he fragile Gaza ceasefire hangs by a thread. President Donald Trump has stirred up a storm with his statement that the United States could take over and rebuild Gaza.

The announcement came as a surprise for most people even though Trump has a habit of shocking both his allies and enemies. He has been blunt with his European allies, telling NATO members that the United States will no longer defend them unless they share the costs. After imposing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico, he has turned his attention to Panama and Greenland.

On February 4, while traveling on Air Force One, Trump made a statement to the media that caused an uproar in the Middle East. “I have spoken to Jordan’s King Abdullah II and will now speak to Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, asking them to accept the devastated refugees from Gaza. They have lost everything; they are dying. I want to work with some Arab countries to create temporary or permanent residential colonies for them so they can be better resettled and live a life of peace.”

It seemed as though Trump wanted to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza. As a result, not only America’s closest allies in the Middle East—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Iraq, and Lebanon—but also the Arab League, comprising 23 Arab nations, rejected the proposal. Major European countries, including Germany and France, also issued statements against it. However, a debate has begun in Europe, America and the Middle East about the advantages and harms of Trump’s proposal.

The way the American president presented this proposal might have been intended to cause a stir. There is general agreement that he should not have dealt with such a sensitive matter in such a crude manner. The US State Department should have done its homework beforehand and Arab nations should have been on board before he went public with the plan. If what the United States is proposing is indeed a special assistance package to provide high-quality housing as well as other facilities needed for a high standard of living for Gaza’s 1.5 million residents, it should have also taken care to explain the other stakeholders’ role in the plan and persuaded them of its benefits.

The way the American president presented his proposal might have been intended to cause a stir. He should not have brought up such a significant matter in such a crude manner.

In the absence of such reassuring details, the hasty proposal is likely to be rejected by all aides.

After Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, Israel, supported by the United States and its Western allies, responded with disproportionate violence that has killed and injured thousands of people including women and children. It has also destroyed most of the essential infrastructure. The cities have been reduced to rubble. It is generally agreed that rehabilitation will take years, if not decades. Unless there is a huge influx of funds and other assistance, whole communities will sink below the poverty line. The human suffering will cause more hatred and possibly a hardening of the political positions with regard to a permanent settlement of the Palestine question.

This raises important questions about the choices available to various stakeholders. How and when will the violence end and peace return? Are the people of Gaza condemned to continuing to suffer generation after generation? Even if the houses in Gaza can be rebuilt quickly, what will these people do for a livelihood? Many of them used to work in Israel’s industrial zones to which they commuted via specified routes. Can that still be an option if Hamas continues to be politically dominant in Gaza?

Can there be an argument that the Gazans (and eventually all Palestinians) should trust the United States to take care of them? What should they be willing to forgo for an end to perpetual violence? What if this includes their right to live in their land? What if they refuse?

Also, how can the neighbouring countries including Egypt and Jordan be expected to agree to take in most of the Palestinian population (or all of it)? The question is important on two counts: one, the security question and two, the economic distress.

The write, a senior journalist, columnist and lawyer, is president of the Liberal Human Forum. He can be reached at arrehan@hotmail.com