from Devastation too “Riviera”? The Troubling Vision for Gaza‘s Future
The recent ceasefire discussions surrounding Gaza have revealed a deeply unsettling proposition: the potential for large-scale economic advancement, spearheaded by external actors, even as the region grapples with immense destruction. This isn’t a new impulse – throughout history, outside powers have attempted to dictate the future of Palestinian land.But the rhetoric surrounding this latest plan, notably from former President Trump, represents a significant and disturbing shift.
Trump, echoing earlier ambitions, framed the situation not as a humanitarian crisis, but as an opportunity.He dismissed the idea that the land was “not being his to control,” adding a promise to “do a job with it too,” envisioning ownership and an economic boom providing “unlimited numbers of jobs and housing.” His vision? To transform Gaza into “the riviera of the middle East,” an ”international, amazing place.”
The “Trump Economic Development Plan” – A Replacement for Initial Goals
The ceasefire plan ultimately replaced the President’s initial ideas with the promise of a “Trump economic development plan.” This plan would be overseen by a “panel of experts” with experiance in building modern cities in the Gulf region. “long-term internal security” would be provided by an “international stabilization Force.”
This approach isn’t isolated. It echoes a long history of external intervention in the region. Though, many find Trump’s statements particularly jarring. He discussed a region devastated by conflict – a conflict in which the U.S. played a role – as a potential real estate venture.
Historian Taner Akcam aptly described this as “the transformation of mass death into a development project.” This suggests an intervention far exceeding those of his predecessors. While the specifics of a Trump-led plan remain unclear,one thing is certain: no amount of development can truly rebuild what the people of Gaza have lost.
A History of External Planning & Why This Feels Diffrent
For decades, external actors have attempted to shape the future of Palestinian land. Consider:
* The King-Crane Commission (1919): An early U.S.attempt to assess the region and offer recommendations, ultimately favoring a degree of self-governance that wasn’t fully realized.
* Post-Oslo accords Development Plans: Numerous initiatives aimed at economic growth, often contingent on political concessions.
* Ongoing International Aid Efforts: While vital, these have often been hampered by political constraints and the cyclical nature of conflict.
What sets the current proposal apart is the tone and the explicit framing of devastation as opportunity. It’s a vision that prioritizes economic gain over the immediate needs and self-determination of the Palestinian people.
Why a “Dubai-Style” Solution Misses the Mark
The idea of replicating the success of cities like Dubai in Gaza is fundamentally flawed. Dubai’s development was built on oil wealth and a specific political context. Gaza faces:
* A history of displacement and occupation.
* Severe infrastructure damage.
* A deeply traumatized population.
* Ongoing political instability.
These factors cannot be simply erased by investment and construction. You can’t build a “riviera” on the foundations of collective trauma and unresolved political grievances.
Ultimately,any enduring future for Gaza must be driven by the needs and aspirations of its people,not imposed by external actors seeking economic or geopolitical advantage.
About the Author:
Andrew Patrick is a Professor of History at Tennessee State University and a scholar specializing in U.S.-Middle east relations.He is the author of America’s Forgotten Middle East Initiative: The King-Crane Commission of 1919.
About Made by History:
Made by history provides readers with insightful articles written and edited by professional historians.Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
