Rethinking Gaza: A New Path Beyond the Two-State Solution

[Social Media]

 

John Bolton argues that it is time to abandon the long-standing two-state solution for Gaza and instead take a new approach to handling the Palestinian refugee crisis. He believes that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) should be dismantled, and the responsibility for Palestinian refugees should be transferred to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), treating them as all other displaced populations have been handled since World War II.  

 

Donald Trump’s recent comments on Gaza, made after his February 4 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have sparked widespread debate. While his remarks seemed impromptu, they were, in fact, prepared in advance. As usual, Trump deviated from the script, at one point musing about the possibility of the United States exerting military control over Gaza. White House officials quickly walked back these statements, only for Trump to reverse course once again, insisting he was serious about American involvement—though without the use of force.

 

Bolton clarifies that he has never advocated for deploying the U.S. military in Gaza.  

 

The controversy surrounding Trump’s statements has overshadowed the fact that he touched on two distinct issues. First, and most controversially, he suggested that Israel could hand over control of Gaza to the United States, which would then “own” it and transform it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” Second, and more significantly, he questioned whether keeping Gaza’s population confined to the Strip was a viable long-term solution.

 

This second point is crucial in assessing Trump’s position—at least until he changes it again.  

 

Trump’s vision of an American-controlled Gaza is unrealistic. It lacks any serious strategic foundation and instead echoes his previous, equally impractical suggestion to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that the country’s beaches could become lucrative resort destinations. That idea never materialized, and the same can be expected for Gaza. Investors and laborers will not flock to rebuild an area still plagued by instability. As Hamas regains control during the current ceasefire and hostage exchanges, Israel is likely to resume military operations once these exchanges conclude. Until Gaza is fully stabilized, no grand reconstruction project can take place.  

 

Historically, Gaza’s existence as a distinct political entity is an accident of war, stemming from the military realities at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Economically, it is not self-sufficient and lacks the resources to become a thriving state.  

 

Trump’s second suggestion—that resettling Gaza’s population elsewhere should be considered—has been discussed by various sources long before his February 4 comments. If implemented, it would mark the definitive end of the two-state solution. Even before Hamas’s brutal attack on October 7, the concept of a Palestinian state had lost credibility. Afterward, Israeli support for the idea virtually disappeared. Yet, in the absence of a new framework, the two-state proposal has remained the default position in diplomatic circles. That time has now passed.  

 

Bolton argues that the Palestinian state concept was flawed from the start. It was an artificial construct, championed by radical Arab leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdul Nasser, and lacked both economic viability and resistance to terrorist control. If the two-state model is no longer viable, an alternative must be found. Bolton previously proposed a “three-state” solution, in which Gaza would be returned to Egypt, while Israel and Jordan would divide sovereignty over the West Bank. This arrangement, he contends, would provide security for Israel while integrating Palestinians into stable economies.  

 

However, due to decades of political manipulation, neither Egypt nor Jordan has been willing to assume control over Palestinian populations they see as potentially destabilizing. But simply rebuilding Gaza in its current form is not the answer either. The cost of clearing debris, eliminating Hamas’s underground tunnel network, and reconstructing infrastructure would be enormous—and, as history suggests, would likely lead to another October 7 in the future. That outcome is unacceptable.  

 

A better solution, Bolton argues, is to overhaul the way Palestinian refugees are treated. He calls for the abolition of UNRWA, which he describes as an extension of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and for Palestinian refugees to instead be handled by UNHCR. Under UNHCR guidelines, refugees are either repatriated to their home countries or resettled elsewhere—never left in indefinite limbo. Unlike UNRWA camps, UNHCR refugee settlements do not last forever.  

 

This shift, he insists, would not harm Palestinians but instead grant them the same humanitarian treatment afforded to all other refugees over the past seven decades. Although transitioning to the UNHCR model will be difficult, Trump’s recent comments have opened the door to a necessary discussion on finding a lasting resolution for Gaza’s displaced population.

 

Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-14

 

 

[newbee2022]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Bolton argues that the Palestinian state concept was flawed from the start. It was an artificial construct, championed by radical Arab leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdul Nasser,

Not only Palestine but also before to create a new state on Palestinian ground, just shaped by UK, called Israel. A disastrous failure.

[WDSmart]

I favor a two-state solution based on the territorial divisions of the UN Partition of Palestine in 1948. 

[Purdey]

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

A better solution, Bolton argues, is to overhaul the way Palestinian refugees are treated.

Wealthy people do not engage in fighting for fear of losing their wealth. Give them jobs and facilities, not camps.