"Skip the dinner, tweet instead. Yet stopping Gaza's horror still depends on the world's worst leaders."

Day 222 of Donald Trump’s presidency, and Russia’s war in Ukraine—which he vowed to stop immediately—continues without any indication of resolution. This wasn’t an offhand pledge; he repeated it at least 53 times. Yet the U.S. president has not fulfilled it, whether taken literally or in his preferred vague manner. Can a war be symbolically ended? Apparently not.

Instead, Trump has shifted focus to another conflict: the deeply troubling and legally dubious humanitarian disaster in Gaza. He may not describe it as such. This week, he avoided addressing Israel’s military actions in Gaza City or the growing reports of famine in the region, declaring instead: “I think within the next two, three weeks, you’re going to have a pretty good, conclusive ending.” Right. His proposed solution so far resembles an incoherent plan: Phase 1: Crisis. Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Resolution.

Compare this to historic wartime decisions. One might look at the Yalta conference photo of Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt and wonder how much faster things would have ended if they had ignored complexities and viewed global politics as a series of business opportunities. Yet today, the fate of countless suffering people rests on leaders who, under different circumstances, might be facing legal consequences instead of governing.

This is the unvarnished truth. Ending the crisis in Gaza depends on Trump, not on symbolic gestures—whether social media statements, public displays of support, or well-intentioned but ineffective appeals.

Similarly irrelevant, in practical terms, is Ed Davey’s announcement this week that, after careful consideration, he would skip the king’s banquet for Trump during the upcoming state visit. Trump likely has no idea who Davey is. (Polls suggest 35% of Davey’s own voters don’t recognize him either.) Davey believes boycotting the dinner sends a message to Trump and Keir Starmer that the situation in Gaza cannot be ignored. While his intent is admirable, the action carries little more weight than an online post—or perhaps slightly more.