The future of Gaza

By Walter E. Block

President Trump.  By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0

Even Rip van Winkle, by now, knows of Donald Trump’s vision for the future of Gaza. The US will take it over, as a sort of protectorate, similar to what he hopes will be the fate of Greenland. For all we know, he intends that that latter be named Trumpland. As to the former, maybe, Trumpza, or Trumpgaz. And what of the fate of the almost 2 million Palestinians who now reside in this enclave? They will be shipped off to Jordan and/or Egypt.

How are we to react to this initiative? I propose to do so under two headings: deontology, or ethics, and, also, utilitarianism or practicality. Let us consider the latter first.

From the point of view of Jordan and Egypt, their governments are dead set against this plan. And for good reason: the Palestinians are wont to attempt coups against host countries that have been kind enough to take them in. Just ask King Hussain of Jordan about that.

How about removal to Egypt? Yes, indeed. At the end of the Six Day War, started by that country, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula. Had Eisenhower not forced the IDF to vacate those premises, this territory would now be part of Israel. Egypt is in no moral position to object to the incursion of a few million Palestinians. Maybe that will teach them not to start any wars with Israel. Nor would they be in any physical position to engage in a new war with Israel over this issue.

What about Jordan. Something similar applies there. Jordan was either too weak to stop the totally unjustified attacks on Israel launched by Hezbollah, or cooperated with that terrorist organization in so doing. They deserve a bit of a punishment, and 2 million or so Palestinians sounds just about right. Poetic justice and all that. Nor would they be in any military position to object, should Trump, or Israel for that matter, insist.

But I have a friendly amendment. Given the proclivity of Palestinians to foist regime change on their host countries, a far better destination for them than these two countries is Iran. Why? If there is any nation that sorely needs a regime change, it is this one. They are responsible not only for launching missiles at the only civilized state in the Middle East, but also for actively aiding and abetting its proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthies, in their incessant attacks on the Jewish State. In contrast, Egypt has long been at peace with Israel, and a case can be made that the Jordanians did not really cooperate with Hezbollah, but rather were too weak to stop them.

Here is another minor disagreement with Mr. Trump. If all he intends is a temporary takeover of Gaza by the US, well and good. But for any permanent solution, it should be Israel, not his own country, which should incorporate it. After all, Hamas launched attacks on Israel when it was in control of Gaza, not at the US.

Here is another practical consideration. Ever since 1948, the Arabs, not just the Palestinians, have initiated wars against Israel. These people are death cultists. They are haters par excellance. According to Golda Meir: “When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

Unhappily, that date will likely never come, given the sick psychology of these people. Kill some of them, and, all too often, the next generation arises to take their place in perpetuating genocide against the Jews. They firmly believe that those who perish in these onslaughts become martyrs, heroes, go to heaven and are blessed with the attentions of 72 virgins. But there is one thing that appears to gain their attention, loss of land! Take Gaza away from them, was the Golan Heights, and this may make them sit up and pay attention. (Would that the Sinai were now part of Greater Israel, in this regard).

The Israelis have no intention of expanding horizontally. Were there no attacks on this country in 1948 and thereafter, this country would have been quite content to expand, instead, vertically. The Island of Manhattan is way smaller, geographically, than is Israel, and, yet, boasts roughly the same size population, just under 10 million (during the workweek, its population swells to about 25 million, when people pour in from the other four boroughs, from New Jersey, Connecticut and the counties surrounding the Big Apple north of it as eastwards from Long Island). As I say, left in peace, Israel would not have wanted to gain any other territory. But, in order to safeguard itself from more and yet more attacks in the offing, a complete takeover of Gaza might yet tip the balance. At least it would remove them from direct proximity. This might not work, given the implacable maniacal hostility evidenced by Israel’s enemies, but it is certainly something worth considering.

Let us now consider matters from an ethical point of view. Do not the Gazans own property in this territory? Is not possession nine tenths of the law? Does not the burden of proof rest with those who want to overturn extant property titles? None of this can be denied. How, then, can it be justified to expel them from their homes? Would this not constitute theft, and a violation of private property rights?

On the other hand, there is indeed some justification for forcing these people down the throats, so to speak, of those countries unwilling to accept them, Egypt, Jordan, Iran. Suppose Canada launches an unjustified war against the US, and at the end of this conflagration the latter wins, and now occupies one of the provinces of the former, say, Ontario. Would the US be justified in staying put, perhaps amalgamating it with its own country? Yes, of course, to the victor in an unjust war properly belong the spoils.

Would the US be justified in banishing all the Ontarians from their homes and property, assuming, arguendo, they all supported this improper war? It is difficult to see the injustice of any such result.

Well, ditto for banishing the Palestinians from Gaza. Are these people to pay no price for actively aiding and abetting Hamas in its atrocities of October 7, 2033?

What occurred to the ex-slave holders in 1865 when slavery was abolished in the US? Nothing much. Life went on for them pretty much as it had before. Who worked the fields now? The very slaves who previously had done so, only now they were employees. The slave-holders were not punished by one iota, apart from the loss of their human “property.”

What should have occurred at that point in our history? Justice required an ex post facto determination. Slavery should have been considered a per se abomination. Those guilty of this evil should have been punished for this crime, even though it was not then against the law (the Nuremberg Trials established this point of law). What should have been done to them? Simple: they should have been made the slaves of their now ex-slaves. No more fitting punishment can be imagined. What should have been done with the land of the plantation? Again simple: it should have been divided amongst the ex-slaves. If there were ten of them there, then each should come to own one tenth of this territory. The point it, slaves cannot own property, and these ex-slaveholders, if justice was to be done, are now slaves.

Let us return to the Gazans. Did they or did they not actively support Hamas in its depredations against innocent Israelis? This, too, cannot be denied. They voted overwhelmingly for this terrorist organization. They donated funds to it. They sent their sons to join its militias, and their daughters to become suicide bombers against Israel (I forget; did I mention that when it comes to sheer hatred, the Palestinians are world class?). They were dancing in the streets upon every occasion of an Arab victory over Israel, not merely on October 7, 2023. They were waving their despicable flags, and distributing candy to their children in celebration. Even upon the occasion of the recent release of hostages, thousands of Palestinians were jeering at them, threatening them. If this is not support of the despicable Hamas, then nothing is support of the despicable Hamas. Are they not to be punished at all? That is one view, to be sure.

But it is not a just perspective. If there is any error herein, mere banishment is too light a punishment for these vicious maniacs (The Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s would have given their eye teeth to be banished; most gave far more than that.)

But wait. Perhaps there are some Gazans who actually supported Israel, and opposed the atrocities of Hamas. Perhaps there were some Jews there who fit this bill. Maybe there was a Libertarian Party of Gaza and they were members of it. In behalf of fairness, if any such people can offer evidence in behalf of these claims, it would be eminently reasonable to make an exception in their cases. We want, after all, to attain justice in this unhappy corner of the world.