During the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump proposed a possible solution to the dramatic and now chronic Palestinian problem. Faced with the near-total destruction of Gaza, now reduced to an uninhabitable place, and the deep mutual hatred that makes the two-state solution impractical, Trump suggested a U.S. military intervention to occupy the Strip, take charge of its reconstruction, and subsequently transform it into a demilitarized zone. Meanwhile, the population would be temporarily hosted in neighboring countries, awaiting a potential return.
Previously, Trump had also proposed the permanent transfer of the Palestinian population to Jordan and Egypt, provoking outraged reactions from both governments and several European states.
Here’s how Il Sole 24 Ore reported the Israeli reaction:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promoted President Trump’s idea of transferring the population of Gaza to other countries. ‘It is an extraordinary idea, and I think it should be seriously pursued, examined, and implemented,’ he said. ‘The very idea of allowing Gaza citizens who want to leave to do so… what’s wrong with that?’ the Israeli Prime Minister observed. ‘They can leave, they can move and return. Gaza needs to be rebuilt, and if you want to rebuild Gaza, you cannot… this is the first good idea I have heard.’”
Now, let’s try to think realistically, without conforming to convenient narratives. On this issue, unrealistic or utopian positions alternate, while simply recognizing that Gaza has become uninhabitable is already an extraordinary step. The dominant positions remain mostly ideological: on one side, those who invoke abstract justice; on the other, those who defend only the balance of power. Yet, many still insist on the formula of two peoples, two states. But is it really a concrete prospect? If it were, it would still only be achievable in a distant future, perhaps in two generations, when the accumulated hatred has at least partially dissolved. Meanwhile, the risk of new bloody conflicts remains high.
After all, the entire structure of the Middle East was defined by arbitrary borders drawn by Western powers (consider the Sykes-Picot agreements), yet few seem scandalized by the de facto changes that have already occurred. In Syria, for example, it has been accepted that the control of entire areas has fallen into the hands of groups linked to al-Qaeda, which continue to perpetrate massacres. Why, then, is it considered inconceivable to reconsider Gaza’s borders?
If we want to address the issue rigorously and free from conventional frameworks, we must start from an objective fact: Gaza is now reduced to unsustainable living conditions, with destroyed infrastructure, limited access to essential resources such as water and electricity, and skyrocketing unemployment rates. Recognizing this reality is the first step toward serious reflection. Given such a scenario, does it still make sense to talk about the “classic” solution of two independent state entities? Israel on one side, Palestine on the other. But on what concrete basis, in the short or even medium term? Especially considering the level of radicalization, mutual distrust, and the absence of leadership capable of ensuring stability.
The hypothesis of external intervention to resolve the crisis, however controversial, requires evaluating all possible alternatives. But what seems certain is that merely reiterating old formulas, without considering the reality on the ground, risks being just an empty rhetorical exercise.
The Historical Precedent of Arbitrary Borders
Secondly, there is another important consideration: the Middle East has borders largely born from colonial and post-colonial agreements and treaties (Sykes-Picot 1916 being the most well-known case). These borders have generated, for an entire century, numerous internal and external tensions and conflicts, both on ethno-religious bases and for geopolitical reasons. In the perspective of the “sacredness” of borders, the idea of modifying or reconsidering them – or even foreseeing a “third-party” military occupation – seems inconceivable to many. Yet, the history of the twentieth century itself shows that Middle Eastern (and not only) borders have been reshaped multiple times and that entire populations have been relocated, often at great cost. From a strictly historical point of view, it is therefore not unprecedented to hypothesize a new modification of territorial arrangements or an external intervention in such a complicated area.
The Idea of a “Third-Party” Occupation and the Role of the United States
Trump’s proposal for direct U.S. intervention in Gaza, with a military and reconstruction mandate, faces evident political and moral challenges. However, adopting a purely pragmatic perspective, it is undeniable that the presence of an external power capable of restoring order and promoting reconstruction could be seen by some as a “lesser evil” compared to the continuation of a state of chaos, violence, and despair.
Naturally, a foreign military occupation on Arab territory, especially by a major ally of Israel like the United States, would represent a highly tense issue, both regionally and internationally. However, analyzing realistically viable options based on the actors involved and their current power positions, one must acknowledge that if the primary objective were solely to interrupt the cycle of devastation in Gaza, restore essential services, and offer at least a minimal prospect to the civilian population, then the hypothesis of external intervention could at least be subject to discussion, despite remaining highly controversial.
The Problem of Population Transfers
Another critical issue concerns the potential relocation of Gaza’s population to neighboring states, such as Jordan and Egypt. This proposal, previously suggested, has met with fierce opposition from both the involved governments and the Palestinians themselves, understandably concerned about losing their identity, land, and rights. However, it is also true that Gaza – as a “sealed” territory often used as a battleground – makes life impossible for most of its inhabitants. Additionally, another undeniable fact is that reconstruction requires substantial economic and infrastructural efforts, as well as a security framework that currently does not exist.
In this context, the temporary “dismantling” of Gaza as a war theater, with the civilian population relocated to safe zones and reconstruction entrusted to a supranational entity or a single powerful state, could be a drastic solution, but perhaps preferable to daily hell. Even historically, in contemporary history, populations have fled, been evacuated, or relocated, sometimes returning after the conflict ended. The problem is that in the Middle East, conflicts almost never end decisively, and accumulated hatred requires – as you yourself highlight – at least a couple of generations to fade.
The Role of the “International Community” and Freedom of Faith
Finally, there is the enormous question of who should concretely manage such an operation: the United States alone? An international coalition under the UN? With what costs and what guarantees for the local population? Here, your consideration of preferring a potential “U.S. occupation” over “leaving everything as it is” or a European intervention, often perceived (not only in the Middle East) as bureaucratic and ineffective, comes into play. The point, perhaps, is that whoever intervenes should ensure not only physical security but also a dignified life and freedom of faith – and this, at least in perspective, is a path toward self-determination. This is ultimately the central issue: if a dignified future is not created for the Palestinian people, any “solution” is bound to worsen tensions even further.
In conclusion, further developing my reasoning, one might ask whether, in the face of a permanent humanitarian disaster, a “shock” solution – however unacceptable it may seem to those who defend territorial integrity and absolute sovereignty – might not be preferable. If the goal is to avoid further massacres and at the same time “liberate” (at least temporarily) the population from Gaza’s trap, the idea of a military intervention establishing a protectorate, assuming the burden of reconstruction, and providing a phased return of inhabitants could fall within the logic of the “lesser evil.”
Not accepting this from Europe, while accepting and even enthusiastically endorsing Syria’s new leadership formed by al-Qaeda criminals, is rather contradictory.
The fact remains that regional and international politics have so far shown no willingness to implement such bold (or extreme) plans, and global public opinion struggles to accept the idea of redrawing borders or mass relocations. But if conventional solutions have been failing for seventy years, asking whether it is time to seek “out-of-the-box” alternatives is not unreasonable. Rather, it forces recognition of the limits of a rhetoric-based approach and an open evaluation of all possible paths, no matter how uncomfortable or impractical they may seem today.
***
Gaza. There is another interpretation of Trump’s remarks on Gaza:
➡️ The normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel in exchange for abandoning forced relocations, rather than for the creation of a Palestinian state that no one believes in—not even those who continuously call for it.
➡️ Forcing Hamas and the other armed militias to relinquish control of Gaza and demilitarize it, in exchange for no forced displacement of the entire population.
➡️ Saving Netanyahu’s government from the brink of disintegration.
Se apprezzi il lavoro che trovi su questo blog e credi nell'importanza di una voce libera, il tuo sostegno può fare la differenza.
🔹 Puoi donare con con carta di credito o direttamente dal tuo conto PayPal. Se lo desideri, puoi anche attivare un contributo mensile.
Grazie di cuore per il tuo supporto!