President Donald Trump shocked the world Tuesday by unveiling a proposal to take over Gaza as a U.S. territory, after moving most of its inhabitants elsewhere.
The idea drew cautious support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was standing beside President Trump at a press conference in the East Room of the White House. But it also drew immediate opposition and criticism. Here are arguments for the proposal — and some questions.
Arguments in favor:
- There is no way to solve the strategic problem Gaza poses. Gaza clearly poses a threat to Israel. It has also been a major challenge for the two-state solution. In theory, a Palestinian state could be non-contiguous, with the West Bank connected to Gaza via transportation infrastructure. But Gaza is also culturally different from the West Bank. And with a growing population in a small area, it has constant humanitarian problems.
- Gaza has been so thoroughly destroyed by war that it is essentially uninhabitable. This is the argument that President Trump and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff used. A large percentage of the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The Hamas terror tunnels have also undermined the foundations and the utilities. Reconstruction, with 2 million people still living in the area, will take decades to complete.
- The 20-year experiment in Palestinian governance of Gaza has been a miserable failure. Israel pulled out of Gaza completely in 2005. Palestinians responded by firing rockets at Israel, electing Hamas, and launching terror attacks, murdering thousands of Israelis, mostly civilians. Hamas still has an ideological hold on the local population, making future self-governance a risky proposition, and making war almost inevitable.
- U.S. ownership of Gaza could be a massive strategic asset. The U.S. could turn Gaza into a thriving free trade zone, the so-called “Singapore of the Middle East” that Gaza could have, but never did, become after the Israeli disengagement of 2005. The U.S. could even turn Gaza into a new military base on the Mediterranean, lessening its dependence on Arab nations such as Qatar, which has in the past funded and sheltered Hamas.
- A prosperous, coastal Gaza could be an economic engine for the region. Remove terror and poverty from Gaza, and you have a prime location, with warm (albeit humid) weather, excellent fishing, and a strategic location between Cairo and Jerusalem (and beyond). There really is no limit to the prosperity — and the beach resorts — that could result. It could be another Dubai, but on the Mediterranean. A blessing, instead of a curse.
Questions:
- Where would the Gazans go? While President Trump seemed inclined to allow a minority of Palestinians to stay in Gaza, he also said that more than 75% of them should be resettled elsewhere. Egypt and Jordan have refused to take them, and no other country has stepped up to offer them a home — though the Israeli delegation in Washington seemed to believe that Indonesia, which wants a normalization agreement, could be an option.
- Would U.S. troops be at risk? President Trump seemed to be open to the idea of U.S. troops being used to secure Gaza, at least for the short term. Hamas has largely been destroyed, but American soldiers could face the same risks that Israeli soldiers face — booby traps, roadside bombs, ambushes, and so on. The U.S. would likely be less restrained in Gaza than it was in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, but few Americans have an appetite for war.
- Who is going to pay for it? President Trump implied that wealthy Arab states would pay for removing the explosives, demolishing the ruins, and developing whatever comes next. But no Arab state has yet been willing to come forward. And Americans would certainly oppose spending taxpayer money on Gaza. Unless Israel is willing (and able) to resettle Gaza, it is unclear who cares about Gaza enough to plow money into the territory.
- Is Trump’s idea even legal? There are ample legal precedents for moving the population of a defeated, and genocidal, enemy far from where they can provoke future conflicts. Millions of ethnic Germans were relocated in the wake of the Nazis’ defeat in the Second World War, for example. But some scholars would object to the transfer of an occupied population, citing the Fourth Geneva Convention (though it may not be applicable).
- Would the idea be accepted as legitimate? Saudi Arabia responded immediately to Trump’s proposal by objecting to it, and insisting that a Palestinian state be a condition for relations with Israel. Arab and Muslim organizations in the U.S. also rejected the idea. The Trump administration said that Palestinians would be better off elsewhere, which is likely true, but Palestinians have rarely made choices based on their own welfare.
All of these arguments will play out in the days to come. It is quite possible that Trump’s proposal is simply a way of “shaking the box,” and provoking other regional actors to step up and take responsibility for the Palestinians before he does. What is clear is that Trump has come down firmly in favor of Israel as the victor in the war Hamas started. That, in itself, is a significant diplomatic triumph for Netanyahu and for the Israeli people, after so much sacrifice.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days, available for pre-order on Amazon. He is also the author of The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency, now available on Audible. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
