Make Gaza Great Again
At the very least, the “Gays for Gaza” would be able to visit the Strip without fearing for their lives at every turn.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
In an announcement that has left many scratching their heads this week, U.S. President Donald Trump recently unveiled a plan to “take over” the Gaza Strip, relocate its residents, and transform the area into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
While the proposal has sparked widespread debate and uproar, a closer examination reveals that it is neither as novel nor as controversial as it might initially appear.
First, the idea that Gaza should be transformed from an Islamist enclave into a modern metropolis with thriving businesses, beachfront resorts, and a stable economy is not exactly groundbreaking; it’s essentially the dream of every rational policymaker who has ever looked at Gaza and thought, “What if, instead of terror tunnels and rockets, there were restaurants and rooftop bars overlooking the Mediterranean?”
As Israeli journalist Baruch Yedid said: “Hamas made a serious error when it released one of the hostages against the backdrop of a Gazan beach. Wonder what Trump saw in those moments.”
It wasn’t only Trump, though. Former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner was reportedly behind his father-in-law’s plan for the U.S. to take over Gaza and clear it of Palestinians. You might recall that Kushner worked as a real-estate investor in New York City, especially through the family business Kushner Companies. In 2014, Jared also co-founded Cadre, an online real-estate investment platform.
During Trump’s first term in the White House from 2017 to 2020, Kushner was lead architect of the Abraham Accords (diplomatic normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan).
And, following Trump’s defeat in 2020, Kushner’s firm quickly landed some $2.5 billion to invest in American and Israeli companies expanding in India, Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of Asia. Investors included $2 billion from the Saudi public investment fund and other Gulf countries, with Kushner stating that he hopes to open an “investment corridor between Saudi Arabia and Israel” — seen internationally as “a sign of the kingdom’s increasing willingness to do business with the country, even though they have no diplomatic relations.”1
Now, it appears that Kushner’s real estate and investment background could come full circle in Gaza, and for good reason. For years, policymakers have recognized economic revitalization as the key to long-term stability in the Middle East. The logic behind such a transformation is simple: Prosperity reduces extremism. When people have jobs, homes, and a stake in a growing economy, they are far less likely to turn to violence.
Of course, skeptics will argue that the idea of rebuilding Gaza under new management is unrealistic or even controversial. But the reality is that for decades, policymakers and investors alike have wished for exactly this outcome. Trump and Kushner’s plan — whether taken literally or as a broader vision — represents the clearest and most ambitious attempt to break Gaza out of its cycle of destruction.
And, at the very least, the “Gays for Gaza” would be able to visit the Strip without fearing for their lives at every turn.
In ancient times, Gaza served as a thriving trade center along the spice route. The majority of Gaza’s population is commonly referred to as “Palestinian,” but historical and genealogical evidence suggests that many Gazans are actually of Egyptian descent.
Prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (also known as Israel’s War of Independence) and the subsequent conflicts that shaped modern Gaza, the region was under Egyptian control and closely tied to Egypt, both culturally and demographically. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thousands of Egyptians migrated to Gaza, seeking economic opportunities under Ottoman and later British rule. Many of these migrants remained and settled, forming a significant portion of the population that today identifies as “Palestinian.”
The Egyptian connection deepened after the 1948 war, when Gaza was officially governed by Egypt until 1967. During this period, many Egyptians moved to Gaza for work, military service, and administrative roles under Egyptian rule.
The influence of Egypt was so strong that even Gaza’s currency, legal system, and education were aligned with Cairo rather than any independent Palestinian entity. It wasn’t until Israel took control of Gaza in 1967 following the Six-Day War2 that the idea of Gazans as a distinct Palestinian population became politically emphasized.
Even today, many Gazans have Egyptian surnames that trace back to regions in Egypt, such as Al-Masri (meaning “the Egyptian”), Al-Saidi (from Upper Egypt), and Al-Tantawi (from the city of Tanta). These names, along with oral family histories, reinforce the reality that much of Gaza’s population is not indigenous to the land but rather the descendants of Egyptian migrants.
Despite this, Palestinian identity in Gaza has been politically reinforced over the decades, erasing much of this Egyptian heritage from mainstream discourse.
The political framing of Gaza as distinctly “Palestinian” serves strategic purposes for both regional leaders and international actors, but historically, its population has been deeply tied to Egypt. This reality complicates the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raising questions about why Egypt, which borders Gaza, has largely refused to integrate or take responsibility for a population that shares deep historical, familial, and cultural ties with its own people.
For years leading up to and then during Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, some hoped that Gaza could develop into a self-sustaining, economically vibrant region. Yet, instead of realizing its potential, the enclave fell under Hamas’ grip, turning dreams of a Riviera into ruin.
The longing for Gaza’s transformation is not just theoretical; it has been put into practice before. When Israel administered the Strip following the 1967 Six-Day War, it built industrial zones where tens of thousands of Gazans worked alongside Israelis, fostering a microcosm of peaceful coexistence through economic cooperation.
Even after the Israeli withdrawal, international donors funneled billions into projects aimed at developing the region. The greenhouses left behind by Israeli settlers — once producing world-class produce for export — symbolized what Gaza could have become. But rather than being nurtured into a foundation for growth, they were destroyed, a tragic metaphor for the persistent cycle of self-sabotage that has kept Gaza from flourishing.
Many of Gaza’s neighbors, including Egypt and even some Gulf states, have quietly wished for a different reality as well. A stable, prosperous Gaza would mean fewer security threats, reduced migration crises, and a better investment climate across the region.
Imagine the transformation: luxury resorts along the Mediterranean, bustling markets selling artisan goods, tech startups emerging in newly built business districts. This is not a far-fetched fantasy; it is a possibility that has always been within reach, held back only by the entrenched forces of extremism and a global reluctance to push for real change.
Second, the concept of using economic development to foster peace is a well-established strategy. By improving living conditions and creating opportunities, the rationale is that economic growth can lead to greater stability. Trump’s vision of transforming Gaza into a thriving resort destination aligns with this approach, suggesting that prosperity could pave the way for lasting peace.
What’s more, international involvement in the reconstruction of conflict zones is a common practice. From post-World War II Europe to more recent efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the global community has often stepped in to rebuild and revitalize war-torn regions. Trump’s proposal for the U.S. to oversee Gaza’s redevelopment fits within this tradition of international intervention aimed at fostering stability through reconstruction.
The idea of relocating populations for their safety and to facilitate reconstruction, while sensitive, has historical precedents. For example, during the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China, over a million residents were relocated to new areas. Trump’s suggestion to temporarily relocate Gaza’s residents during redevelopment mirrors such strategies, aiming to ensure their safety while rebuilding takes place.
And it turns out, international law does explicitly allow for population transfers under specific conditions. According to Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, forced transfers are generally prohibited — except when “the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” Additionally, the article clarifies that relocation outside the affected territory (such as outside of Gaza) is permissible “when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.”
In the current situation, it is indeed “materially impossible” to sustain a civilian population in Gaza, given the severe lack of housing and infrastructure instigated by the Hamas-led massacres and kidnappings in Israel on October 7, 2023. Even more concerning, Gaza remains largely controlled by the terrorist organization, which routinely employs civilians as human shields, deliberately targets Israeli citizens, and diverts humanitarian aid for its own cynical use.
Accurate polling in authoritarian environments without free speech is notoriously unreliable, yet the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Gaza residents have risked — and in some cases lost — their lives attempting to escape. Permitting civilians to leave voluntarily aligns with international law, while forcing them to remain in an environment where they are used as human shields is itself a violation of international law.
When international law addresses population transfers, it specifically refers to relocating people from their “homes.” However, both the United Nations and Palestinians themselves classify the majority of Gaza’s population not as residents of their current homes, but as “refugees.” In fact, many cities in Gaza are officially designated by the UN as “refugee camps,” despite their permanent infrastructure.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch3, put it precisely:
“If Palestinians in Gaza are refugees, then why is it wrong for Jordan and Egypt to welcome them? If you object that this would uproot them from their homes and lands in Gaza, then why are they being called refugees?”
Of course, this is a microcosm for the entire Palestinian and “pro-Palestine” movements: one big hypocrisy that is somehow acceptable in some circles because “the Jews” are their self-declared enemy.
Why would anyone who genuinely cares about the Palestinians want them to remain trapped in a war zone? Imagine a global initiative that offers them the opportunity to temporarily relocate to safety while Gaza is rebuilt — free from Hamas rule — into a place of prosperity and renewal. A city defined by hope rather than hatred, where children are raised with values of peace and respect, rather than being taught antisemitism or the glorification of violence, murder, and kidnapping.
“No one seems to have any interest or even willingness to listen to Gaza residents themselves,” wrote Shlomo Levin, one of our guest essayists. “Who cares what the foreign ministers of Arab countries, political figures around the world, and human rights campaigners have to say? The voices that matter belong to the residents of Gaza. Forcing Gaza residents to leave against their will would clearly be wrong. But not allowing them the opportunity to choose to leave is also wrong, if not worse.”4
“The truth is that Arab politicians, other world leaders, and human rights groups have a vested interest in not allowing Gaza’s population to resettle,” he added. “They want to maintain the residents of Gaza as constantly suffering victims so that they can continue to blame Israel for their problems, cast aspersions on Israel’s legitimacy, and accuse Israel of crimes.”
A simple survey could expose a reality many prefer to ignore: Countless Gazans would choose a future elsewhere over a life of fear and instability under oppression. No one wants to remain in a makeshift tent indefinitely. If given the opportunity for a safe, stable home but rejecting it just to continue blaming Israel, then Israel isn’t the problem; the real problem is a mindset that prioritizes destruction over dignity and suffering over solutions.
If applications were available for relocation to other parts of the Middle East, Europe, or North America, the response would be overwhelming. Gaza’s public rallies may imply one story, but in private, many people there long to break free from Hamas’ control.
Those unfamiliar with the Middle East fail to recognize the turning tides. A new generation is emerging, one that seeks peace, normalization, and cooperation rather than perpetual conflict — and the reality is that, if Middle Eastern countries want calm and stability, if people outside the region want it too, and if the world does not want to contend with another Israeli-Palestinian war, giving Gaza an “extreme makeover” is a near-perfect solution.
Sure, you might not love or even like Donald Trump, but those who take a nuanced approach to politics know how to separate a politician’s personality and character from their policy and execution. Whether the Trump Administration can pull off this massive endeavor in Gaza remains to be seen. For now, at least we know that “Trump speaks the language of the Middle East,” like Emirati journalist Amjad Taha put it, accurately referring to Arabic as a language of strength and force.5
“A wise leader does not ask what the world is, but what it could be,” Taha added. “Trump sees that vision. It’s time the world does too.”
“Jared Kushner’s New Fund Plans to Invest Saudi Money in Israel.” Wall Street Journal.
Fought between Israel (the victor) and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan from June 5-10, 1967
A human rights NGO and UN watchdog group based in Geneva, Switzerland
Levin, Shlomo. “The Real Human Rights Violation Is Not Offering Gazans a Choice.” Substack.
Amjad Taha on X
Trump as always deserves a huge amount of credit for thinking out of the box in approaching conventional wisdom that has failed in its application to the facts on the ground
The plan makes the mistaken assumption that Gazans think like westerners. That is, prosperity and a higher standard of living will result in peace and harmony. Though I am sure they would rather be prosperous than poor, no amount of material wealth will override their desire to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic state.