President Trump’s proposal to reconstruct Gaza after displacing its population, though undoubtedly innovative, is deeply worrisome. While cloaked in humanitarian garb, it coheres with the White House’s muscular Pax Americana approach to foreign policy, including the threatened takeover of the Panama Canal, the acquisition of Greenland, calls for Canada to forego its sovereignty and join the United States, and a thuggish approach to trade relations.

It is also remarkably tone deaf regarding Mideast history and sensibilities and perilous in multiple ways, particularly if there is any attempt to implement it. Not only has the suggestion enflamed passions that are already high, but it fundamentally misreads the roots of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in a homeland that we both claim. Neither side regards this land as real estate to be bartered; rather, it is a  source of deep attachment that is irreplaceable to us. We are locked in struggle over accepting each other’s indigeneity and the possibility of coexistence on that land.

Ceding Control

On the surface, the Trump proposal, which is more accurately described as the Trump suggestion since it does not offer a coherent or realistic plan, sparkles with all sorts of benefits, particularly for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition partners on the far-right. That the premier finds it attractive is not surprising given his focus on short-term political gains at the expense of the national interest: If endorsed, the plan could easily lead to the end of the ceasefire and hostage deal and would very likely continue the war even further beyond what should have been its expiration date, thereby dooming us to burying more soldiers instead of concentrating on post-War reconstruction. Concerning the extremists, Trump’s comments are the equivalent of manna from heaven, supporting their settlement vision of a Greater Israel that would dispense with any Palestinian hopes for a national home and which would condemn us to unending conflict.

Enthusiasts of the Trump suggestion are also oblivious to the fact that an American takeover of Gaza by fiat could set a dangerous precedent: Countries, especially ones who view transactional relations as a touchstone of policy, have interests that do not always align, even with those of allies; Washington’s relations with NATO and the European Union being cases in point. Leaders come and go and geopolitical circumstances change.

The Trump suggestion has been emphatically rejected by Egypt and Jordan, two key partners in the prospective project. It has also been repudiated by Arab leaders, including heads of states who are being courted to join the Abraham Accords. Aside from Hamas’ leaders, who are unworthy of any influence in post-war Gaza, Palestinians of all stripes will undoubtedly find any hint of forced displacement anathema; the very suggestion is likely to inspire more terrorism, which is quite the opposite of what is needed now.

Echoes of the Imperial Past

In the Middle East, proposing the mass displacement of Gazans to create a southern Mediterranean Riviera evokes past traumas that shape popular consciousness here: The carving up of the former Ottoman Empire by European imperial powers, the Mossadegh Affair in Iran, the British occupation of the Suez Canal zone and American military intervention in Iraq, among other initiatives that have had untoward consequences.

Quite frankly, President Trump’s idea has neo-imperialist overtones: People, Jews, Arabs, and others, are not objects to be manipulated by foreign powers or, for that matter, regional ones. In today’s world, at a time when people feel less in control of their lives than at any time within memory, and given fears concerning the whims of leaders with thin commitments to democracy and tycoons in their circles, suggesting the acquisition of Gaza and the forced removal of those living there in order to gentrify it raises real questions about whose interests this would serve.

The Vacuum Mr. Netanyahu Created

The vacuum that Mr. Trump’s suggestion addresses should not exist. One of the most regrettable and consequential lapses of the current government is the prime minister’s failure to shape a different reality for Gaza — and Israel — concurrent with military operations to rescue our hostages and put an end to Hamas’s stranglehold on the territory and our communities along the border.

In coordination with the Palestinian Authority, admittedly an imperfect partner, but which nevertheless is the representative body of the Palestinian people, along with moderate regional states, we could have paved the way for an operational partnership that could have given us the leeway to crush the Gaza jihadis, who are now resurging, while creating a demilitarized Palestinian entity and a new geostrategic reality. With the likely support of other Middle Eastern partners, we could have also blocked the Resistance Axis which, though degraded, remains committed to our destruction and plans to continue its efforts. Had we taken that course, we could have ameliorated the harm to the civilian population in Gaza and perhaps spared the lives of many of our soldiers.

However, the prime minister did not take that road for reasons that are clear to all. For those same political considerations, he has sought the sheltering embrace of President Trump at a time when he finds himself wedged between the hostage families and the majority of Israeli citizens, on the one hand, and his extremist coalition partners, on the other.

By doing so, he has consigned to an American authority decisions that he and his government should have taken long ago.

What Is Normalization?

President Trump’s Gaza suggestion is representative of a transactional approach that conflates business and politics. Assuming that the “deal of the century,” that is, the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other neighboring states is part of the “package” that the prime minister will bring on his return to Jerusalem from Washington, it is important that we ask what that normalization will mean.

This question is compelling because we have long-standing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, an agreement with the Palestinian Authority since the 1990s and the more recent Abraham Accords with Arab states. But other than security cooperation, some trade and the possibility to visit these countries, the “peace” is really quite cold, more a cessation of active hostilities than neighborly relations.

Certainly, that is better than endless warfare, but is it insufficient to guarantee Israel’s security and well-being in the long-term. In effect, these agreements have been reached among rulers, including some who are not shining examples of enlightened government. Additionally, these agreements have not been accompanied by transformative relations between our peoples. Terror rages in the West Bank, Islamists pose serious threats to the stability of both the Egyptian and Jordanian regimes, and to hammer things home, a young Moroccan recently flew to Ben-Gurion Airport and entered the country on a tourist visa to commit terror, which he did with near-lethality before being gunned down. Denigrating depictions of Israel and Jews are still widely found in textbooks, the press, and cultural forums in many of these countries. We also have not seen tourists, businesspeople, academics, and entrepreneurs flocking to visit Israel from these states.

These are not hallmarks of peace.

A Time for Bridge Building

If “normalization” is confined to high-tech entrepreneurs cutting deals, Israeli jaunts to Dubai, and spymasters sharing information, that does little to address the underlying barrier to Israel’s being fully accepted as an integral part of the region. Without that, our status will remain unacceptably tenuous. Shalom and salaam on a superficial level cannot replace pius and sulkha (reconciliation or rapprochement, in Hebrew and Arabic respectively) that seeps into the society and cultural across borders.

Normalization in the sense of peacemaking requires bridge building, connecting Israel, the Palestinians, the greater Arab world and the other peoples, Kurds, Amazigh, Druze, Christians among them, living in the region with amity and as equals. Unless normalization and peace agreements tangibly express a commitment to peace education, recognizes our shared roots and jointly contending with the environmental and planetary challenges ahead, “normalization” is of very limited value.

I point this out, because as elusive and idealistic as these objectives seem to be, they are essential steppingstones to Middle East peace.

Hamas and the Axis of Resistance along with other extremist Islamist and pan-Arab exclusivists have long-dominated the region with agendas of hatred and exclusion. Those forces, along with Israeli supremacists and extremist settlers, have to be marginalized. To accomplish this we need Israeli and Palestinians leaders who are responsible, courageous, and forward-looking, significantly different from those now in power. Until we decide that our children’s well-being is more important than retrieving past glory, conquering, and expanding lands, imposing our creeds on unbelievers, and revenge, death and destruction will continue to plague us.

So President Trumps’ Gaza suggestion quite seriously misses the mark and would cause much more harm than good. Israeli, Palestinian, and other Arab partners will have to find another way to transform Gaza from a jihadi vipers den to a livable home for its people at peace with its neighbors.