3 hours ago
5
ARTICLE AD BOX
The Arab world has no real interest in the people of Gaza, so while Trump’s idea is radical, it should not be dismissed as unrealistic.
By YAAKOV KATZ FEBRUARY 7, 2025 08:15
WHITE HOUSE Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shows a Fox News image of devastation in Gaza as she conducts a briefing at the White House on Wednesday. Says the writer: President Donald Trump’s idea acknowledges that Gaza has been a disaster for modern civilization.
(photo credit: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS)
President Donald Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip captivated attention this week as a seemingly outlandish proposal for Israelis desperate for a post-war vision.
After 16 months of intense fighting, the president presented an unexpected blueprint of what could follow the end of the war and, more importantly, how Israel’s security will be preserved in its aftermath.
On its face, the proposal raises numerous questions: Who will be tasked with evacuating Gaza? Where will its residents go? Who will rebuild the wreckage?
And perhaps most crucially, who will be permitted to return and live there in the future? These are questions that, at this stage, remain largely unanswered.
It is unclear whether the plan can truly be called a “plan” at all, as it appears Trump surprised not just his own staff but also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet despite the glaring uncertainties surrounding the plan itself, the most vital aspect is the message it sends to the international community: The status quo in Gaza is no longer tenable.
The international community, along with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, has long pursued the two-state solution as the only viable path toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This assumption has been a guiding principle for decades but has failed to lead to peace.
Israel's past history
Consider the past. Israel withdrew from the West Bank in the mid-1990s only to face a wave of devastating suicide bombings that rocked the nation.
In 2005, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, only to watch Hamas seize control just two years later.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Since then, the cycle of violence has been almost on an annual basis with no end in sight.
Yet despite this history, the international community – and certain segments of the Israeli political establishment – has clung to the two-state solution as the ultimate objective.
This persistence, even in the face of failure, has been puzzling.
Take, for instance, the words of Antony Blinken, US secretary of state. Less than a month after the horrific October 7 massacre, Blinken reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the two-state solution.
“The United States continues to believe that the sole viable path is a two-state solution,” he declared, as if history had not already offered a clear verdict on its efficacy.
But Blinken’s unwavering stance was hardly unique. Even during the war, many Israeli policymakers continued to speak about the two-state solution as a goal, albeit one that may take longer to achieve.
THIS IS the context for Trump’s recent remarks, which suggest a starkly different approach: The two-state solution has failed, and it’s time to rethink the entire framework of the conflict.
At its core, the message from Trump’s proposal is unmistakable: Hamas cannot be allowed to maintain control of Gaza.
For the past two decades, Gaza has been a constant flashpoint of violence.
Yes, the IDF’s operations against Hamas and the destruction of much of its military infrastructure will delay for longer than before the next round of hostilities, but unless Hamas is eradicated entirely, the next war is simply a matter of time.
Trump's relocation idea touches untouched terrority
Trump’s idea, though, goes beyond merely advocating for the removal of Hamas.
It acknowledges that Gaza has been a disaster. The Egyptians didn’t want Gaza. Israel didn’t want it. The Palestinian Authority couldn’t control it.
Even today, Arab countries remain indifferent to the fate of Gaza’s population.
Despite sharing a direct border with Gaza, Egypt has shown no willingness to take in Palestinians from there. Likewise, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, geographically close, have also refrained from taking in people displaced from their homes.
This is the sad truth: The Arab world has no real interest in the people of Gaza.
This harsh reality cannot be ignored. And yet, while Trump’s idea is radical, it should not be simply dismissed as unrealistic.
The situation in Gaza requires a fundamental shift in strategy. As long as Hamas controls Gaza, as long as it remains mired in poverty and destruction, and as long as organizations like UNRWA continue to fund the perpetuation of conflict, the cycle of violence will persist.
To break this cycle, alternative solutions must be considered.
The conventional wisdom of the last 30 years has failed, and though Trump’s proposal may appear outlandish, sometimes drastic ideas are the only way to wake the world from its complacency.
The return of hostages must not be overshadowed
That said, as this debate unfolds, there is one undeniable priority that must remain front and center for Israel: the safe return of the hostages.
Earlier this week, I bumped into the brother of a hostage not included in the first stage of the deal. The man was waiting in the lobby of an office building in the hopes of landing a chance meeting with a senior cabinet minister who he believed could help ensure his brother would be on the list.
It was an act of desperation, a reminder that, for many families, the war is far from over.
Another group of hostages are supposed to be released this weekend and that is what matters right now.
There are still dozens of Israelis languishing in Gaza. Trump’s idea and plan can wait. The hostages cannot.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.
English (US) ·