The recent proposal for a “humanitarian city” in Gaza as part of a broader vision linked to Trump’s Gaza Riviera plan has raised significant concerns. At its core, the initiative appears to be an attempt to address a humanitarian crisis while simultaneously maintaining a grip on geopolitical power. However, such a plan seems rooted in a mindset that is out of touch with the realities of peace-building in conflict zones. Only billionaires and individuals who lack a comprehensive understanding of international diplomacy seem to support this notion, ignoring the basic human rights and dignity of those involved.
The cornerstone of this plan involves subjecting displaced individuals to rigorous security checkpoints before they can gain entry to a so-called “humanitarian city.” This practice reflects a troubling trend that prioritizes security over the very essence of humanitarianism. It raises the question: how can one create a haven for those in need when they are treated as potential threats? Imposing checkpoints implies that the very people who are suffering are to be viewed with suspicion—an approach that can only deepen the divide and resentment between communities.
While the situation in the region is indeed complex, a superficial patchwork of humanitarian initiatives will not achieve sustainable peace. This plan does not take into account the historical context of conflict, nor does it embrace the need for a transparent dialogue that addresses the root causes of instability. A more fitting example of effective peacemaking can be drawn from history, specifically from how Abraham Lincoln and General Grant approached the aftermath of the American Civil War. Their strategy focused on reconciliation and healing, emphasizing the importance of unity rather than division. They acknowledged the deep wounds left by conflict but worked towards building a future where all citizens could coexist.
Similarly, after World War II, General Marshall initiated the Marshall Plan, aimed at rebuilding war-torn Europe and Japan. This effort was based on the understanding that lasting peace cannot be built on resentment, deprivation, or isolation. Instead, it required investment and support to restore dignity and livelihood to those affected by the war. Marshall’s vision encompassed not just physical reconstruction but also economic cooperation and societal healing, recognizing that sustainable peace demands a holistic approach.
The humanitarian city plan proposed for Gaza lacks this depth of understanding. It does not engage with the historical grievances that fuel conflict or acknowledge the aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination and dignity. Treating a humanitarian crisis as a transactional or security matter undermines the potential for genuine relationships and mutual trust that are essential for peace.
In conclusion, while addressing the humanitarian needs of those displaced in Gaza is crucial, the implemented solutions must prioritize human dignity and freedom over security and surveillance. Learning from history reveals the necessity of inclusive, compassionate approaches that foster understanding and healing, rather than those that erect barriers and instill fear. As we contemplate the future of peace in the region, we must draw inspiration from past leaders who understood that winning the peace is fundamentally about restoring humanity and building bridges of reconciliation. Only then can we hope to pave a path towards a future where all communities can thrive together.
Donald C. Bolduc