According to international online reports, on August 31 local time, the US media obtained a plan proposed within the Trump administration for post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The plan says it will build Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East" by 2035, serving as a tourist resort and high-tech center.

On August 6, aerial photos showed the ruins of Gaza City, according to Visual China

Trump has proposed the establishment of the Gaza Reconstruction, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust (abbreviated as "GREAT", meaning "greatness"), which would provide digital tokens to Palestinian civilians who "voluntarily relocated" in exchange for real estate development rights. For Palestinians who are unwilling to leave, the United States intends to concentrate these populations in a small "Hamas-free vacuum" in the Gaza Strip for management.

In addition, the plan proposes to use 30% of Gaza's public land as founding capital, which also involves the sensitive issue of Gaza's sovereignty. At present, the U.S. government has not yet responded to this matter.

The Trump administration envisions:

To reap both economic and "strategic" benefits

According to the Trump administration's vision, the GREAT Trust will start operating after "Israel disarms Hamas" and Israel will voluntarily transfer control of Gaza to the United States. The trust promises to "not take up any endowment funds" and plans to invest US$70 billion to US$100 billion in public funds, thereby leveraging another US$35 billion to US$65 billion in private capital investment.

According to the plan's bold calculations, a maximum of US$100 billion in public funds could generate more than US$385 billion in benefits ten years, including real estate value-added, taxes and direct operating income. The plan believes that by the tenth year (2035), GREAT Trust's annual revenue can reach US$4.5 billion.

Palestinian sources say at least 57 Palestinians were killed in an Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip on August 30, according to Vision China

The 38-page plan also stated that in addition to economic returns, Gaza could restore its status as a regional trading hub since ancient times,"opening the way for the United States to access $1.3 trillion worth of rare earth deposits in the Middle East." The plan plans 10 "super-large projects", including the construction of airports, ports, water resources centers, livelihood infrastructure and the "American Data Security Center".

In one column, the plan mentioned the need to build 6-8 new artificial intelligence cities "from scratch" and build a new economic center using "modern AI-enabled means", where every resident must have a digital ID card.

Transfer executive power in Gaza to the US?

Plan to touch on two sensitive issues

In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the resettlement of Palestinian civilians and the sovereignty of post-war Gaza have always been the most sensitive topics, and this ambitious plan will naturally touch on these two topics.

Previously, Trump had proposed the idea of "temporarily resettling civilians in Gaza to a third country," but was strongly opposed by neighboring countries such as Jordan and Egypt. Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu previously stated that Israel is negotiating with Ethiopia, Libya and other countries about the idea of accepting immigrants, it is reported that only the Somaliland region of Africa, which has not been universally recognized by the international community, has proposed the idea of "accepting Gaza civilians in exchange for sovereign recognition." The U.S. government has previously stated that it will "thoroughly investigate this idea."

In the GREAT trust plan, the trust considers providing each resident who voluntarily leaves Gaza with a subsidy of $5000, food for one year, and rent for four years. These residents can also receive digital tokens in exchange for the right to purchase properties in a batch of "new artificial intelligence cities" to be built in the future. According to estimates in the plan, the subsidy method can save US$23,000 per resident compared to local resettlement, because it can correspondingly save the cost of "temporary housing and life support facilities."

The question of ownership of Gaza is more difficult. Within the Israeli government, far-right nationalists want Israel to completely occupy the Gaza Strip and exercise direct rule. In the GREAT trust plan, the trust is based on the Israeli government transferring administrative power in Gaza to the United States after the war, and it is founded with a 30% stake in Gaza's public land. Israel only retains a military force "to meet its security needs" after the war, and subsequent police work is gradually handed over to private military contractors in Western countries.

Israeli-American entrepreneur Michael Eisenberg, a businessman deeply involved in the GREAT Trust Program, admitted that land and sovereignty issues were a very sensitive topic and he did not dare to answer easily. Eisenberg said putting 30 per cent of public land "in trust from the beginning is the easiest and easiest way to do it," but admitted that "it does look like land expropriation."

The United Nations estimates that 90% of the surface buildings in Gaza have been destroyed. Judging from aerial photos, many towns have been "erased from the ground", and clearing up building ruins and unexploded bombs in the future will be a difficult task that will last for decades.

Zheng Zhi, Red Star reporter

Editor Zhang Xun

Extended reading

Media: "The conscience of the Western world" hurts again, and Germany seems to have changed its position on Israel

Recently, from Germany¡¯s Foreign Minister, Waldfuhr¡¯s visit to Israel, to Prime Minister Merts¡¯ announcement of a suspension of arms exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza, Germany¡¯s stance on Israel seems to have changed substantially.

Nowadays, when discussing German-Israeli relations in Germany, one of the words that cannot be avoided is "national rationality." It can rise to this level because discussions about it involve a political taboo, behind which Germany left a huge wound on Europe during World War II. For decades since the war, people have been trying various methods to heal this wound.

In March 2008, then German Prime Minister Angela Merkel spoke in the Israeli parliament that the historic responsibility for Israeli security was part of Germany¡¯s ¡°national reason.¡±

German Chancellor Merz

"National Reason"

The term ¡°state rationality¡± is derived from the Latin ¡°ratio status¡±, which dates back hundreds of years to the political thinkers Machiavelli and Botero¡¯s argument on the theory of rule. Machiavelli believes that the interests of the state can be put above all interests and feels necessary to abolish laws and suspend morals. Butterey argues that just looking fair is not enough, and that monarchical power must be based on some form of subordinate consent. Those medieval arguments have been separated from modern political practice, but content and connections remain.

Previously, when "national reason" was used, it was often like this: terrorists tried to extort money from the country by taking hostages or planes. Some people would say,"'National reason 'requires us to never agree to their demands because the country cannot be coerced."

Karol Schmitt of the Social-Democratic Party is one of the fathers of the German Constitution and has made it clear that "national reason" should not override everything. Merkel brought this gradually forgotten term back into political and social reality. In her 2008 speech, she first congratulated Israel on its 60th anniversary, and then talked about the special ties established between Germany and Israel due to the Nazi massacre of 6 million Jews, believing that Germany has a "special historical responsibility" towards Israel. Merkel also added that "at testing times, these cannot be just empty words." She was referring to the Western perspective at the time that Israel was threatened by Iran's nuclear weapons and the unstable situation in Lebanon. Here, Merkel reiterated her position at the United Nations against Iran building nuclear weapons.

After Merkel left office, the "traffic light" government further simplified her statement and wrote "Israel's security is our 'national rationality'" into the ruling agreement. After Mertz came to power, he continued this practice.

However, ¡°national reason¡± is not uncontroversial. The German Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science jurist, Orl, believes that citing ¡°national reason¡± on Israeli issues is actually wrong, because it originally implied values such as national interests above individual freedom and all other interests, rather than the survival of other countries.

Former German Prime Minister Angela Merkel

In 2012, then-German President Gauck refused to repeat the term "national reason" during his visit to Israel. Reports say that current German President Steinmeier also doubts whether Merkel fully realizes the meaning of this statement. Gauck and Steinmeier's doubts are not directly related to their historical attitudes. Recently, Gauck also said on the program that due to his well-known Nazi guilt after the war, he would never be able to become an enemy of Israel. Steinmeier also said at the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Germany and Israel that after the Holocaust in World War II, Israel's willingness to shake hands was "a gift that Germans have no right to expect," but "we accept this gift and always keep Germany in mind. Guilty and our responsibilities. Sixty years later, I am still grateful and humble for this gift of reconciliation."

"Historical responsibility" is often used to justify a certain German diplomatic line, but it does not fully reflect the complexity of the Middle East conflict. If support for Israel is really Germany's "national rationality", then it takes precedence over all other political options, including protecting its own survival. However, in fact, any country's diplomacy is based first and foremost on safeguarding its own interests.

Historian Benz pointed out that Germany and the EU regard themselves as some kind of guardians, and "moral shackles" make it difficult for them to take a critical stance. A politician's words in a specific context may have some rhetorical skills or personal emotional factors, but overly simplistic thinking combined with emotion will make all voices who are skeptical of the Israeli government's practices easily labeled as "lack of morality" or even "anti-Semitism."

Moral obligation

Germany's special "historical responsibility" also has to do with moral obligations, including the safety of Jews in Germany and zero tolerance for anti-Semitism. This sincere atonement is a sensitive and obvious feature of contemporary German political culture. Schools and public institutions promote discussion of Nazi crimes day after day, and there is a proper term like Holocaust, which refers specifically to the Holocaust of Jews.

A good example is the Constitutional Court¡¯s interpretation of Article 130 of the Criminal Code as ¡°crimes of incitement to ethnic hatred.¡± Article 19(1) of the German Constitution has a ¡°prohibition of individual cases¡± principle, meaning that restrictive laws must apply to an unlimited number of circumstances and not only to a particular situation, but also to exceptions. Article 130 of the Criminal Code reflects a firm reflection on history, defining all possible acts of incitement to hatred or violence against a particular population as crimes, which specifically lists paragraph 3: public recognition, denial or mitigation of the Holocaust as a crime.

In some legal debates, it has been questioned whether Article 130 (3) is so-called individual case law, as it refers specifically to Nazi acts, specific historical periods and groups of people. The Constitutional Court's interpretation is that this paragraph concerns human dignity and public peace and is not contrary to the Constitution.

Another example is the government¡¯s support for the preservation of Jewish cultural heritage and communities, the promotion of integration, and the contribution to the German Jewish Central Council. Unlike other ethnic minority organizations, the Jewish Central Council is a public entity, i.e. an organization supported by the state, which belongs to the public administration system. The organization was founded in the early 1950s and initially dedicated to seeking state compensation for the victims of the Holocaust, and also played a role in the establishment of relations in Germany. Since 2003, the German government has contributed 22 million euros (about RMB 1,84 billion) annually to its contributions, in accordance with the Treaty revised in 2023.

Homeland and overseas morals are thus intertwined. From a German official point of view, the border that Israel needed to protect was always the border before 1967. But is this border clearly distinguished from other disputed lands in practice? Today, in Germany, the slogan ¡°from river to sea, Palestine will be free¡± is being debated on when it should be considered a crime. In 2024, a woman was convicted by a Berlin district court for yelling ¡°from river to sea¡± during the march. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed its opinion on such cases. At present, there is consensus that if the use of the slogan is found to be for the purposes of embellishment of terrorist attacks or the promotion of violence to destroy Israel, it can be convicted under article 86a of the German Criminal Code of

Since October 2023, with the arrival of a new round of Gaza conflict and the long-term deadlock, the other side of Germany's "moral obligation" is a torn conscience and the Middle East projected under a specific filter. Specifically in political practice, an expert on Middle East issues from the German Political and Science Foundation pointed out: The two pillars of Germany's policy towards Israel are Germany's historical responsibility and principles such as human rights and international law, and Israel's military actions in Gaza have violated these principles. Reestablishing the balance between these two pillars is undoubtedly necessary and more ethical.

Changes in conscience

Due to historical and moral factors, Germany has always been of good will to Israel, and "national reason" has long been a firmly established principle in national action that transcends everyday political differences.

However, whether this is really beneficial to regional stability and Israel's security has been controversial from the beginning. After returning to Germany, Muller, who accompanied Wadfur on his visit, was interviewed and said that "Germany can't just warn". Israeli historian Zimmerman believes that the decision to stop providing certain weapons to the Gaza Strip is instead in line with national interest considerations: "If you support Israel's security, you cannot support Israel's occupation of Gaza. If you support Israel's security and survival, you must support Israel in some way to establish ties with the Palestinians." Whether you want to promote regional peace or Israel wants to ensure its long-term survival, you need to see a clear political vision. But for now, hope is slim, and hatred has spread all over Gaza. It is not feasible to force the other side to yield by force, and the brutal massacre and hostage-taking of innocent civilians have led to a global crusade.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

What makes many people painful and puzzled is that since the outbreak of a new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Germany, which has been the "conscience of the Western world" after the war, suddenly seems to have less conscience. At present, Mueller hopes that Israel can cherish the influence of Germany, which is still willing to talk to it, in the face of increasing international isolation. In the program with Gao Ke, the host asked frankly: "Why can't we just find a suitable language for Israel?"

In fact, there is a huge rift between the old and new "consciences". The mantra that has prevailed in Germany since the war is "never again". Often, people fill in the blanks according to their own understanding: no more war, no more madness, no more extremes, and no more genocide. As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is revealed day after day, there is a debate about whether the situation there should be described as "genocide". The social philosopher Adorno has warned that reflection on history must not stop at forms and slogans, but must be alert to its social and psychological mechanisms.

(The author is a sociologist at the University of Hamburg, Germany.)