By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A secretive US government operation has been utilizing a private jet owned by Florida property tycoon Gil Dezer to deport Palestinian men arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Israeli-occupied West Bank. This marks a policy shift driven by aggressive deportation campaigns, with the jet making multiple stops for refueling before dropping off disoriented and cold deportees at a West Bank checkpoint. Both the deportees and former US officials highlight the sensitive and politically charged nature of these flights, which have raised questions about due process and international legal norms.
Read the original article here
It’s quite a story that ICE used a private jet, reportedly owned by a friend of former President Trump, to deport Palestinians to the West Bank. The fact that they ended up in the West Bank, rather than a more distant or unexpected location like El Salvador or even Gaza, is a significant detail that immediately draws attention. This choice of destination highlights the complexities of deportation, especially when dealing with individuals who have connections to specific regions.
Digging into the reasons behind these deportations reveals the individual circumstances. One man, Zeidan, had originally left the West Bank for the U.S. in the early 2000s. He had built a life in Louisiana with his wife and five children. However, a decade prior to his detention by ICE, he had served time in prison and had failed to renew his green card. After being detained by ICE for over a year, his deportation meant he could no longer return to his family in the United States, a situation that would undoubtedly be devastating for him and his loved ones.
Another case involved a man named Awad. He and his partner had recently learned they were expecting a child when Awad called the police in February 2025 to report a break-in at their home. Tragically, when officers arrived, they arrested Awad in connection with a domestic violence charge from the previous year. This is where the narrative becomes particularly contentious. While some might argue that individuals with legal issues, even those that might ultimately be resolved, are appropriate targets for deportation, others point out the nuances. In Awad’s case, it’s noted that the charge was eventually dropped, and he was released by the police after just two days. However, ICE agents were reportedly waiting for him outside the station to take him into custody for deportation. This detail suggests a potentially prolonged period of detention and stress for Awad and his family during a very sensitive time, as he spent a year being moved between detention centers while his partner was pregnant.
The use of a private jet, purportedly linked to a Trump associate, adds another layer of intrigue and raises questions about the logistics and cost of such operations. The idea that this flight might have been “free” for the U.S. government, given the owner’s alleged connections, certainly invites scrutiny. It’s the kind of detail that fuels speculation about potential political motivations or preferential treatment. The notion that “if it was legal, you wouldn’t need to hide it” also comes to mind, suggesting a lack of transparency surrounding the arrangement.
It’s important to acknowledge the broader context of immigration enforcement. There’s a palpable sympathy for law-abiding immigrants, both documented and undocumented, who find themselves detained by ICE, sometimes under what are described as illegal or unconstitutional conditions. However, when it comes to individuals with criminal records or those found to be in the country illegally, as in these cases, the sentiment shifts. The argument is that these are precisely the individuals whom immigration authorities should be apprehending and deporting, and that there is a valid legal basis for doing so.
The coordination with Israel regarding the destination of these deportations is also a crucial point. The article suggests that Israel was involved in the process, and that if the home country accepts individuals, they are legally required to be sent there. This implies that the deportations weren’t arbitrary and that there was a degree of cooperation from the receiving nation, which in this instance was the West Bank. This also raises questions about the complicity of other nations in U.S. deportation practices. The question arises: why don’t other countries step in to offer refuge to those being deported from the U.S.?
The concern that people fear contacting police due to potential deportation, making them vulnerable to criminals, is a significant societal issue. When individuals are afraid of official contact, it can erode trust in law enforcement and create an environment where exploitation can thrive. The story of Awad, being arrested by police after reporting a crime, only to be detained by ICE, exemplifies this dilemma. While domestic violence charges can be legitimate, the handling of the situation and the subsequent detention are highlighted as problematic.
The broader implications of these deportations are substantial. There are concerns about human rights being violated and a disregard for due process. The idea of being deported to countries where one is not a citizen, or potentially to places that resemble prisons, without fair trials, is deeply troubling. This is often cited as a reason why some cities and states have adopted sanctuary policies, aiming to create safe havens for immigrants who may fear deportation. The current situation, where individuals feel they cannot rely on law enforcement without risking deportation, is seen as detrimental to community safety.
Furthermore, the specifics of the private jet charter raise economic questions. Who ultimately footed the bill for this seemingly luxurious mode of transport for deportation? The mention of a “grifter in chief” suggests suspicions that the individual associated with the jet might have stood to gain financially or politically from the arrangement. The contrast between the comfort of a private jet and the often difficult circumstances of deportation is stark and invites reflection on the priorities and methods employed in immigration enforcement.
The discussion also touches upon the effectiveness of ICE and its record-keeping, with allegations of intentional poor record-keeping and individuals going missing. This lack of transparency and accountability fuels skepticism about the agency’s operations and its commitment to humane treatment. The possibility that some deportations are illegal, affecting individuals with strong ties to the U.S., including children born in the U.S., those granted asylum, or green card holders, adds a layer of urgency to these concerns.
In essence, the story of the private jet and the deportation of Palestinians to the West Bank is a complex one, touching upon immigration policy, legal processes, human rights, political connections, and the significant financial and logistical aspects of enforcing immigration laws. It prompts a deeper examination of how these operations are conducted and their impact on the individuals involved and the broader societal trust in governmental institutions.