Want lasting peace in Gaza? Turn it into the United Nations headquarters.
Mr. Trump, a developer by profession, sees in Gaza 141 square miles of beachfront opportunity. Hamas squandered this resource by turning “land for peace” into a launching pad for war. Billions that could have been spent for the benefit of the Gazan people instead were sunk into terror tunnels, weapons, and graft.
Change is clearly needed—who better to oversee it than the United Nations?
After all, the General Assembly has been calling for peace in the region for decades without offering concrete solutions. This will give those caring diplomats a chance to own the solution.
Legally, Gaza would become a corpus separatum, an international zone, the same status the United Nations had proposed for Jerusalem in the 1947 partition plan for Palestine. After a substantial international cleanup effort, work can begin on turning Gaza from an “open air prison” to a vast, prosperous center for international cooperation.
This concept aligns with what was originally envisioned for the UN headquarters. The now-iconic UN building in Manhattan was the product of compromise. Eighty years ago, planners imagined acquiring a forty- or fifty-square-mile parcel somewhere outside of New York City to create an autonomous international compound. They dreamed of building a futuristic diplomatic community, with modernist architecture following all the principles of mid-century urban design.
It was to be an oasis of harmony as vast as their global aspirations.
This grandiose vision fell victim to practicalities like the exorbitant cost, plus the fact that the chosen location (Greenwich, Connecticut) voted down the proposal in a referendum by two to one. Ultimately, the UN settled on being squeezed into Turtle Bay after a timely intervention by the Rockefeller family, who coincidentally owned property there.
So, imagine, instead of the UN being tucked in hard by the cold East River, a new complex would be situated on pristine beachfront by the warm Mediterranean.
Massive development funding would be forthcoming from the UN member states. International private investment would naturally follow, taking advantage of the tremendous potential Gaza has based on its desirable location. Development would likely be high-end because international diplomats tend to think of themselves as deserving the best, and there would be room enough for any country to build as palatially as they desire. Each nation would try to out-compete others in splendor. The new Gaza will also attract tourism, which means hotels, restaurants, recreation facilities and other quality of life enhancements.
For the people of Gaza, this means jobs, higher living standards and peace. For New Yorkers, it means fewer international scofflaws and launching the Turtle Bay redevelopment project.
One objection to this plan might be that putting the UN in charge of Gaza would be little better than leaving it to Hamas. After all, they share similar policies towards Israel. It would also not solve the problems of corruption or governance that the UN seems incapable of dealing with even in normal circumstances. And having UN headquarters in Gaza would only shorten the delivery time of UNWRA funding to terrorist coffers.
But the presence of the international peace city might end the use of Gaza as a launching pad for terrorism since most diplomats would not want to be subject to the inevitable retaliation from Israel. Airstrikes would spoil the vibe.
James S. Robbins is the Dean of Academics at the Institute of World Politics Graduate School.
