In case you missed it (but did anyone actually miss it?), US President Trump shook up the entire world with his announcement of a paradigm-shifting plan for post-war Gaza, in his press conference with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu:
I have take the time to carefully listen to President Trump, and analyze the plan, before sounding off on it. Here are my thoughts.
Plan is another example of President Trump thinking beyond the conventional wisdom
Many think the plan sounds insane, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The conventional wisdom for preceding US administrations (and most of the world’s governments) has been to push for a two-state solution – despite the fact the majority of palestinian Arabs, when polled, have indicated they do not want this (but rather to take over the entire land of Israel). Previous attempts at the two-state solution have failed miserably, with Oslo a great example of this, as it has resulted in only more bloodshed and a stronger palestinian Arab desire to destroy Israel. President Trump seems to understand this, hence the paradigm shift with this plan.
Having the palestinian Arabs react so negatively to his “Deal of the Century” – a central part of which was a focus on economic development for palestinian Arabs, with Trump’s team promising $50 billion in investment in infrastructure, job creation, and economic growth – and then launching the October 7 attacks, no doubt led Trump to this point of thinking even further outside the box. He may have even taken things a bit personally.
And let’s not forget, with the Abraham accords, President Trump went against the conventional wisdom that you need to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue before Israel and the Arab world can attain peace. And he is doing it again here.
Plan is more of a negotiation tactic
Too many are analyzing the plan as is, without considering that Donald Trump is a very successful businessman and master negotiator. I think it behooves us to see this plan as more of a negotiation tactic.
President Trump (and Jared Kushner is you believe reports he is behind the plan) understands that conventional negotiation tactics that are effective in the West will fail in the Arab world, where showing strength is of paramount importance, and showing weakness is a recipe for suicide.
The plan shows his willingness to be unpredictable and shake things up; to think outside the box. With this plan, President Trump has signaled to the palestinian Arab leadership – whether it be Hamas or the PA – that they can no longer count on the old formula of increase terrorism, attract Israeli reprisals, improve their geopolitical standing and get more concessions, rinse and repeat.
In the case of Hamas, President Trump has signaled that what they did on October 7 did not improve their position (unlike after other times they have launched attacks on us). On the contrary, he is showing them that if you FA, you will FO. Because of the atrocities they committed, they will no longer be able to govern Gaza, and the civilians they supposedly care about might be relocated to other countries in the world.
No longer will the aggressor and the loser get the spoils.
The plan might just be a way to scare Hamas into concessions. like ceding power in return for allowing Gazans to stay.
Plan may not be practical, but could change the landscape
We obviously do not have full details of the plan, but questions abound. For instance, how would Gazans be made to leave? Forcing them to leave could be seen as “ethnic cleansing”, but what if they are incentivized to leave? If countries are willing to take them in, then I think many Gazans not sympathetic to Hamas might just make that choice. For instance, according to Palestinian Media Watch, a poll taken just prior to October 7 revealed that 44% of Gazans between the ages of 18-29 and 31% of the entire population were considering emigrating.
Less Hamas-sympathizing civilians left in Gaza would also result in a weakening of Hamas, no matter what, and Hamas would have less human shields for any future shenanigans (assuming they are even around).
Floating the idea of a US-owned Gaza being turned into a Middle Eastern Riviera puts that idea out there. It might encourage Arab countries like the UAE and even Saudi Arabia to offer to develop it. Gazans may be permitted to return after it is developed (with all terror tunnels and other infrastructure removed). It certainly would lead to a better Gaza, rather the terrorist mess it has become.
President Trump mentioned Egypt and Jordan as possible places to resettle Gazans. I assume this is one of the last things those countries want to do (despite the fact Jordan is effectively a palestinian state). But it might just get them to put more pressure on the palestinian Arabs to accept concessions if there any future peace negotiations.
In other words, even if the plan as floated seems impracticable, it could lead to positive changes in the status quo, even if not fully accepted and adopted.
Palestinian reaction to plan highlights their dishonesty… and true goals
Naturally, the palestinian Arab leadership (and many civilians) are incensed over the plan. Riyad Mansour, the “Permanent Observer of Palestine” to the United Nations, had this to say:
And here are the thoughts of regular Gazans:
But aren’t they supposedly refugees? UNRWA, which operates in Gaza (and colludes with Hamas) is the United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency For Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Yet here they are saying Gaza is their land, rather than being some land they are temporarily staying in as refugees.
Of course, this is not surprising to those of us who understand the palestinian Arabs want their cake and eat it. They simultaneously claim they are refugees demanding a return to their homes in Israel proper, while claiming Gaza as their home.
Which is it? ALL of it, of course.
Plan may have been a reason Israel accepted latest hostage deal
When the latest hostage-for-terrorists deal was announced, many Israelis and Jews (yours truly included) were of the opinion that it was heavily lopsided. While we understand and empathize with the unbearable agony of the hostages’ families, many were still surprised that we agreed to the deal in that incarnation. At the time, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps incoming US President Trump had either pressured us to accept or had something in store in the longer term, a “sweetener” for us to accept the deal, as it were. I cannot help but think that Trump’s plan for Gaza had either been communicated to Israeli PM Netanyahu at the time to help convince the Israeli government to accept the deal, or at the very least had been alluded to.
Most of those very vocal in objecting to the plan were not as vocal in objecting to October 7
I am not suggesting this applies to everyone objecting, but most of those vocally opposing this plan, claiming it represents a cruel “ethnic cleansing” of Gazans, were either remarkably silent following the Hamas atrocities of October 7 or even supportive of them.
