Donald Trump's delusions: US Gaza plan is a disconnected fantasy

“Dreamy,” Israelis declared upon hearing US President Donald Trump’s plan to evacuate the residents of Gaza and build a renovated Riviera there. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is enthusiastic about the idea, calling it the best plan he has heard to date regarding Gaza. Trump’s call to resettle residents of the Gaza Strip elsewhere was immediately endorsed by right-wing extremists Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was a loyal student of Meir Kahane. Opposition leaders also contributed to the impression of a broad Israeli consensus. National Unity leader Benny Gantz stated that the “most important principle” of the president’s plan “is to transfer responsibility for the residents of Gaza from Hamas to the world.”

Public discourse is now focusing on the feasibility of the new pullout from the White House, as if anything is acceptable and anything is possible.

Along with this new moral low point, President Trump’s statement marks a turning point in Israeli political discourse. While the plan itself seems like an unworkable fantasy – a combination of political improvisation, international blindness, and real estate pretension – its impact on public discourse in Israel could be devastating. Trump’s move creates international legitimacy, even if dubious, for ideas that were previously seen as unacceptable; the fantasy becomes the new political framework of the Israeli Right. These dangers will remain with us long after Trump himself leaves office.

Suggesting ideas such as mass immigration and mass development of the Gaza Strip can be considered as options, but such ideas must be developed with the participation of the local population, not by force, over their heads. Trump did in his statement what no Israeli prime minister has dared to do, and what the Israeli Supreme Court forbade: He gave public legitimacy to Kahanism. Just as the failed annexation idea raised by the White House at the end of his previous term became part of the political discourse, so too will the transfer notion become part of our lexicon.

This is not merely a theoretical concern. Political shifts often begin with rhetoric, and once an idea becomes normalized in public discussion, the path toward its implementation becomes shorter and more plausible. We have already seen how past “impossible” suggestions have evolved into policy.

Palestinians walk past the rubble of destroyed houses in Khan Yunis. (credit: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri)

That is why the profound meaning of the proposal goes beyond the question of its immediate likelihood. We live in an era of disdain for international law and the principles that underlie it, but recognizing the basic rights of people (especially when it comes to indigenous populations) is not some nice addition to politics. Behind it is a bloody historical experience that has left deep scars all over the world. Those who see people as objects that can be brushed away or enslaved almost always bring disaster upon themselves and others. Those who have ignored the Palestinians for years cannot wash their hands of the disaster of the past year and a half; those who continue to ignore it will bring us further disasters. A plan that disregards the agency and rights of millions of people is not a plan for peace, security, or progress; it is a prescription for prolonged conflict and suffering.

Additionally, this proposal poses serious risks to Israel’s standing in the international arena. Even if the current US administration is entertaining such ideas, the global community – including key allies in Europe and beyond – would likely view any attempt to forcibly relocate an entire population as a severe violation of human rights. This could lead to diplomatic isolation, economic repercussions, and a further erosion of Israel’s already strained relationships with various international bodies.

This is without mentioning the damage that this delusional suggestion will do to the hostages and their families and all those who are waiting for the stages of the current hostage deal, and for everything that still needs to come after it.

This dangerous dynamic is gaining momentum in the broader political context, where it connects with the trends of erosion of democratic values that are affecting Israel. Israeli society, which is in a deep crisis over questions of identity and democratic institutions, is now receiving a message that undermines the concept of citizenship and politics and that resonates far beyond Gaza. It is easy to imagine how the extreme Right will see deportation as a handy solution to any challenge, both in the West Bank and even among Israel’s Arab citizens. This slippery slope has already begun to form, with increased rhetoric against Palestinian citizens of Israel and efforts to delegitimize their place in the country.

In fact, eliminating opponents will become a solution for all intents and purposes. And any delay in realizing the illusion of transferring millions of people to countries that do not want them will cause immediate internal Israeli frustration: We were promised the evacuation and reconstruction of Gaza; why is it still being delayed?

Moreover, this plan ignores the fundamental questions of governance, stability, and long-term security. Even if such a project could miraculously be carried out without bloodshed – a highly dubious assumption – what government or authority would take over Gaza? Who would fund this massive reconstruction effort? How would Israel ensure its security if Gaza were left in a state of prolonged chaos?

The complexity and potential for harm are magnified by the collective trauma of the October 7 attacks and the war that followed. The public is searching for solutions to the sense of insecurity and the real questions that have arisen among Jews and Arabs about their shared future. After so much death and destruction, after the testimonies of the victims and the kidnapped, the temptation to pursue magical solutions is particularly great – especially those in which others do the work for us. It is convenient to think that American soldiers or the Gulf states will simply make the problems we face disappear. But the fantasy of the other side disappearing is not only morally dangerous, but it also prevents us from developing real solutions. It perpetuates the dangerous belief that lasting peace can be achieved through force and expulsion rather than through engagement, negotiation, and mutual recognition.

(L-R) US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over a backdrop of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. (credit: Canva, REUTERS/Adel Al Khader)

Realistically, Israelis and Palestinians aren't leaving

It is precisely at moments like these that realistic leadership is needed, one that will not feed illusions to the public but rather a moral and sober view: Israelis and the Palestinians are not going anywhere. The sooner we learn to compromise, the better off we will all be. This requires a shift in mindset – from viewing the conflict as a zero-sum game to acknowledging that true security and prosperity for one side depend on security and prosperity for the other. A society that adopts practices of ethnic cleansing, even if under the pretext of “economic development,” will be a bad and dark place to live. The more we recognize the humanity of those who live next to us and with us, the better we will be among ourselves. This is doubly true when it comes to a people and a society like ours, who have experienced firsthand the trauma of expulsion and exile throughout history. What is the difference between the Trumpist idealized solution and the biblical methods of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and all the detractors who exiled and persecuted the Jewish people throughout the generations?

Therefore, the support for Trump’s proposal by some Israeli politicians from the Center reflects such a dangerous confusion between short-term calculations and real public interests – cowardice and a profound failure of leadership. We are desperate for Center-Left leaders who will talk about the future and not just wage a general battle against the far-fetched ideas of the Right. We do not need a softer and smaller Right but a vision of truth and political realism. Leaders who will know how to say, even in this painful and difficult moment, that the solution to the crisis in Gaza, as well as to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole, must be based on principles of justice, security, and mutual respect.

And perhaps herein lies the only positive side of Trump’s statement. The ideas he promotes are so disconnected from reality, that they remind us that salvation will not come from the other side of the world. The future of all the inhabitants of this country depends first and foremost on us. It is a wake-up call, an urgent reminder that we must shape our own destiny – not rely on reckless external interventions. After the painful year and a half we have gone through, many Israelis are returning to this basic understanding. We are not alone. The delusions from Washington will fade some day; and when that happens, we will be able to build our lives here.■

Shira Ben Sasson Furstenberg is an associate director of the International Relations and Development Department in the New Israel Fund.