A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
The immediate reaction by pundits to President Trump’s out-of-the-box proposals regarding the Gaza Strip has been knee-jerk rejection. Few, however, have proposed better alternatives. Certainly, a return to the status quo would be untenable. It would result in more terrorism, more destruction, more deaths and less peace. We need the kind of new thinking that occurred after the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan at the end of World War II.
We can learn from history that the relocation of people is sometimes necessary to secure an enduring peace. Ethnic Germans had lived in Sudetenland for generations. Their presence there had played a significant role in the Nazi aggression against Czechoslovakia that led to World War II. After the defeat of Germany, millions of ethnic Germans were relocated out of Sudetenland. This helped bring about enduring peace in Central Europe.
Similarly, the relocation of many Indian and Pakistani residents after the end of British colonial rule helped stabilize that area.
Wars result in population movements, especially for residents of nations that initiated the wars. Consider the German city of Konigsberg, which had been an important part of Germany for centuries. When the Soviet Union defeated Germany, it transferred nearly the entire German population of Konigsberg, renamed it Kaliningrad, repopulated it with ethnic Russians and annexed it to the Soviet Union, which was hundreds of miles away.
World leaders, including Winston Churchill and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, deemed these population transfers necessary. They were not without serious difficulties, including the deaths of some innocent people, but history has demonstrated that they were worth the cost.
Peace is more important than place, and if an enduring peace in the Middle East could be achieved with temporary or even longer-term population transfers, it may be worth considering. Deploying loaded terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “population transfers” does not solve what has long appeared to be the intractable problems associated with the Gaza strip, which was originally part of Egypt, then occupied by Israel, then returned to Palestinian control and ultimately taken over in a coup by the terrorists of Hamas.
Mr. Trump’s initial proposal is not written in stone. Like other Trump initiatives, it is provocative and designed to shake up the status quo. There are many possible variations, including temporary U.S. control over what Mr. Trump correctly describes as demolition sites. The United States, with the insistence of Arab and Muslim nations, could take over portions of the Gaza Strip, destroy the terrorist tunnels underneath the land and rebuild it in a way that minimizes the prospects of remilitarization by Hamas. Palestinian families could then be returned to the rebuilt areas after being vetted to exclude Hamas terrorists and supporters. This will not be easy, but neither would any other solution to the Gaza problem.
The ultimate goal of a completely rebuilt, demilitarized “Singapore on the Mediterranean” will not be easy to achieve. But it may be worth trying.
To begin with, Palestinian residents of areas subject to reconstruction could be generously compensated for their dislocation by funds provided by wealthy Arab states in the region. It is inevitable, however, that some Palestinian residents of Gaza will refuse to move, even temporarily, for fear that they will never be allowed to return. It is also likely that Hamas would threaten any residents who accepted payment to move. Accordingly, some degree of compulsion would be necessary as it was in Sudetenland, India, Pakistan and Konigsberg. When it comes to peace in Gaza, there are no free lunches — only the comparative costs of imperfect actions versus disastrous nonactions.
A demilitarized Gaza would dramatically increase the chances of a broader resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It would open the door to new ideas about the governance of the West Bank. It might encourage the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, to join the Abraham Accords. A return to the status quo, with Gaza remaining under the control of terrorist groups and rebuilding its tunnels, holds no similar prospects for an enduring peace.
So, let thoughtful people with goodwill think hard about alternatives to a return to the status quo. There will be no perfect solution. Every plan will have its pitfall, every idea its detractors and every alternative its downside. But let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Trump has introduced the first new idea in the many years in which old ideas have failed.
• Alan M. Dershowitz is a Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School. Mr. Stein, a Democrat, served as New York City Council president, 1986-94.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.