3 hours ago
3
ARTICLE AD BOX
Is the theory now that reconstruction of Gaza will be some kind of Marshall Plan pushed by the US but funded by others?
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN FEBRUARY 5, 2025 14:20
US President Donald Trump at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in Washington, US. February 4, 2025.
(photo credit: REUTERS/LEAH MILLIS)
US President Donald Trump continues to raise eyebrows as he doubles down on his plans for Gaza. He now envisions the US playing a long-term role. He calls it an “ownership” and says it will bring stability. He says the decision has not come lightly but is something he has discussed with others. He believes he has support for it.
Trump is advancing his ideas on Gaza and expanding them. The idea about Gazans leaving temporarily or developing Gaza into some kind of beachfront property is not exactly new, but Trump has continued to add pieces to the puzzle of his doctrine with his latest comments. He says he has seen Gaza from “every angle.” In the past he has described it as a demolition site. “If the US can help to bring stability and peace in the Middle East, we will do that.”
The US president has floated several parts of his plan. One part of it is that Gazans would leave and that they “wouldn’t want to return.” His point is that at the moment no one can live in Gaza and be happy. He hopes that Jordan or Egypt might take the Gazans. He suggested in a sit-down with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Gazans would be moved to several places abroad where good housing would be built for them. Trump said that if this doesn’t happen, then the conflict that has gone on in Gaza for decades, would continue “again and again.”
Trump is gambling that the countries he wants to take the Gazans will not tell him “no.” Trump has said that 1.7 million or more could be re-settled. He says that in Gaza these people have to worry about dying every day, and they will be willing to move. “The best way to do it is you go out and get beautiful open areas and you build something nice, they are not going to want to go back to Gaza.”
The numerous ideas floated by Trump on February 4 are sure to raise eyebrows. This is a hallmark of Trump’s doctrine. It is similar to how he discussed taking over Greenland or has discussed the Panama Canal. It’s also how he was willing to throw down the gauntlet of tariffs with Canada and Mexico. Trump is used to floating a radical idea and also following it up with policy. However, he usually asks for more than he thinks he will get, so that when a deal is made he receives what he wants.
The current discussion about Gaza has shifted a bit in the last weeks. It has gone from a concept of moving Palestinians temporarily to Egypt or Jordan to more solid discussions about the US playing a long-term role in Gaza. “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a [good] job with it too,” Trump said. The plan is that the US can help to foster economic opportunity and development. He has said that other countries in the region could pay for this.
What is Trump's plan?
Let’s try to unpack what the Trump plan is. He initially said after his inauguration that Gaza was a “demolition site.” This came after he sent envoy Steve Witkoff to secure a hostage deal that ended fighting in Gaza. Then, six days after the inauguration, Trump said, “You’re talking about a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing.” During that January 26 discussion, he said, “I don’t know, something has to happen, but it’s literally a demolition site right now. Almost everything’s demolished, and people are dying there, so I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing in a different location where I think they could maybe live in peace for a change.” At the time, he said the movement of Gazans could be temporary or long-term.
Jordan and Egypt have pushed back on the Trump plan over the last two weeks. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said that Gaza could be rebuilt “without the Palestinians leaving the Gaza Strip, especially given their attachment to their land and their refusal to leave it.” Saudi Arabia has said it continues to support a Palestinian state.
It is clear that Trump is proposing a radical break from the past. The idea of moving 1.7 million people would be incredibly difficult, even if countries wanted to take them. Even in peacetime, this isn’t easy. That doesn’t mean that in modern history, there have not been large movements of people that have appeared to be semi-successful. Up to 15 million Germans and German speakers fled areas in eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. They left areas in Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Russia, and other countries. This was seen as a way to create defined borders and some kind of closure after the 1930s when Germany sought to expand into countries in order to take over areas where German minorities lived. Others likely say this as revenge for the war. Either way, the people moved, and in general, they were resettled successfully.
There are also examples of people moving temporarily during wartime. For instance, in the battle for Mosul during the ISIS occupation of the city from 2014 to 2017, a large number of the residents of the city had to flee to IDP camps. Iraq helped them flee. When the battle was over, the people were able to return to Mosul. This happened slowly, but in many cases, it appears to have happened successfully.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Gaza is not Mosul, and it is not the Sudetenland, the area in the Czech Republic that had been a German-speaking area. The question is whether Trump’s thinking about this goes back to discussions about the Second World War.
Netanyahu has channeled comparisons with the Second World War in the past to explain his views of this current war. He has questioned the critique of the bombing of Gaza by noting that the Western powers carpet-bombed Germany. Is the theory now that reconstruction of Gaza will be some kind of Marshall Plan pushed by the US but funded by others? It is not clear. However, what is clear is that Trump has continued to double down on this idea. He hasn’t walked it back. In fact, each time Trump discusses it, he expands the US role and his ideas about how it will happen.
English (US) ·