A month into the fragile ceasefire, Gazans are experiencing a brief respite from violence and the continuing release of Israeli hostages and imprisoned Palestinians. But debate over the future of Gaza reflects the agendas of states with a stake in the ongoing crisis — rather than the grim day-to-day reality Gazans face on the ground.

Once the ceasefire got underway, Gaza faded from the headlines — until Trump reignited the debate when he declared that the U.S. would occupy Gaza, relocate its residents, and transform it into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”

“We’re going to take it,” he proclaimed just last week. “We’re going to hold it.”

This is an outcome not even the Israeli government believed it could achieve. Although early in the war, it had broached the idea that Egypt and Jordan could accept some Gazan refugees, the government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had settled on a policy of internal displacement for the Palestinians, moving large sectors of the population within the enclave to facilitate the IDF’s mapping and destruction of tunnels and to carry out attacks on remaining Hamas fighters.

Trump cut to the chase. If Hamas is going to be eliminated from Gaza, everyone has to go. No more whack-a-mole. Trump’s remarks handed Netanyahu a convenient “day-after” plan, something missing from his bomb-first, plan-later approach to Gaza. Trump’s framing of his pitch – that wholesale transfer was the only feasible way to relieve Palestinian suffering – was deceptively cunning.

To those repulsed by the prospect of adding to the Palestinian diaspora, the real damage of Trump’s gambits is not that it will become reality but rather that it has diverted attention from efforts to develop a genuine post-war strategy. Or has it?

Perhaps, as Prof. Gregory Gause recently argued, Trump’s threat serves a different purpose. By proposing to expel Palestinians from Gaza, Trump is making an intentionally provocative move to pressure Gulf Arab states — especially Saudi Arabia — into funding Gaza’s reconstruction and normalizing ties with Israel. According to Gause, such a gambit mirrors Netanyahu’s 2020 threat to annex parts of the West Bank. This ultimately led to the UAE normalizing relations with Israel partly in exchange for pausing the annexation plan.

Whether this is truly Trump’s strategy matters less than the fact that rebuilding Gaza — and starting soon — is essential for any meaningful negotiations or a sustainable end to the conflict, let alone a comprehensive peace agreement. More fundamentally, it is essential to averting a humanitarian catastrophe and the multigenerational degradation of Palestinian society.

While many Gazans are critical of Hamas as corrupt or ineffective, they have largely supported armed struggle against Israel and embraced the genuine belief that Palestine will eventually emerge victorious. The wholesale destruction of Gaza risks strengthening this maximalist mentality among Gazans, who may now feel they have little left to lose.

Allowing Gaza to fester in its present squalor and destruction would be a grave mistake, although, for Israel, this is probably not an issue. It can keep Gazans from penetrating its territory directly from the enclave and maintain tight control over ports of entry. Hamas might reconstitute to some extent, but God help the leader who sticks his head above the parapet.

Furthermore, many Israelis likely also share the Gazan view that there is little left to lose, and armed confrontation is the sole pathway to eventual victory.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR