Gaza Chose Terror Instead of Prosperity

The trajectory of the Middle East has always been shaped by a fundamental struggle between construction and destruction, stability and chaos. Nowhere is this contrast more evident than in the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, where political choices have determined the fate of entire generations. While some nations have embraced cooperation and modernization, others remain mired in a cycle of perpetual confrontation and victimhood, ensuring continued stagnation and misery.Gaza exemplifies this divergence. In 2005, following Israel’s complete withdrawal, the enclave had a rare opportunity to chart a new course; one of economic development, trade, and prosperity. Instead, its leadership entrenched a radical Islamist regime that turned Gaza into a hub of terror rather than a thriving society. Resources that could have built hospitals, schools, and infrastructure were diverted into tunnels and arsenals, not to protect civilians, but to wage war. The choice was clear: rather than investing in a future for its people, Hamas chose perpetual conflict. This reality begs the question: what kind of leadership deliberately sacrifices its own population’s well-being to sustain endless war?Gaza is not an isolated case. In Lebanon, for instance, Hezbollah has transformed a country with vast economic potential into a failed State, bending it to the will of Tehran. In Yemen, a similar pattern of radicalization has led to devastation, with external actors exploiting the region as a battleground for their geopolitical ambitions. In each case, the imposition of extremist ideologies has choked off progress, ensuring that conflict, rather than prosperity, prevails.

In contrast, Israel stands in stark difference to this self-inflicted stagnation. Despite being born into a hostile environment with limited natural resources, the Jewish State has become a global leader in technology, agriculture, and military innovation. The key to its success lies in investing in human capital, fostering innovation, and forging strategic alliances with Democratic Nations that share its vision of stability and growth. While some choose destruction, Israel chooses creation.

The Abraham Accords reinforced this principle, proving that cooperation is the key to regional transformation. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have recognized that engaging with Israel is not merely a diplomatic gesture but a pragmatic, strategic investment that grants them access to advanced technology, robust trade opportunities, and regional stability. Meanwhile, other actors in the region cling to narratives of hatred and denial, ignoring the overwhelming historical evidence that confrontation breeds only further suffering.

The hypocrisy of pro-Palestinian movements is especially revealing. For decades, these groups have promoted slogans that deny Israel’s right to exist and have justified violence as a means to achieve their objectives. Yet, when practical solutions —such as the relocation of Gaza’s population for their safety— are proposed, these same voices decry the measure as “ethnic cleansing.” The contradiction is glaring: they cannot simultaneously claim that Gaza is an unlivable prison while rejecting efforts to offer its residents a viable alternative. This exposes the reality that for many, the Palestinian cause is not about solutions, but about sustaining an industry of perpetual grievance, a political tool to mobilize outrage, rather than to secure peace.

The latest conflict in Gaza has shattered any illusions about the viability of the status quo. Hamas’s terror infrastructure has been severely crippled, its financial networks disrupted, and its international standing eroded. Attempts to replicate the atrocities of October 7 have failed, leaving its backers scrambling to defend an increasingly indefensible position. The question now is: what comes next for Gaza and the wider region?

The only sustainable path forward prioritizes construction over destruction, and development over war. The solution does not lie in endless reliance on international aid but in fostering conditions that allow for the rebuilding of a viable society. Relocating Gazans to safer areas while dismantling the terror infrastructure could be a logical first step, provided it is accompanied by genuine investment in opportunities and human capital.

The biggest obstacle to change is not a lack of resources, but the entrenched interests of those who have made conflicts their livelihood. For decades, the international community has fallen into the trap of funding structures that do not resolve the crisis but perpetuate it. If the goal is truly a different Middle East, then tolerating actors who sabotage progress must end. Recent history has proven that when leaders move beyond rhetoric and embrace pragmatism, progress is not only possible but inevitable.

The future of the Middle East is not predetermined. Every society has a choice between victimhood and self-sufficiency, between destruction and progress. Israel and those who have embraced cooperation have shown that the region’s destiny is not bound by its past but shaped by the choices made today. The lingering question is whether the rest of the region is willing to abandon narratives of perpetual conflict and take responsibility for building a better future.