Trump's real-estate approach to Gaza and how the West should actually be involved in post-war reconstruction.
Displacing Palestinians is both cruel and exceptionally unjust - unfortunately, not necessarily unworkable.
Trump's suggestion that the U.S. would take over Gaza, move around the local population, and rebuild Gaza into a French Riviera-style environment has justifiably captured a lot of attention and outrage around the world.
Now, Trump claims it is unlivable and he is right.
But it was Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment with 2,000 pound dumb bombs leveling the majority of residential buildings, hospitals, schools and other public institutions that has turned Gaza into an unlivable hellscape.
(side note: as of February 2025, approximately 70% of physical structures in Gaza are either destroyed or damaged.)
Consequently, if there is one country that needs to foot the bulk of the bill for the reconstruction then it is surely Israel.
With that said, Gaza cannot have its future in the hands of Hamas either - it has been the long-standing position of these cables that Hamas has to be removed from power one way or another (more on those practicalities in later posts).
Now in relation to Trump’s actual suggestions of displacing Gazans and rebuilding a resort town in Gaza, we will discuss how realistic this could even be in the upcoming posts (it would require a lot of outright coercion against neighboring Arab states and would weaken US prestige and influence and cause a regional push towards realignment with Russia/China), but for now we want to emphasize one point.
Trump's declarations necessarily imply U.S. involvement on the ground, meaning some troops will have to be present to make this happen.
(side note: probably not what the America-first isolationist MAGA base had in mind)
Now, to what extent that presence will be big depends on the nature of the final ambition.
But even if Israel was to take the brunt and do a lot to prepare the groundwork for America's arrival, the U.S. would still need to send its own military force to guard its civilians, which would necessarily have to be involved on the ground in the reconstruction efforts.
Crucially, no serious investment would ever flow into Gaza's rebuilding without guarantees of security, and Trump must understand this.
But before all that, there is one major obstacle—Palestinian people and crucially, Hamas—which is currently still in power in Gaza.
And this leads to the second implication of this statement.
The direction of Trump's suggestions, no matter what the ultimate version of it becomes, suggests that there is no Hamas in the post-Gaza-Israel war.
But who is going to eradicate Hamas?
It's been 15 months now, and Hamas is still alive and kicking. And per the comments of the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State, they almost replenished all of their lost fighters in a new recruitment drive.
Indeed, arguably, Trump's declaration that the U.S. will take over Gaza will provide an even further boost for Hamas's recruitment efforts.
What better way to persuade young Gazans to join Hamas than to point out the comments made by the U.S. President that their land will be taken away from them?
Since from Palestinian perspective, there is no speculation anymore as to where the new U.S. administration stands in relation to their rights of self-determination.
Now, back to the pressing question: who exactly is going to eradicate Hamas?
Will Israel destroy Hamas?
As we discussed in previous cables, it is in Israel's interest to prolong the war and deny Palestinians a state.
Ideally, Netanyahu would do that and still normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.
But this is increasingly unlikely to happen - indeed, the Saudi kingdom’s Foreign Ministry saw it urgent to release a press statement in the middle of the night local time in vigorous response to Trump’s US will take over Gaza comments.
So given that normalization is now less likely to happen anytime soon, the second best option is to virtually take over Gaza and remove Hamas.
And indeed, this is exactly what Netanyahu declared over the weekend.
He said that Hamas will be eradicated once the Israeli troops take over all the remaining hostages: implying that the ceasefire will not hold.
Now, Netanyahu said that he and Trump were aligned on this.
And this is probably very true.
If indeed Trump's comments (even if directionally not in terms of specifics), include U.S. increasing role in Gaza, then Hamas has to go.
And what better way to do this than to outsource it to Israel?
Secondly, it is also increasingly likely that Netanyahu is calculating that there is very little gain to be made from not escalating in Gaza and remaining in Trump's good graces to then ask him for help against Iran.
Recall how one of the main reasons why Netanyahu would have an incentive to closely align with Trump on exactly what he does in the region would be to then use that political capital to persuade the U.S. to strike Iran.
But nowadays, there is every indication that Trump actually wants to deal with Iran.
He was quick to point out in his truth social that it was an exaggeration that Israel and the U.S. were planning an attack on Iran and that he wanted Iran to prosper and have a deal that precludes Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons.
Now, there's so much going on right now in the region and a lot of it is extremely tentative.
But it is very likely that Trump actually genuinely wants to avoid a significant confrontation with Iran.
We will discuss it in other posts as things develop, but Iran is also aligned with this.
So we have two parties that want to avoid a direct confrontation with each other.
That means Israel has less of a reason to constrain itself in its own backyard: meaning that the political capital that it would have tried to preserve may not be expanded as it was intended on Iran.
So going full force in its backyard it may.
Now, with all that said, and with a caveat that Gazans and Palestinians broadly should have their own state in that region, and in those lands, and that it would be extremely unjust for them to be resettled, it has nonetheless been the position of these cables that Hamas specifically should never play a role in the reconstruction of Gaza.
With Hamas, a totalitarian force in power in Gaza, a peaceful coexistence with Israel is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
Moreover, reconstruction and development of Gaza, freedom and prosperity of Palestinian people will be under question indefinitely with Hamas in power.
No serious country or private institution would ever invest into Gaza where Hamas is still in government and where confrontation with Israel would remain likely (meaning destruction of assets).
Consequently, it has always been the position of these cables that Hamas should be forced out and an international coalition should take over in administering basic governance and playing a role in reconstruction.
And we shall discuss the specifics of these measures in the upcoming posts.