the Federalist Society were indifferent to whether it was based on one ideology or another, but decided a strict textualist would do.
And FWIW I don't think Gorsuch's jurisprudence is unique to him, Hugo Black had similar views(eg. he justified First Amendment absolutism by saying "No law means no law", but dissented from the decision striking down contraception bans), though he might be the only one on the court holding them today.
Comments
That's more than a little out of date, Saudi's Vision 2030 hinges heavily on general tourism and attracting the kind of expat population that currently goes to the Emirates. All the developments around Neom are heavily predicated on tourism.
🤣🤣
I stand corrected. Seriously though, it’s all a part of how he sees the art of the deal. Unsettle the folks you’re negotiating with! And whatever you do, don’t give the impression you’re reasonable.
We aren't talking about existing demand but aspiration.
Surprisingly a country is slightly broader than the constraints of either Islamic fundamentalism or Islamophobia.
I recall the great Billy Connelly visiting Chicago (?) a few years ago, and observing sardonically that Trump Tower resembled a public toilet...
Tourism aside, I can't see many of the Muslim countries in the Middle East exactly welcoming Trump's proposal.
The plan is for tourist enclaves within the country (and at one time people thought of Dubai as a desert), and they've been active on it for the last few years, including making presentations at the most recent Davos.
In any case, Hugal's point doesn't depend on any of this working, all he's saying is that another reason they'd object would on the basis of possible future competition.
No idea. I just recognize the nihilism that lurks behind its empty eye sockets.
Seconded.
There was a BBC Radio 4 interview with a critic of Netanyahu which effectively said the same thing.
It's simply Trump giving his pal wriggle-room to avoid a cease-fire and to continue until Hamas is 'destroyed' - as though by eliminating Hamas in and of itself resolves the issue.
I hold no brief for Hamas. But 'eliminating' them means killing, maiming and radicalising thousands of Palestinians who happen to be in the way of the Israeli right's loopy expansionist plans and Trump's obscene pipe-dream of a Las Vegas on the Med'.
Interesting that he um-ed and ah-ed when asked about the West Bank.
He'll back Netanyahu there too.
I don't think there's any prospect of Gaza becoming 'Las Vegas On Sea' but I do think there's every likelihood of resumed hostilities, lots, lots, lots more bloodshed and destruction and even more destabilisation.
That said, I've heard reports that Americans and even Canadians are talking about buying 'condos' in Gaza once the fighting stops and the entire strip is levelled to the ground.
You couldn't make it up.
'You create a desert and you call it peace.'
You create a desert and call it 'Trump-Vegas'.
I knew we'd get outrageous ideas from Trump. I hadn't expected anything as bat-shit as this.
But he knows that, one presumes, he's just buying Netanyahu more time to 'complete' the destruction of Hamas and kill even more people in the process.
It will always have the Hajj.
How feasible that might be jsca moot point. My impression is that it's partly bluster and partly a way to help Netanyahu side-step the cease-fire.
But it got him the news cycle yet again. Which in Trump world is a win.
Undoubtedly. At the same time, I’m still minded to think that’s coincidence. They are not Machiavellian genii, either together or individually. So even if we get to live in Bladerunner, I still maintain that’ll be by accident.
Which isn’t supposed to be comforting , btw.
If he thinks he'll be safe there, I think he'll be grossly mistaken. And that's not a threat. I just look at how much fear and paranoia that there is in Israel, somewhat understandably, and it's something I can humanize.
White people, even centuries later, have myths about ghosts coming out of old Native American burial grounds to haunt them. That blood is fresher.
Oh, are they going to have an exhibition of "degenerate art" across the street?
Nobody could ever accuse him of modesty.
I was surprised to discover that Trump counts some DeadHeads amongst his supporters. That really is hard to figure. The late Jerry Garcia would be both turning in his grave and laughing his head off!
In view of the thread, it may be time for an apocalyptic lament? (Recorded over 50 years ago. Never gets old for me.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/08/donald-trump-media-coverage
It did occur to me that MAGA is not really about the USA strengthening its position as World Leader. It seems to be more isolationist than that. More like the needs of other countries don’t matter.
I am thinking this because while the Republican Congress has dallied, many of the programs he has been cutting will affect Republican districts more than Democratic districts. I am thinking the Republicans will have to grow some balls by that time.
And, since we are at it. How many plane crashes have there been in the US since DJT has been inaugurated? Food prices don't seem to be coming down either.
I predict Trump's downfall, if indeed he has one, will come about largely via the combined effect of American decentralization and the American court system.
And this is not meant as a slight against congressional Democrats, as I recognize they are pretty much hamstrung by the trifecta.
Apart from his outrageous vision for Gaza, his foreign-policy can best be described as "bolstering American influence in its own hemisphere, withdrawing from everywhere else." Which I think was actually the classic isolationist position.
Thst seems to be the general suspicion.
I'm also hearing from South Africans themselves that the number of white South Africans interested in migrating would not be a huge one, and not significant enough to be an electoral boost for Republicans.
What matters more is that yet another conspiracy theory of the far right is being mainstreamed.
It's hard to predict. I know that Gorsuch and Coney Barrett have voted and written against Trump's positions(in regards to both ideological and electoral disputes) at one point or another. So I speculate that neither of them have any sentimental desire to do the man's bidding in all cases.
Not sure if Kavanaugh's ever ruled against Trump, but I know in his anti-Roe opinion, he expressed what sounded like a sincere desire to banish ANY rulings about abortion from the high court, in line, I assume, with his personal view of the constitution. So he MIGHT be amenable to procedural arguments against Trump.
Thomas and Alito are surefire pro-Trump, being the the closest the court has to TV evangelists deciding the nation's laws. This despite having both been appointed by a family dynasty now rhapsodized as the avatars of moderate, inclusive Republicanism.
I don't know enough Roberts to say how he'd vote. His media reputation seems to be of a patrician conservative, somewhat unnerved by recent perceptions of the court as radical-right, so make of that what you will.
I would assume Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would all be anti-Trump, though I don't know enough about their respective jurisprudence to know if there could be a few wild cards there.
From the sounds of it, Kavanagh concurred with the majority allowing JD Vance access to Trumps financial records.
I also think Kavanaugh also ruled against presidential impoundment acts. https://www.vox.com/scotus/397820/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-trump-spending-freeze-impoundment
I think you mean "Cy Vance".
Thanks for the articles. So, all three Trump appointees have cases where they've voted against Trump.
There are a number of academics, mostly integralists, who are willing to argue in the opposite direction. Vance was re-tweeting Vermule earlier.
Meanwhile, the CFPB has been told to shut down:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/09/vought-cuts-off-cfpb-funding-00203261
In the case of Gorsuch's opinion supporting lgbqt rights, I think it was based on his textualist legal theory. AIUI, the relevant laws forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation, but Gorsuch figured that if a man married to a man can't get coverage from his husband's plan, he's being discriminated against as a man, because a woman married to a man would be able to get coverage.
Obviously, textualism is loved by anti-choicers, because the constitution doesn't explicitly state a right to privacy, and the gun lobby, because the Second Amendment doesn't say guns can ONLY be used as part of a militia.
Not sure why Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted against Trump in the cases they did, and I can't remember what the issues were. I doubt any of the judges were overly concerned about advertising their impartiality, since it's not like they have to impress anyone but themselves.
I think the manner in which the Federalist Society elevates people relatively earlier in their career is that they occasionally end up with a true believer, whose particular reasoning might be unique to themselves.
Yes, I think that's the case. Though factor in that Trump, unlike other GOP presidents, was specifically looking for people guaranteed to overturn Roe, and both he and the Federalist Society were indifferent to whether it was based on one ideology or another, but decided a strict textualist would do.
And FWIW I don't think Gorsuch's jurisprudence is unique to him, Hugo Black had similar views(eg. he justified First Amendment absolutism by saying "No law means no law", but dissented from the decision striking down contraception bans), though he might be the only one on the court holding them today.