Why Trump’s Gaza plan points to uncomfortable truth
Introduction
United States President Donald Trump’s recent comments about turning the Gaza Strip into the “Riviera of the Middle East” were met by skepticism and scorn from many. Despite my belief that they are impractical, I don’t believe that they are illogical. Indeed, I feel they point toward an awkward truth that many do not wish to admit. The idea of a two-state solution, no matter how noble, is dead and buried in its current form. It is therefore clear that fresh thinking is needed if lasting peace will prevail in the region. Instead of trying to achieve peace through territorial compromises, the path to peace is in the destruction of Hamas’ ideology, the demilitarisation of the area, and a deradicalisation effort similar to that seen in Germany after the Second World War.
Putting words into perspective
The first thing to point out is that Trump’s plans seem to have been a throwaway comment. As a soundbite, it clearly proved attractive for media outlets keen to create content from the joint press conference held with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. It also served as useful fuel for pundits keen to paint a picture of expansionist rhetoric or old-style imperialism, with some suggesting that it could encourage Russia in its war in Ukraine or give China justification for invading self-ruled Taiwan. The plans themselves were vague and seemed very similar to previous comments made by President Trump about North Korea, praising their beaches by saying, “Boy look at that view. Wouldn't that make a great condo?" A healthy pinch of salt is often needed when trying to decipher the true meaning of what President Trump says.
It’s also highly unlikely that the plans themselves will ever go further than the press conference. The idea for the US to take over the Gaza Strip and rebuild it is impractical and, judging by PM Netanyahu’s reaction, it was clear he hadn’t spoken to the Israeli leader about them first. Even without taking the logistics of such a massive construction and humanitarian project into account, the idea fails as it relies on resettling Palestinians in Egypt and Jordan, both of which are non-negotiables for them and other Arab states.
The reason why many Middle Eastern countries refuse to take in Palestinian refugees is primarily due to security concerns. These concerns do have historical justification. Black September saw Jordan fight a civil war against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) which was using Jordan as a base in which to attack Israel, with many of these bases being refugee camps. They continued to exert influence, taking over significant parts of Jordanian territory and threatening to overthrow the Jordanian government. A similar situation can be found in other places throughout the region. Historical civil unrest in these countries caused by accepting Palestinian refugees automatically puts resettlement plans out of the question.
Plan exposes deeper issue
The idea thrown out by President Trump must therefore be viewed as some kind of leverage ahead of negotiations with Arab states. From the US view, if it can push Arab nations to play a more active role in the area, then it increases the chance of achieving a more lasting peace. It is here that we get closer to the heart of the issue. President Trump’s “take over plans”, despite being unfeasible, do point to a very real problem. Since the creation of Israel in 1948, wars have been fought, territorial claims have been exerted, but no form of peace has ever been found. The situation has turned into a forever war. Those who think that peace will be achieved when hostages are returned or when a ceasefire declared are simply deluded. In order to halt this cycle, a fresh approach must be taken.
The reality on the ground is that Israel has no desire to control the Gaza Strip, yet does not want Hamas to control it. A Jewish state cannot live next to a fundamentalist regime that seeks its total destruction. Therefore, conflict is always inevitable. Ultimately, as long as Hamas remains in power, the cycle we’ve seen so many times is doomed to be repeated. Hamas made the decision on October 7th to start the war with its barbaric actions, that being the murder and capture of innocent civilians. Israel itself, though increasingly secular politically, has become more hawkish about the feasibility of the two-state solution. This time, it seems that the Israeli government has the support of its citizens who share a determination to end Hamas once and for all to ensure that similar attacks can never again occur in the future.
Gaza’s real struggle
These steps have to be taken if Palestinian society is ever to seriously rebuild and achieve its potential. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) pulling out of Gaza will not be the first step to peace. Instead that must come in the form of deradicalisation, one that is similar in manner to the denazification that happened in post-war Germany. President Trump described Gaza as a “rubble site”. It is the people of Gaza who must blame their own regime for bringing this recent disaster on them. The Allies caused destruction in Germany, but re-education encouraged Germans to rebuild the country, not blame the Allies. Elsewhere, the Marshal Plan gave Germany an economic pathway out of the situation. This ensured that not only did it rebuild, but that it was able to prosper, with no reason to go back to the extreme ideology which had plagued it throughout the 1920s and 1930s.
At present, a fragile ceasefire is in effect, with the IDF having a limited presence in the Gaza Strip. This offers a unique opportunity for change. Too many times in the past ceasefires have led to a reset, with tensions inevitably boiling over into fresh conflict. In 2005, Israel pulled out 20,000 settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip, giving the people there a genuine chance at building a Palestinian state. However, without this military presence, Hamas was able to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. This saw a split emerge between the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Even supporters of a Palestinian state view Hamas as too extreme for the Palestinian cause. The 2006 election victory saw Hamas duly end democracy in its territory, with no subsequent votes having been held since. It then went about creating an Islamic regime intent on funnelling $15 billion in aid money meant for civilian infrastructure into building up its military capabilities, all whilst the bank accounts of senior members based safely based in Qatar grew.
Conclusion
Although Trump’s plans to transform the Gaza Strip are essentially unfeasible, the essence of the idea has merits. A radical shift in thinking is needed. Accepting the reality of Hamas being in power means that it is impossible to rebuild Gaza in any meaningful way. Hamas’ insistence that Israel must be destroyed means that if Gaza is ever rebuilt, then the buildings may be new, but the extremist ideology will still be the same. If the cycle is left to repeat itself, then another Intifada is simply another generation away.