In Israel, people awoke this morning to a new paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, courtesy of President Trump. According to Trump’s proposal, 1.8 million Gazans would leave the Gaza Strip for Egypt, Jordan, and other places, with funding provided by regional countries that would also normalize their relations with Israel. The United States would take control of Gaza, flatten it, and rebuild it as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” It is possible that American troops would also be sent to the area. Trump’s shocked critics have called this plan an act of ethnic cleansing and a violation of international law disguised as a real-estate project.
As presented, the statement is not feasible for logistical and political reasons. However, it may still serve as the conceptual platform for what is unfolding in the Middle East.
Trump did not clarify whether this evacuation would be mandatory and enforced, or subject to "consent". Here we should note that the word “consent” is crucial: it could make the plan far more logical, practical, moral, and effective:
“Consent” would automatically expose the hypocrisy of all those who oppose the plan by implying they believe they know better what’s right for the Palestinians. They would be willing, in the name of their own sense of morality and justice, to keep 2 million Palestinians locked in a dangerous conflict zone with virtually no infrastructure. We addressed exactly this possibility about a year ago in a paper we called “Let Their People GO.”
“Consent” has the potential to place Hamas in an ideological checkmate, from which it cannot recover. Hamas would face a sweeping, public no-confidence vote. Conversely, “coercion” could actually strengthen Hamas.
Only with “consent” is there any chance to enlist the Gulf States in this project. Without them, Trump’s conceptual platform is irrelevant.
The apparent drawback of “consent” is that not all Palestinians would opt to leave Gaza. However, anyone choosing to remain would have to accept that the ability to provide services would be extremely limited, due to the destruction of infrastructure.
Simply putting forward this plan, regardless of how fully it might be implemented, already alters the Middle East’s underlying assumptions. It dismantles, once and for all, the basic premise that has fueled Palestinian rejectionism: the belief that time is on their side, and that there is no need to reach a political settlement today because today because tomorrow they might get something better. This marks the dawn of a new day in the Middle East.
Comments