US president’s vision has the potential to end the conflict

This article is part of JC debate on the Trump proposals. For an opposing view, see here

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been trapped in a cycle of violence, diplomatic stagnation and failed solutions. The world has clung to obsolete formulas – territorial concessions, peace talks doomed to collapse, and the fantasy that Palestinian self-rule in Gaza could in the foreseeable future lead to coexistence rather than war.

Donald Trump’s recent proposal to relocate Gaza’s population, if done voluntarily, with proper incentives and the possibility of Palestinian presence there after reconstruction offers something the international community has long lacked: a genuine paradigm shift. The idea of moving a population is, of course, controversial. But so too is the status quo, which has led to perpetual suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Gaza, under Hamas rule, has become a launching pad for terror, a client of Iran, and a staging ground for the most heinous attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Trump’s plan suggests an acknowledgement that we need new ideas or the Strip will return to how it has been for years.

Trump’s vision is not about ethnic cleansing, nor must it be a forced expulsion. It is about creating the conditions for voluntary resettlement, where those who wish to leave Gaza are given meaningful opportunities elsewhere. If handled correctly, this is not an act of displacement but one of liberation – from Hamas’ tyranny, from economic despair and from the challenging conditions that the Hamas-launched war has imposed on Gazans.

History provides many precedents for population movements that, while initially disruptive, ultimately led to stability and prosperity. After the Second World War, millions of Europeans were relocated across new borders, often in painful circumstances. Jewish refugees, scattered for centuries, rebuilt their lives around the world, many eventually in Israel. When done thoughtfully, migration can be an engine of opportunity rather than a symbol of victimhood.

Contrast this with the reality Palestinians face today. Unlike any other refugee group, they have been deliberately kept in limbo, with their refugee status passed down for generations rather than resolved through integration into host nations. While Europe and the West have absorbed millions of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and beyond, Arab nations have largely refused to naturalise or resettle Palestinians, instead using them as political pawns. Trump’s plan, if it materialises, could challenge this long-standing hypocrisy. The key distinction between Trump’s proposal and historical examples of forced displacement is that his vision relies on incentives, not coercion. Palestinians who wish to leave may be given financial support, housing assistance, and relocation packages that allow them to rebuild their lives elsewhere – whether in Arab nations, parts of Africa or even Western countries willing to accept them.

Critics recoil at this notion, yet many of the same voices champion open borders and refugee resettlement in other contexts.

Trump is posing the question: why should Palestinians be denied the same opportunities that millions of other refugees have received? If a Gazan family could move to a country where they would have economic prospects, political freedom, and a future for their children, should they not at least have the choice?

The proposal may not unfold exactly as Trump has envisioned it, but simply putting it on the table forces a conversation long avoided. It pressures regional actors – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf states – to reconsider their long-standing positions relating to the Palestinians.

Trump’s action is an earthquake that disrupts the complacency of Western diplomacy, which has enabled Hamas’ rule by insisting that Gaza remains frozen in its current condition. Even if the final outcome differs, the shift in thinking alone could open doors to more viable long-term resolutions.

By focusing on “real estate” and developing hotels and homes, Trump is turning the Gaza crisis from a game of thrones into a game of Monopoly. In so doing, he is setting the stage to improve the Middle East’s regional architecture in America’s favour.

For Israel, a restructured Gaza – free of Hamas leadership and ideology – would be far less of a security threat. For Palestinians, relocation – or a period of resettlement – could mean liberation from a war-torn enclave where they are used as human shields, subjected to Islamist rule and denied economic mobility.

The real question is not whether Trump’s plan should be considered – but whether the world is ready to break free from the dogmas that have condemned both Israelis and Palestinians to perpetual war.

​

Jonathan Sacerdoti is a freelance journalist