The American Plan to Liquidate the Palestinian Cause .. An Analytical Reading of the Displacement Project and New Colonial Engineering

Western press reports revealed a meeting held at the White House between US President Donald Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Israeli officials to discuss the so-called “Day After Plan”. The meeting, which took place amid the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, highlighted the outlines of a US-Israeli plan aimed at placing Gaza under US control for at least ten years, transforming it into an investment and tourism hub under the title "Riviera of the Middle East," with proposals for the displacement of its residents through financial incentives. Notably, the Palestinians themselves were largely absent from these discussions, raising widespread questions about the nature of the plan, which is widely viewed as an attempt to liquidate the Palestinian cause under the guise of reconstruction and development. The massive Israeli assault on Gaza since October 2023 provided the appropriate climate for the "Day After Plan." The near-total destruction of infrastructure, mass displacement, and famine caused by the blockade have all made the Gaza Strip a ripe space for the discourse of "reconstruction," a discourse previously tried in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. What distinguishes the Palestinian situation is that the occupation proposes reconstruction, and the United States provides oversight, while the affected people are absent from the table, a scene that reproduces the classic colonial mentality.

First - Features of the American Trump Plan

Investment as a cover for displacement

The plan, details of which were published by the Washington Post, is based on Trump's vision, repeatedly put forward, of transforming Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East." He views Gaza as a strategic geographic location on the Mediterranean that can be transformed into a tourist, commercial, and industrial center serving Israeli and international investors.

The leaked document discusses massive projects ranging from electric car factories and global data centers to tourist resorts and residential towers on the Gaza coast. Accompanying economic studies estimated that an initial investment of $100 billion could yield a quadruple return over ten years. These staggering figures reveal that the project is neither humanitarian nor aimed at providing relief to a devastated people. Rather, it is a colonial investment project that seeks to transform the Palestinian tragedy into a profitable opportunity.

"Soft Transfer" with Incentives

One of the plan's most dangerous pillars is demographic engineering through "voluntary" displacement. It proposes that every Palestinian who owns land in Gaza receive a "digital code" granted by the American Fund for Economic Restructuring. This code can be exchanged either for an apartment in one of the future "smart cities" to be built in the Strip, or used to finance a new beginning abroad.

The plan adds that anyone who decides to leave Gaza will be offered a cash sum of $5,000, in addition to a four-year rental subsidy and a full year's food rations. Economic calculations indicate that each departure will save the fund approximately $23,000 compared to the cost of maintaining the person in the "safe areas" within the Strip.

By this logic, the Palestinian person becomes a "financial cost" that must be reduced, while their right to land and sovereignty is reduced to a digital voucher or a cash payment. This mechanism is no different from the policies of forced displacement experienced by other peoples throughout colonial history, but here it is cloaked in a modern discourse of "voluntariness" and "economic opportunity."

American Guardianship and Palestinian Absence

The plan not only proposes the reconstruction of Gaza, but also stipulates that the Strip will be placed under direct American guardianship for at least ten years, with full Israeli security control guaranteed. This means that the Palestinians will be effectively deprived of any political role in governing their own affairs, while the governing system is reshaped under American-Israeli supervision, with limited participation from some Arab parties accepted as an executive facade.

It is noteworthy that the plan only refers to the Palestinian Authority as a weak body that can be relied upon later, reflecting Washington and Tel Aviv's desire to completely bypass it. Thus, "The Day After" is not a project to establish an independent Palestinian entity, but rather to consolidate the reality of a fragmented and paralyzed Palestine: Gaza under economic and security guardianship, and the West Bank gradually annexed to Israel.

Second: The Active Parties in Drafting the Plan

The United States: The Sponsor and the Architect

For decades, the United States has been the most influential party in the Palestinian cause, but what distinguishes the Trump plan is that it has abandoned any pretense of neutrality or mediation. The Trump administration has presented itself as the direct decision-maker in determining Gaza's future, and even went further, with Trump himself suggesting that the United States be the direct guardian of the Strip for a full decade. This proposal reflects a modern colonial mentality, as it is no longer limited to political and military support for Israel, but has moved to the stage of directly managing the land and population under a fragile international cover.

The American motive here is multidimensional

- The strategic dimension: ensuring Israel's security by dismantling any possibility of the Palestinian resistance, particularly Hamas, regaining control of the Strip.

- The economic dimension: transforming Gaza into a massive investment project that represents an opportunity for American companies and their allies in the fields of technology, real estate, and energy.

• The domestic political dimension: Trump's desire to present an "external achievement" to his electoral constituency is based on the rhetoric of "achieving peace through development," while in reality, it is a soft reproduction of ethnic cleansing.

Israel: The Primary Beneficiary and Visionary

If the United States is the sponsor, then Israel is the primary beneficiary and the actual visionary of the plan. Reports revealed that the details of the Trump document were originally drafted by Israelis, through the US- and Israeli-backed "Gaza Humanitarian Foundation." Indeed, the idea of ​​turning Gaza into a "Riviera" is not new; the Netanyahu government had proposed it years ago as part of its propaganda rhetoric about "economic peace."

Thus, through this plan, Israel seeks to achieve major strategic goals:

- Emptying Gaza of its population or reducing it to a manageable level, ensuring the elimination of any demographic threat.

- Establishing full security control over the Strip, with the United States assuming administrative and humanitarian responsibility, thus easing the burden on Israel and deflecting international criticism.

- Expanding the settlement project in the West Bank without pressure, under the pretext that Gaza has been "resolved" through American guardianship.

This makes Israel the most profitable player, as it formally withdraws from Gaza, but maintains its control over it in practice, continuing to annex the West Bank without hindrance.

Tony Blair: The "Expert" in Dismantling States

The return of Tony Blair to the scene is not a detail that can be overlooked. The man whose name is associated with the US-British invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent total collapse of the Iraqi state and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is today invoked as an "expert" in managing post-war transitions. Blair served for years as the Quartet's envoy to Palestine, but he failed to achieve any breakthrough. Rather, he was accused by Palestinians of contributing to the entrenchment of division and the perpetuation of Israeli control through the rhetoric of "economic peace."

His role in this plan can be viewed as part of the traditional British vision of managing colonies: reconstruction under foreign control, while marginalizing the local population. His presence at the White House alongside Kushner, Trump, and Ron Dermer (Israeli minister) reveals that Washington is not content with formulating the plan alone, but is drawing on previous colonial experiences to ensure its success. Blair's inclusion carries dangerous symbolism, as it serves as evidence that what is happening in Gaza today is an extension of the Western policies that tore Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan apart, and that Gaza, in turn, is becoming an arena for colonial engineering experiments.

Third: Historical Comparison with Previous Experiences

Iraq: "Reconstruction" as a Cover for Disintegration

When the United States and Britain led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under the slogan "overthrowing the dictatorship and rebuilding democracy," they raised glowing slogans about reconstruction and development. However, reality revealed that "reconstruction" was merely a cover for the process of dismantling the Iraqi state: disbanding the army, destroying the institutional structure, privatizing the economy in favor of American and British companies, and opening the door to sectarian and political chaos. The result was a total collapse that enabled extremist organizations like ISIS to fill the vacuum. This scenario is repeating itself today in Gaza, where the "reconstruction" project is being marketed through massive investments, while the real goal is to eliminate the Palestinian national political structure and transform the land into an investment space under foreign tutelage, in the absence of any real empowerment of the Palestinian people.

Afghanistan: Promised Development Turned into Disguised Colonialism

After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the United States and its allies promised to create a modern state by pumping billions into development projects. But most of this money went to private security companies and corruption networks linked to pro-Western elites. The infrastructure remained fragile, poverty persisted, and when US forces withdrew in 2021, the state quickly collapsed, and the Taliban regained full control. This experience reveals that "reconstruction" projects without genuine national sovereignty are nothing more than disguised colonialism, which collapses as soon as the supporting foreign power withdraws. Gaza today is being put on the same path: massive investment projects, without Palestinian sovereignty, under US-Israeli tutelage. This means that the promised stability will be fragile and false, because the roots of the conflict have not been resolved.

Libya: From "Humanitarian Intervention" to State of Chaos

The Western intervention in Libya in 2011 was promoted as a "humanitarian rescue operation" aimed at protecting civilians from repression. However, after the regime's fall, Libya was left in chaos, with state institutions collapsing and armed militias proliferation. Instead of development and stability, the country has become an arena for regional and international conflict over resources and influence. The Libyan example clearly demonstrates that Western interventions cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric often end up dismantling states, not rebuilding them. In this context, Gaza is threatened with the same fate: an intervention under the pretext of "protecting and reconstructing the population," but one that ends up uprooting them from their land and transforming it into an arena for international investment.

The Common Denominator: Colonial Engineering Using New Means

What unites these three cases (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya) is that the United States and its allies used a humanitarian-development rhetoric to conceal their strategic objectives. In Iraq, the goal was to control oil and dismantle a regional power; in Afghanistan, to control a sensitive geographic location; and in Libya, to secure influence over energy resources. Today, in Gaza, the rhetoric of "development and prosperity" is being used to conceal a more dangerous project: the final liquidation of the Palestinian cause through displacement and economic engineering.

Fourth: Expected Repercussions of the Plan's Implementation

Repercussions for the Palestinians

The American plan poses an existential threat to the Palestinians, threatening to transform them from a people with a national cause into a mere humanitarian-reconstruction issue managed through international aid and guardianship.

- Demographically, "voluntary" displacement will lead to the gradual emptying of Gaza of its population or their re-confinement to closed areas. This effectively means reproducing the experience of the 1948 Nakba, but in a contemporary form using digital financial tools and economic incentives instead of direct violence alone.

- Politically, excluding Palestinians from negotiations reshapes the equation of the conflict, making them recipients of decisions rather than decision-makers, and reduces their national movement to the level of managing humanitarian affairs rather than national liberation.

• Socially, dismantling the societal structure in Gaza through displacement will create a state of alienation and collective trauma, threatening to transform Palestinian society into fragmented communities lacking a unifying national incubator.

Regional Implications

The implementation of this plan will have profound repercussions on the regional environment:

- Egypt and Jordan: Cairo and Amman will find themselves under enormous pressure. Egypt, due to its geographical proximity, could face a potential population influx if the displacement is imposed, and it will also be affected by the security situation due to the presence of American-Israeli investment projects on its borders. Jordan, for its part, will find that any additional displacement of Palestinians undermines its demographic and political stability.

- Other Arab countries: The plan opens the door to the possibility of settling Palestinians in poor African and Asian countries (such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Somaliland), which will be a source of diplomatic and security tension. Furthermore, the Arab world's approval of this plan would effectively mean accepting the liquidation of the Palestinian cause in exchange for transregional economic projects, which threatens to spark widespread popular anger.

- Regional Equation: The success of this plan would mean that Israel is no longer isolated, but rather part of a larger regional project based on investment and development under American auspices. This could open the door to broader normalization, but it would come at the expense of the Palestinian people and their rights. • Implications for the standing of the United States and Israel in the international system

Here, Trump's statement stands out: "Israel was the most powerful lobby I've ever seen, and they had total control over Congress. Now they've lost that. Israel may win the war, but they're not gaining influence in the public relations world, and that's hurting them."

This statement reflects a growing American awareness that Israel's international image is in sharp decline. While Israel is achieving military gains on the ground, it is losing the battle for global public opinion, being accused of committing genocide and war crimes, placing its Western allies in a moral and political quandary.

- The United States: If Washington proceeds with this plan, it will be accused of direct participation in a neo-colonial project, deepening its image as a colonial power in the Arab and Islamic world. This will weaken its influence in other regions, such as Africa and Asia, which are witnessing fierce competition with China and Russia.

- Israel: Despite potential military gains, Israel is losing its moral legitimacy by the day, even within Western circles. Trump's statements reveal that the influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington is no longer as dominant as it once was. Israel may win military battles but is losing the global "propaganda war," which will have a future impact on its attempts to consolidate its colonial project.

- The international system: This plan could open the door to legal disputes at the United Nations and international courts regarding forced displacement and the violation of the right to self-determination. It will also provide anti-US powers (such as Russia and China) with an opportunity to present themselves as defenders of international justice in the face of "neo-colonialism."

Conclusion

A review of the historical background, the features of the Trump plan, its actors, and its expected repercussions, followed by a comparison with the experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, clearly reveals that what is taking place today is not merely a discussion about the "day after" in Gaza, but rather a comprehensive colonial project aimed at reshaping the Palestinian issue from its roots.

The American-Israeli plan goes beyond any political horizon for a two-state solution or even previous partial settlements. It does not recognize the Palestinians' right to sovereignty or self-determination, but rather reduces the issue to an economic-humanitarian issue, represented by investment projects in exchange for ceding land, and financial incentives in exchange for residents leaving or being confined to closed areas. This approach reproduces what Netanyahu called "economic peace" in the 1990s, but this time in a harsher and more explicit form, combining displacement and reconstruction as two sides of the same coin.

The "voluntary" displacement proposed by the plan is nothing more than a modern form of ethnic cleansing. Instead of direct expulsion, as occurred in the 1948 Nakba, today the rhetoric of "economic opportunity" and "better life abroad" is being used. This approach is more dangerous because it dresses the crime in a humanitarian guise and attempts to convince the world that the Palestinians are choosing to leave voluntarily. In essence, it reproduces an old colonialist narrative that views the indigenous population as an "obstacle" to development and must be removed.

The plan also places Gaza under direct American tutelage, while ensuring Israeli security control, effectively strips the Palestinians of any sovereignty. This reflects the United States' transformation from a sponsor of peace—even if only formally—to a colonial power directly managing the land and population, while Israel becomes the primary beneficiary. It is freed from the burden of Gaza, continues to annex the West Bank, and presents itself as a normal state in the region.

The plan also threatens the national security of neighboring countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan. Displacing Palestinians means reopening the issue of resettlement, a historical red line in Arab politics. Furthermore, transforming Gaza into a US-Israeli investment zone on the Sinai border poses a strategic threat to Cairo. This explains why no Arab regime can publicly embrace the plan, even though some may be drawn into participating as a facade.

Although Israel may be making gains on the ground in Gaza, it is losing the battle for global public opinion. Trump's statement that Israel has "lost control of Congress and is no longer winning the propaganda war" reflects a real decline in its international image. Documented war crimes and genocide have made it difficult for even its closest allies to justify its actions. This means that any US-Israeli plan will face an international legitimacy crisis, even if it is actually passed. This is because the Palestinian people have been under occupation for decades, and because the displacement project is not new, but rather a continuation of the Nakba, the Naksa, and the settlements. This means that the current US plan is not a new beginning, but rather the culmination of a long process of attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.