Donald Trump is, if nothing else, consistent. His latest proposal to take control of Gaza and rebuild it as an American project is just the latest example of his signature blend of brash, thoughtless rhetoric and occasional accidental insight. The suggestion that the United States, fresh off the disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, should wade into yet another Middle Eastern quagmire with some kind of redevelopment scheme is, on its face, absurd. The very notion that America should be the overseer of a rebuilding effort in Gaza—a territory seething with decades of animosity, radical ideology, and Hamas-backed terrorism—is as unserious as it is reckless.

Yet buried within this recklessness is a kernel of truth: the Palestinian people deserve better. If there is any hope for Gaza’s future, it lies in breaking free from Hamas, abandoning terrorism, and embracing a path toward stability and economic opportunity. But this is easier said than done. As Steve Berman rightly notes, Gaza’s choice has long been between Hamas and suffering—and so far, they have chosen Hamas. Until that cycle is broken, rebuilding efforts, no matter how ambitious, are doomed to fail.

A Chicken and Egg Problem: Security vs. Economic Revival

Trump’s instincts are right in one respect: rebuilding Gaza as a livable and even prosperous place should be a long-term goal. A Gaza Strip transformed into a “Mediterranean Riviera” could, in theory, provide its people with hope and prosperity. The problem, of course, is that such a vision is impossible without first eliminating the terrorist ideology that has taken root there. Hamas, which thrives on perpetual war with Israel, would sooner destroy infrastructure than allow Gaza to become a thriving economic zone.

This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Do you first eliminate Hamas and then attempt economic redevelopment? Or do you try to create economic incentives to draw Palestinians away from Hamas? History suggests the former is necessary for the latter to work. While Trump may fantasize about bulldozing over Gaza’s ruins and building a Trump Tower, the reality is that nothing good can happen in the Strip unless its people reject Hamas’s nihilistic, self-defeating ideology. Until then, grand rebuilding plans are little more than real estate developer daydreams.

Arab States and the Palestinian Paradox

Trump’s proposal also unintentionally highlights the hypocrisy of Arab states regarding the Palestinian issue. As Yair Rosenberg correctly points out, Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt vocally support the Palestinian cause in rhetoric but consistently refuse to integrate Palestinian refugees or allow mass resettlement. This is a pattern that has held since 1948: keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo so they can be used as a bludgeon against Israel while avoiding taking any real responsibility for their welfare.

Elliot Kaufman drives this point home by noting that while Arab states loudly accuse Israel of genocide, they simultaneously slam their own doors shut to Palestinians seeking refuge. Egypt, which could have easily absorbed many of the Gazans fleeing the war, chose instead to close its border, reinforcing the notion that these countries see Palestinians as political pawns rather than people in need of assistance. If Arab leaders truly cared about the Palestinian people, they would be eager to offer them safety and opportunity instead of leaving them to rot under Hamas rule.

America Has No Business in Gaza

Despite whatever fleeting insight Trump may have stumbled upon, his proposal for U.S. intervention in Gaza is as misguided as it is dangerous. As Spencer Neale of the American Conservative argues, America has neither the moral obligation nor the strategic interest to entangle itself in another Middle Eastern disaster. The idea that American soldiers should put their lives on the line for a project that neither Palestinians nor Israelis support is a relic of the failed neoconservative fantasies that Trump himself once railed against.

Rod Dreher takes this a step further, warning that a U.S. occupation of Gaza would immediately make American interests around the world prime targets for terrorist reprisals. The moment a U.S. Marine sets foot on Gaza’s beaches, every jihadist organization on the planet will see it as a rallying cry for attacks on American soil. We have already seen how endless occupation breeds resentment and violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should Gaza be any different?

The Path Forward: Realistic Alternatives to Trump’s Proposal

Rather than reckless intervention, the United States should support regional solutions that incentivize moderation and economic development while cutting off the financial and political support that sustains Hamas. This means backing efforts that empower Palestinian communities to reject Hamas and align themselves with economic prosperity over violent resistance.

Israel has, time and again, shown a willingness to invest in Palestinian infrastructure and business opportunities when met with cooperation. The Palestinian Authority, despite its many flaws, remains a better alternative than Hamas for negotiating economic initiatives that benefit Palestinians without furthering the cycle of war. If the United States wants to play a constructive role, it should pressure Arab states to stop using Palestinians as political pawns and instead take tangible steps toward integrating those seeking peace into stable economic environments.

Additionally, Western financial aid must be reformed to ensure it does not end up in the hands of terrorists. Far too often, international relief funds meant for humanitarian purposes have been co-opted by Hamas to rebuild its terrorist networks rather than improve civilian life. Any aid to Gaza must be contingent upon full transparency and an absolute rejection of violent extremism.

Conclusion: A Foolish Proposal with a Sliver of Truth

Trump’s proposal is reckless, impractical, and doomed to fail. His lack of understanding of the Middle East is on full display, treating Gaza as if it were some derelict Atlantic City boardwalk ready for redevelopment. But in his characteristic bluster, he has accidentally touched on an essential truth: Palestinians deserve a future beyond Hamas. That future, however, cannot be built by America, nor can it be imposed from the outside. It must come from within, through the rejection of terror and the embrace of peace.

In the meantime, the best course of action for the United States is to stay out of Gaza and let Israel handle its own security. If the Arab world truly cares about the Palestinians, they can step up and take responsibility rather than leaving Gaza to fester in perpetual war. America’s days of playing global policeman should be over—and that includes resisting the temptation to turn Gaza into some Trump-branded real estate experiment.