Gaza is known as a graveyard for peace where diplomacy dies, terror thrives, and the world watches the cycle of violence repeat—again and again.
Since the early 2000s, the region has been trapped in repeated conflicts, with thousands of rockets fired into Israel, countless ceasefires shattered and a worsening humanitarian crisis. Even before the Hamas terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, more than 80% of Gaza’s population relied on international aid, while unemployment soared above 45%, leaving millions with little hope for the future.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal—to place the coastal enclave under U.S. oversight while relocating its population—is unconventional and controversial. History, however, has shown that radical action is sometimes necessary when destruction cycles persist. This plan offers a pathway to break the deadlock, fostering long-term stability, economic revival and lasting security while addressing one of the root causes of conflict in the Middle East.
For decades, U.S. administrations have taken a passive approach to Gaza, relying on ineffective peace negotiations that have yielded nothing but repeated wars, terrorist attacks and worsening humanitarian conditions. Since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the territory has been controlled by Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and others.
Instead of investing in infrastructure, Hamas has diverted billions in international aid to build terror tunnels and weapons stockpiles, worsening the suffering of its people.
The Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel, where Hamas terrorists slaughtered more than 1,200 people in a single day, proved that inaction allows terror to persist.
Hamas’s strategy of embedding military operations within hospitals, schools and mosques not only violates international law, it ensures that Gazan civilians remain in perpetual danger. This ongoing exploitation of human shields demonstrates that Hamas prioritizes its war against Israel over the well-being of the people it governs.
History offers clear examples of how strategic population relocations have fostered long-term peace. After World War II, more than 12 million Germans were relocated from Poland and Czechoslovakia, effectively preventing future conflicts.
Despite its initial chaos, the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan resulted in two relatively stable nation-states. Even in 1948, during the Arab-Israeli War, Jewish communities in the West Bank were forcibly expelled by Jordanian forces. Despite the mass displacement, no international body labeled this expulsion a war crime, underscoring the selective nature of global outrage.
Trump’s plan prioritizes ending terrorism and ensuring regional security. The alternative, maintaining the current status quo, guarantees more rocket attacks, hostage crises and endless war.
The question is straightforward: If a building is collapsing, do you remain inside and risk death or do you relocate to safety? Gaza under Hamas is that crumbling structure.
Relocating Gaza’s population could be the most effective way to protect innocent civilians from being used as human shields. Many people call Trump’s plan “ethnic cleansing,” but they ignore the reality that this is about security, not race. The objective is not to eliminate a people but to dismantle a terror regime and prevent future massacres.
War inevitably brings displacement, and while tragic, such measures can be necessary. The Geneva Conventions recognize that population transfers, while legally complex, are not unlawful when conducted for the security of civilians.
Many overlook the stark reality that Hamas has already placed civilians in extreme danger by embedding military infrastructure within densely populated areas. Should the world continue to allow civilians to be used as pawns by terrorist organizations, or should they be given a chance at a new life in a secure, rebuilt environment?
A significant aspect of Trump’s proposal is that Middle Eastern countries, rather than the United States, would bear the financial and administrative responsibility for Gaza’s redevelopment. Historically, these nations have resisted assuming control over Gaza due to its volatile political climate and economic burdens.
Egypt and Jordan, for example, have repeatedly rejected involvement in Gaza’s governance. In 2017, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi firmly stated that Egypt would not take responsibility for Gaza due to security concerns. Likewise, Jordan has long distanced itself from any role in Palestinian affairs, fearing destabilization.
Under Trump’s plan, however, these nations may have no choice—either they assume responsibility for Gaza or face greater U.S. involvement in the region, a scenario most Middle Eastern governments would prefer to avoid.
If regional powers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt take administrative control over Gaza, they would have strong incentives to eliminate terrorism. Any attacks launched from Gaza under their watch would make them directly accountable, serving as a powerful deterrent. These nations prioritize stability, and the risk of provoking another war would push them to crack down on extremist elements.
Lebanon’s experience with Hezbollah serves as a stark warning. Hezbollah’s repeated provocations against Israel have led to devastating retaliatory strikes, highlighting the dangers of allowing terrorist groups to operate freely. Trump’s plan forces a fundamental shift: Middle Eastern nations can no longer afford to ignore Gaza’s instability and must take active responsibility for its resolution.
Some may dislike Trump’s plan, but there’s no viable alternative. Reliance on endless negotiations, ceasefires and peace talks has proven ineffective. A phased approach—beginning with a relocation and structured rebuilding initiative—could ensure the safety and future prosperity of the people of Gaza.
For decades, the world has tolerated unending terror, suffering and diplomatic failures in Gaza. It is time to recognize that only a radical shift, one that prioritizes security, economic transformation, and long-term stability, can bring about lasting peace.
If the world truly cares about the people of Gaza, it must view Trump’s plan not as an act of aggression but as an opportunity to create a safe, prosperous future for all involved.