Itemoids

Strip

There Is No Real-Estate Solution for Gaza

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › international › archive › 2025 › 02 › there-no-real-estate-solution-gaza › 681592

Two days ago, the president of the United States declared his intention to assume long-term ownership of the Gaza Strip, turn the coastal enclave into a real-estate-development heaven, and permanently remove its Palestinian inhabitants to other countries. The administration has already walked this proposal back, but not before touting the president’s “out of the box” thinking—a phrase that suggests ignorance of where, exactly, the box is.

The immediate social-media reaction of many Palestinians in Gaza was defiant: They do not intend to leave their homeland, although it is largely uninhabitable after nearly 16 months of a ferocious war. Many Gazans are furious with Hamas for the ruin it has brought to the Palestinian national project, and almost all said that they would love to see Gaza become a developed, prosperous, and secure home for the Palestinian people. But they also see Trump’s imperial plan as still more punishing blowback from the October 7 attack.

Trump is right to see Gaza’s potential. Twenty years ago, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel withdrew its settlements from the Strip, which was to be the first building block of Palestinian statehood. Gaza had a short-lived airport and plans for a seaport, offshore gas drilling, and development projects that would teach new skills and breed sustainability and self-sufficiency. Palestinians had an opportunity to create effective self-governance in Gaza and demonstrate what the West Bank, too, could become without the Israeli occupation.

[Read: Trump’s wild plan for Gaza]

Instead, Hamas has led Gaza to its destruction. The October 7 attacks led to the meaningless loss of tens of thousands of lives; the Strip has been razed and strewn with ordnance, and billions of dollars in aid money squandered, while Hamas proclaims divine victory for its resistance project. If Trump really means to take over this field of ruins, he could offer a stern proposal for dispensing with Hamas’s power and make clear that the United States will become responsible for recycling Gaza’s wreckage, disarming its unexploded munitions—many of which are American-produced—and providing drinking water to its people, much as Washington did for Yezidi communities persecuted in northern Iraq by “Islamic State” terrorists. The United States bears some responsibility for the apocalyptic destruction visited upon Gaza, after all, having provided Israel with much material support.

Trump opted instead for an outlandish and offensive proposal of forced displacement, land theft, and colonization. Many Arab and Gulf nations have condemned Trump’s plan and reiterated their commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to remain on their land. Saudi Arabia responded to Trump’s “real-estate solution” by emphasizing its commitment to the two-state solution, saying it would not normalize relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is formed.

The United States is unlikely to commit tens of thousands of troops to battling Hamas in Gaza, with all of the consequences that would entail. But the announcement itself, made in the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Washington, is sure to inflame anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the region. Trump’s rhetoric in this regard both belittles the Palestinian people’s attachment to their homes and undermines Israeli security.

An American threat to take over Gaza and annex the territory will not be an effective negotiating tactic with Hamas or other Palestinian players. And no Arab country will participate in the forced displacement of Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip. The Gulf countries are having to reiterate their commitment to the Palestinian people in a manner that puts them in a difficult position vis-à-vis normalization and the Abraham Accords. Even Netanyahu initially seemed to tread carefully by not fully endorsing the idea but praising Trump for his “fresh” thinking.

If what Trump really meant to do was to shake up the stalemate in Gaza by refusing the ordinary terms of engagement, he could have proposed some constructive measures. With Arab support, the U.S. could push Hamas into signing a 50-year truce with Israel. Trump could persuade the wealthy Arab countries to finance a transitional police force for Gaza that includes elements of the Palestinian Authority, in order to challenge Hamas’s monopoly on power. Maybe the Palestinian Authority could be enjoined to help rebuild and transform Gaza. Certainly, the United States can contribute rubble-removal equipment and help dispose of unexploded munitions before Hamas recycles them into new weapons.

[Read: Nobody wants Gaz-a-Lago]

But behind all of these efforts should be an iron-clad guarantee, through a binding United Nations Security Council resolution, of Palestinians’ right to repopulate the Gaza Strip. The Trump administration could address the people of Gaza in a speech acknowledging their pain and suffering—and promising U.S. support for a transformed Gaza so long as its people seek to live in peace and prosperity next to their Israeli neighbors.

Actual fresh thinking could lead to a reconstruction plan for Gaza that doesn’t activate the same old mechanisms that enabled Hamas to siphon off aid and resources in the past. A lawless grab for land and power, however, won’t do that—it will just delegitimize the United States and degrade its potential to do good in the world.

How Netanyahu Misread His Relationship with Trump

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › international › archive › 2025 › 01 › how-netanyahu-misread-trump-before-gaza-ceasefire › 681330

Let us now praise Donald Trump. It’s hard for me not to choke on that phrase. But it was his bluster—his demand that Hamas release its remaining hostages before his inauguration, or else “all hell will break out”—that effectively ushered in a cease-fire, the beginning of the end of the Gaza war.  

Although honesty requires crediting Trump, his success was not the product of magical powers or an indictment of Biden-administration diplomacy. Trump’s splenetic threats injected urgency into floundering talks. And by allowing his envoy Steven Witkoff to coordinate with the Biden administration, the incoming president left Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with an acute sense of isolation.

Over the course of Netanyahu’s long reign, he has transformed his nation’s foreign policy. For much of its history, the Jewish state cultivated bipartisan support in the United States. Netanyahu trashed that tradition; for his own domestic purposes, he has provoked spats with Democratic presidents, bolstering his reputation among his right-wing base. At the same time, he tethered himself to the Republican Party.

As the Gaza war began to meander—and as it became clear that Israel would never achieve the “total victory” that he promised—Netanyahu dipped into this old playbook. In a video he released last June, he accused Biden of denying Israel the munitions that it needed to win the war. That charge was arguably slanderous, given the large sums of money that the United States had spent on arming Israel.

Although that strategy advanced his career, it had an obvious flaw. Because of Netanyahu’s lockstep partnership with the Republicans, he is beholden to the whims of the leader of that party. Once Trump emphatically expressed his desire to end the war, Netanyahu was stuck. To cross the incoming president would risk losing the most important pillar of Israel’s foreign support.

[Read: Trump made the Gaza cease-fire happen]

Some American observers assumed that Netanyahu wanted to extend the war into Trump’s term, during which he would have the Republican president’s permission to behave however he liked. These were, after all, like-minded politicians. But that assessment misread the Netanyahu-Trump dynamic.

Over the past four years, Netanyahu clearly has had reason to feel insecure about his relationship with Trump. Trump reportedly abhorred the fact that Netanyahu called Joe Biden to congratulate him on winning the 2020 presidential election. By acknowledging Biden’s victory, Netanyahu flunked the fundamental Trumpist loyalty test. (As Trump fumed about the episode to Axios’s Barak Ravid, he declared, “Fuck him.”) After October 7, Trump cast blame on the Israeli prime minister for failing to foresee the attack. Given this history, and all the anxieties it must surely provoke, Netanyahu was desperate to deliver for Trump, days before his inauguration, at the height of his prestige.

After months of diplomatic futility, Biden was shrewd to allow Trump and Witkoff to serve as the front men for the talks. Rather than clinging territorially to the office during his last days in power, or invoking clichés about how there’s one president at a time, he invited his successor into an ad hoc coalition in which they operated in sync, sharing the same strategy and applying combined pressure. This moment will be remembered as an atavistic flourish of bipartisan foreign policy, but it also makes me think about Antony Blinken’s eyes.

When I traveled with the secretary of state to the Middle East, and the lights of television cameras pointed at his face, I saw the toils of shuttle diplomacy in the bulging bags beneath his eyes. For months, protesters camped outside his suburban-Virginia house. They hurled red paint at his wife’s car while he kept returning to the region in the hopes of brokering a deal. Indeed, it was those months of excruciating, energetic negotiation that yielded the substance of an agreement, the gritty details of peace. That hard work should be at the center of the narrative, and maybe someday it will be, but right now it feels like a footnote.

On the left, plenty of Biden’s critics are now crowing. Many of those who hate “Genocide Joe” have always claimed that Trump would be better for the Palestinian cause, or perhaps just as bad, which justified a desire to punish Biden’s Zionism electorally. Now that strange faith in Trump will be tested, because the coming diplomacy will be even harder than ending the war. Hamas remains a fact of life in Gaza. For the time being, it’s the government there, and it has every incentive to remain an armed force. Reconstructing the Strip, rescuing it from dangerous anarchy, will require somehow navigating around that fact. I doubt that Trump cares deeply about the future of Gaza, or that he has the patience to maneuver through the tangle of complexities. But if he does, I will be the first to praise him.