The Gaza Quandary, Trump’s Proposal and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

President Trump’s proposal to evacuate the Gaza population, level Gaza, and rebuild it from the ground up came as a complete surprise to all parties involved in the conflict and to most analysts. The proposal has already sparked strong reactions, primarily criticism. I argue that it should be considered from a different perspective. Before joining the chorus of condemnation, one should ask: Why would he propose such a radical solution? Let me explain:

Typically, when addressing problems, both small and large, we identify the issue and seek an attainable, standard solution. This approach works well when a clear solution exists. However, in the case of Gaza, no obvious standard solution is available. First and foremost, Hamas has created and perpetuated a dire situation. Additionally, by glossing over the extremist’s actions of Hamas and overly quick to be critical of Israel, other parties involved, such as the UN and even well intentioned European leaders, have often exacerbated the problem rather than alleviating it. Had they taken a clear cut persistent stance against the use of terror by Hamas, thereby minimizing the need for Israel to be so forceful, a ceasefire may have been implementable at an earlier stage which would have alleviated some of the suffering of the Gazan population.

On a technical level, the devastation in Gaza is so extensive that reconstruction will be expensive, complex, and time-consuming. Additionally, remnants of military infrastructure and tunnels still pose a threat to Israel and must be completely dismantled. The presence of the population during reconstruction would significantly complicate this process, creating logistical challenges and potential security risks. As a result, there will be a trade off where allowing the population to remain could lead to endless delays in rebuilding efforts.

The main problem, however, remains that Hamas has not altered its ideology of its obsession with destroying Israel even at the expense of the well-being of Gaza’s population which nevertheless continues to support Hamas. Hamas’ goal in the present ceasefire agreement is to regain as much military and political control as possible to prepare for future attacks on Israel. Therefore, any solution that allows Hamas to maintain a presence in Gaza and potentially launch another war against Israel should be a non-starter. As a result, no viable plan for governing Gaza has yet been proposed by anyone.

Many pro-Palestinian supporters justify Hamas’s actions by arguing that Israel is to blame for the absence of a sovereign Palestinian state and that Hamas is merely fighting for what they are entitled to. More moderate voices on the Palestinian side believe that if Israel simply supported a two-state solution, the conflict could be resolved. However, these perspectives reflect a fundamental, at times deliberate, misunderstanding of the core issue. While Palestinian sovereignty claims do, to some extent, compete with Zionism, this is not the primary obstacle to peace. If territorial disputes were the main point of contention, a peace agreement could have been reached decades ago.

The deeper issue is that the Palestinians, along with numerous Arabs and Muslims worldwide, refuse to recognize the Jewish people’s right to a sovereign state. The conflict is not about borders—it is about Israel’s very existence. This is why Arab leaders rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, which proposed separate Jewish and Arab states. Their priority was not the establishment of a Palestinian state, but rather the prevention of a Jewish one.

Since then, Israel has repeatedly offered peace proposals, all of which have been rejected by the Palestinians. In contrast, the Palestinians have never presented a proposal that would allow for two countries, one Israeli, and the other Palestinian, to coexist peacefully.

Rather than directing their attention to Israel, proponents of a two-state solution should be calling on Palestinian leaders to put forth a concrete plan—one that would allow Israel to continue to exist and explicitly include a declaration that a negotiated peace agreement with Israel would mean a permanent end to their efforts to dismantle the Jewish state. To date, no Palestinian leader who claims to support a two-state solution has presented a proposal that both declares an end to the conflict and affirms Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinians have paid a high price for their rejection of coexistence. In terms of options missed, one just must contrast how well Israeli Arabs are doing to realize that accepting co-existence with Israel offers the Palestinians a brighter future rather than a despondent one. While there are problems, remarkably, Israeli Arabs, particularly Arab women have more rights, personal freedom  and are better off than anywhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

In summary, as long as Hamas rejects any negotiated agreement with Israel, maintains support among the Gaza population, and retains a presence in Gaza either military and /or political, there will be no viable solution to the plight of its people. Perhaps Trump’s proposal is far-fetched—time will tell. Regardless, those genuinely concerned about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza are welcome to propose alternative solutions. However, they must recognize that any plan premised on the dismantling of Israel will never lead to peace, and the Palestinian people will continue to suffer unnecessarily.