President Trump declares that the US should “take over” Gaza

President Trump shocked the world Tuesday evening when he declared, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too.”

He added, “We’ll own it and be responsible” for disposing of unexploded munitions and rebuilding the area into a mecca for tourism and jobs, vowing to turn Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” He also said the two million Palestinians in Gaza should be moved to countries like Egypt and Jordan because of the devastation of the area resulting from Hamas’s October 7 invasion and Israel’s response.

Reaction, as you might imagine, has been swift.

“A bold plan and a bold vision”

On the positive side, Israeli journalist Alex Traiman writes for the Jewish News Syndicate that Mr. Trump’s call to resettle Gazans “could end the Israel–Palestinian conflict once and for all.” If Gaza were no longer part of a future “Palestinian state,” the two-state solution would be significantly changed if not replaced. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the president’s proposal by calling it “the kind of thinking that will reshape the Middle East and bring peace.”

Journalist Jake Wallis Simons similarly reports in the Telegraph that “Trump’s plan to Make Gaza Great Again could really work.” He cites a conversation with a longtime friend who lives in Gaza and told him, “Gaza is uninhabitable, so this is a great idea.” His friend added, “We survived the war but we will die from the rubble. This is the best solution for the people. Would you want to wait two to five years just for the rubble to be removed so your house can be rebuilt?”

Simons notes that the Strip has been destroyed because Hamas booby-trapped so many buildings and built countless tunnel shafts beneath structures, leaving the IDF no choice but to blow them up. In his view, Mr. Trump’s proposal is a “bold plan and a bold vision that speaks to the needs of ordinary people rather than the corrupt ideologues who so shamefully lead them and their liberal cheerleads in the democracies.” Several officials in and out of government voiced similar support for the concept as well.

On the negative side, Saudi Arabia and Turkey immediately rejected it, as did Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Palestinian leaders. They pointed to the security risks and instability that could come with moving such a large population into countries already grappling with their own issues. The Saudis added that they would not establish diplomatic relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is created and includes Gaza.

Officials in France and the UK also opposed the proposal. France’s Foreign Ministry stated, “Gaza’s future shouldn’t unfold under the control of a third state, but rather as part of a future Palestinian state.”

Is Mr. Trump serious?

One approach is to believe that Mr. Trump is serious about taking over Gaza.

He has been told that it would take fifteen years or more to rebuild Gaza and that this would require working with partners in the region to find Palestinians a place to live temporarily. Tuesday afternoon, he told reporters that Palestinians would have “no alternative” but to move out of Gaza because it is now a “demolition site.”

At the press conference, he went further, stating that the US would take the region over and rebuild it into a prosperous economic destination “not for a specific group of people but for everybody.”

Of course, such a massive project would seem to entail significant involvement by the US military in defeating Hamas, removing unexploded ordnance and more than fifty million tons of debris from the region, and making the area structurally safe for rebuilding. For Americans to support such a sacrificial move, they would seemingly need to see it as essential to America’s best interests.

The legal issues are complex as well: around three-quarters of UN members recognize Gaza as part of a sovereign state of Palestine (though the US does not), while the US has no legal claim to the territory.

And the Palestinians would have to agree to evacuate. Many are already calling the proposal another “Nakba,” meaning “catastrophe.” (Palestinians use the word to refer to the birth of the State of Israel in 1948 and the resulting displacement of hundreds of thousands of their people.) What would be done with those who refuse to leave Gaza, given that a forced deportation of civilians is a violation of international law?

Is this a bargaining strategy?

An alternate option is that the president’s proposal is a bargaining strategy on one or two levels.

After he threatened to take back the Panama Canal because of Panama’s ties to China, Panama’s president stated this week that his country would not renew its agreements with China, a move that was welcomed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The president also agreed to a thirty-day pause on his tariff threats against Mexico and Canada after they took steps to strengthen border security and curtail drug trafficking.

Perhaps his Gaza proposal is similarly intended to incentivize Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries with regard to removing Hamas, rebuilding Gaza, and creating a peaceful stability for Israel and the Middle East. According to Israeli journalist Amir Ettinger, “The plan might be that Gaza is eventually taken off the table in exchange for the return of the hostages, the expulsion of Hamas leaders and many of its operatives, and normalization with Saudi Arabia without demands in exchange for promises regarding a Palestinian state.”

Saudi Arabia is especially key to the future of the region. Some suggest that Mr. Trump’s proposal is intended to prod the Saudis to give up their insistence on Palestinian statehood and settle instead for a deal that preserves their right to stay in Gaza but not their right to sovereignty.

In addition, perhaps Mr. Trump is seeking to advance a multinational coalition involving regional and Western nations that would oversee the redevelopment of Gaza under reformed or new Palestinian leadership. According to one Israeli political analyst, “It is a commonly held view here that only Trump can ensure that the ceasefire goes through or possibly move ahead to other agreements.”

Whatever his intention, analysts report that the proposal gives the Israeli right a reason to support an extension of the ceasefire with Hamas, which is the issue presently at hand.

Two biblical responses

Christians should care deeply about what happens in Gaza, for at least two biblical reasons.

One: God loves all people, whether Jews or Arabs, Israelis or Palestinians (cf. Galatians 3:28).

Our Father wants only the best for the long-suffering people of Gaza. Their best interests should therefore be vital to any considerations regarding the future of the region. While America has longstanding military and geopolitical investments in Israel and its security, the Lord calls us to love all people as he loves them and us.

In addition, as we will see, if the Palestinians flourish, the chances of peace with Israel increase as well.

Two: To “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6) means interceding for the entire region for the sake of the world at large.

Israel obviously cannot be at peace if Iran and its proxies continue to threaten its existence. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a resurgence of Hezbollah in the north and Gaza in the west, and jihadist groups in Syria and the West Bank are all factors in the future of the land. What affects Gaza affects all Muslims, since Islam views all Muslims as part of the “Ummah” (the global Islamic community).

As a result, what happens in Gaza affects Israel and her allies, the US included.

“Christ alone can bring lasting peace”

On my many trips to Israel, my friends there always greet us with shalom, a Hebrew word translated as “peace.” However, it means far more than the absence of violence: biblical peace means right relations with God, others, and ourselves.

We are called to pray and work for such peace for Jerusalem and the broader Middle East, for the sake not only of Jews and Palestinians but the world at large. This means, ultimately, that we are to pray and work for Jews and Muslims to come to Christ as their Messiah and Lord.

C. S. Lewis was right: “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” Billy Graham agreed: “Christ alone can bring lasting peace—peace with God—peace among men and nations—and peace within our hearts.”

Thomas Merton explained the turmoil of the Middle East in terms that speak to us all:

“We are not at peace with others because we are not at peace with ourselves, and we are not at peace with ourselves because we are not at peace with God.”

Francis of Assisi was therefore right to pray, “Lord make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.”

With whom will you “sow love” today?