Everything Israel has done in the Gaza Strip indicates that Jerusalem best understands the natural, economic and social potential and realities of this coastal enclave better than anyone.
(Feb. 7, 2025 / JNS)
It is easy to understand President Donald Trump’s proposal regarding Gaza. For years, all of the ideas from authoritative sources that offer peace with the Palestinians there have included removing the terror civilization, but none have hit the mainstream media, which makes this appear to be a total rethinking of a solution to the perpetual violence emanating from the Strip. This plan—that the United States adopt an active role in the form of control—does separate Trump’s from the rest.
It took the political and the media worlds by storm, and produced acres of print for and against the idea. By and large, the perspective taken has been immediate and short-term, as the idea has itself been. However, it is a long-term proposal. Gaza will not be rebuilt in two years—it will take 10 or 20—and an American presence will be equally long, so it must be considered in that context.
Trump’s proposal is a no-brainer. He loves game-changing strategies. For all the right reasons, they destroy the restrictive encumbrances of repeatedly recycled failed efforts. This plan also gives the United States a coveted goldmine in international power brokerage in the form of a port on the Mediterranean Sea. The Russians have tried for decades to secure such a prize—first in their losing efforts in Egypt before 1967 and then with similar tactics in Syria. America lost its purchase in Haifa when Israel signed port management over to China. The Gaza resettlement plan, coupled with a Gaza port, is part of a serious global strategy.
It is also highly inappropriate.
There is nothing in Israel’s history that would preclude Israel from overseeing the future of Gaza. In fact, everything Israel has ever done there indicates that Jerusalem best understands the natural, economic and social potential and realities of Gaza better than anyone. Israel has a history and the potential to make Gaza blossom as it never has under any other sovereignty. The Jewish state has also paid for Gaza, yet again, in absolute terms with the lives of Israeli soldiers and civilians, making it perfectly reasonable for it to retain control and sovereignty there. After Israel has worked for 16 months to eliminate the scourge that has been Gaza—at its own “expense”—it is a bully move for the United States to step in and say, “We’ll take that now.” That is the short term.
In the long term, it is also potentially explosive for at least two reasons.
First, it’s one thing to have friends across the ocean but sharing friends on the same small piece of property is another. It may work well in the cleanup, but tensions change significantly when decisions need to be made as to what will be built there and who will be planning and building it, along with who will be living and working there. It’s not a good idea to put an American elephant beside the Israeli menagerie even, or especially, if it is led by the Lion of Judah.
Secondly, the entire situation becomes more fraught and even intolerable when the elephant changes its ideas or becomes the donkey of a Barack Obama fourth term in a future U.S. election. In the past 16 years, 12 have been Obama administrations that have shown that American elections or electors can be very fickle, and so the more distance Israel can maintain from the United States the better. Israel cannot afford to give away the long term with a hateful American administration in Gaza. As an easy path in the very short term, however, the idea remains on the table.
At the same time, it would be just as short-sighted not to recognize the advantages of an American presence in Gaza. The possibility is that Israel’s greatest threat coming out of the present war against Iran could be Egypt, which has managed a cold peace brilliantly, if hostilities with Israel are the plan. Their troops have trained simulated attacks on Israel, constructed multiple tunnels big enough to drive tanks through under the Suez Canal, a highway road network across the Sinai to Israel with a major fuel depot along the way—all in the demilitarized Sinai that has become thoroughly militarized under the guise of stopping illegal drug and migration activities in Gaza. And that continues unabated, even as Egypt has profited handsomely by supplying Hamas in Gaza with massive quantities of arms to fight Israel through a second extensive network of tunnels under the blockaded Philadelphi corridor. Some peace partner.
Surely, Israel could benefit greatly from having America with boots on the ground in Gaza, smiling southward. But not as a sovereign power.
Leadership is challenging, as there are many big and small decisions to be made every day. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is faced with that very publically.
There are people suggesting that the proposal to make Gaza American is so radical that it should be dismissed out of hand—that it can never happen. Ignore Trump’s radical ideas at one’s peril because they have a way of becoming reality. It would be foolish to deny the immediate logic and solid reasoning behind this one, though there are much better long-term solutions. But they all start with the total removal of the terrorist threat from Gaza.