One odd thing about liberals is that they are not good at nuance. They are not skillful readers, and often have trouble understanding the tone of communications. This is what leads them, for example, to fact-check the Babylon Bee.
More importantly, it causes them to misunderstand President Trump. Trump has several ways of speaking: sometimes he is deadly serious; sometimes he is casually offering an out-of-the-box idea, perhaps for the purpose of widening the Overton Window; sometimes he is just being funny. For some reason, liberals have a hard time distinguishing among these various modes of communication. This is a real disability when, as now, Trump is unleashing so many initiatives and ideas that Democrats’ heads are exploding.
A case in point is Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. might take over Gaza. Ship the Gazans somewhere else, and turn the Strip into the Riviera of the Eastern Mediterranean. Prime Minister Netanyahu obviously enjoyed Trump’s riff, and the fact that Gaza by rights should be an elite destination rather than a hellhole has been noted many times over the years. Someday, it might even happen. But no, Trump isn’t planning on dispatching the Marines any time soon.
Subtlety, however, is lost on the New York Times. The Times apparently thought we would be storming the beach any day now. Thus, this “gotcha” headline:
So when Trump’s staffers gently let reporters know that, no, Marines are not on their way, the Times thinks they are “walking back” the President’s “plan” to “take over” Gaza. Amid a sea of defeats, they likely will count this a small victory: they stopped Trump from invading the Palestinian homeland!
Such is the state of “mainstream” press coverage of Trump 2.0.
But wait! I almost forgot to follow up on this post’s title. The idea of the U.S. taking over the Gaza Strip, combined with our President’s unequivocal support for Israel, caused someone to create this map that shows the real, ideal “two state solution”:
Just wait until the Times hears about this!
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.