Gaza: What Can Be, Unburdened by What Has Been.

“What can be, unburdened by what has been”: throughout the last U.S. presidential campaign, VP Kamala Harris regularly repeated this phrase, and conservative pundits, nearly as regularly, ridiculed her for it. And while Harris certainly repeated this phrase too often, the phrase is aspirational – a call to think unconventionally, even disruptively, without allowing the shackles of the past to restrain you or your vision for the future. 

When Trump said he sees a peaceful future for Gaza by the U.S. “taking over” Gaza and when he wrote on Truth Social: “The Palestinians … would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free” … he was imagining “what can be, unburdened by what has been.” 

And when he followed up these comments by saying that the USA would “slowly and carefully [in Gaza] begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth,” he was plainly thinking about what Gaza “can be, unburdened by what has been.”

Meanwhile, all the people reacting to Trump’s proposal with feigned or real outrage and claiming that the only “solution” to the ongoing conflict in Gaza (and between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs more generally) is the “two-state solution” are, just as plainly, “burdened by what has been.”

And what exactly, “has been” in Gaza? After all, those who don’t understand history … are doomed to repeat it.

For almost 2,000 years following the fall in 63 B.C.E. of the last truly sovereign state in the western Levant before 1948 (the Hasmonean Dynasty’s Kingdom of Judea) – the entire region, including Gaza, was ruled by successive imperialist empires (Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman and British) until 1948 – when the Jewish people declared, fought for, and obtained their independence in part of their indigenous homeland … though not in Gaza. 

As global empires collapsed, Britain recognized the need to create separate Jewish and Arab states. The 1937 Peel Commission proposed partitioning the land, offering almost 75% — including Gaza — for the first-ever independent Arab state west of the Jordan River. While Jewish leaders accepted, the Arab leadership, led by Haj Amin el-Husseini, rejected the plan outright, refusing to acknowledge Jewish self-determination.

Fearing violence, Britain shelved the proposal and, under Arab pressure, severely restricted Jewish immigration — leaving Jews in Europe, North Africa and Iraq without escape from impending massacres and genocide. The Holocaust proved the devastating consequences of that decision.

After World War II, the “two-state solution” resurfaced in 1947, this time under the United Nations. While India and Pakistan successfully partitioned out of British control, the Arab world rejected partition west of the Jordan River, launching a self-described “war of annihilation” to push the Jews into the sea.

Despite facing vastly larger Arab forces, Israel won its War of Independence but suffered significant losses — more than 1% of its population was killed. Meanwhile, Egypt and Jordan seized the areas designated for an Arab state, including Gaza and the “West Bank.” However, instead of establishing a Palestinian state, they occupied the land, treated Palestinian Arabs as second-class citizens and used these territories as bases for terrorism against Israel.

Between 1949 and 1967, no Arab leader demanded Palestinian sovereignty in Gaza or the “West Bank.” When the PLO was founded in 1964, its mission statement wasn’t to liberate territories under Jordanian and Egyptian control but to destroy Israel.

In 1967, Egypt declared war, allied with Syria and Jordan, and blockaded Israeli shipping — an act of war. Israel’s counterstrike in the Six-Day War brought Gaza under Israeli control for the first time in 2,000 years.

Since then, at least five major attempts at a two-state solution have been made. Offers in 2001 (Camp David) and 2009 would have created a Palestinian state in Gaza and over 90% of the West Bank. Both were rejected — just as in 1937 and 1947 — resulting in more war and terrorism.

Gaza’s history since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 demonstrates the repeated failure of land for peace efforts. When Israel unilaterally pulled out, removing all Jewish residents and leaving significant economic infrastructure behind, Gaza could have thrived, particularly with billions of dollars in international donations. Instead, Hamas destroyed the Israeli economic infrastructure, and took complete control in 2007 after violently ousting the Palestinian Authority.

Since then, the pattern has been consistent. International aid flows in, but rather than investing in development, Hamas diverts it to strengthen its grip, build terror tunnels and amass weapons. Periodic attacks on Israel lead to military responses, and each conflict results in devastation, with Hamas using civilians as human shields. This cycle — investment, corruption, terrorism and military retaliation — repeats (seemingly without end).

The Oct. 7, 2023 attack, however, marked a turning point. Its sheer brutality and Hamas’ pledge to repeat it “over and over again” convinced most Israelis that the old pattern must end. Winning wars only to cede territory back to Hamas guarantees continued bloodshed.

As Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” This is Gaza’s history. Trump, by contrast, is looking at what Gaza “can be, unburdened by what has been.”

As Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” This is Gaza’s history. 

Trump’s comments stirred controversy. No one should advocate forced population transfers, even when leaders start wars and lose them. While such actions were deemed acceptable or largely ignored (e.g., the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII or the Kuwaiti expulsion of Palestinians after the Gulf War), they are rightfully unacceptable in 2025.

However, dismissing Trump’s ideas entirely in favor of the failed solutions of the past is myopic and shortsighted. The reality is that simply rebuilding Gaza while allowing Hamas to remain will only lead to more war. The Palestinian population is more radicalized today than when they collectively followed Haj Amin el-Husseini in 1937 and 1947 into over eight decades of war and misery.

Breaking free from the past requires a new vision. A Gaza where people who wish to relocate to safer places have the option to do so. A Gaza where Hamas does not regain control. A Gaza where reconstruction is conditional on the genuine possibility of peace. Would America have invested billions in post-war Germany if Nazis were allowed to return to power?

In Gaza, radical change is necessary. Gaza needs what Germany received after 1945 — a complete ideological shift, eliminating extremism and fostering economic stability. The Marshall Plan succeeded because Germany accepted total defeat and transformation. Without a similar approach, expecting Gaza to change is foolish.

Trump’s plan for Gaza may be impractical or controversial, but he is at least acknowledging that the status quo is unsustainable. Clinging to the past ensures continued war and devastation. The only way forward is to imagine a different Gaza — one truly unburdened by what has been.

Micha Danzig served in the Israeli Army and is a former police officer with the NYPD. He is currently an attorney and is very active with numerous Jewish and pro-Israel organizations, including Stand With Us and the FIDF, and is a national board member of Herut North America.