US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, US, Feb/ 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis

President Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza is being greeted by the New York Times with the same mixture of unremitting contempt, historical ignorance, alarmism, and disregard for factual accuracy that has characterized the newspaper’s reaction to every other pro-Israel Trump policy initiative.

A professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, Eugene Kontorovich, who is also a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the New York Times is “boldly lying about President Trump’s Middle East plans.”

Kontorovich pointed to a Times news analysis that included a passage stating, “Never mind that he could name no legal authority that would permit the United States to unilaterally assert control over someone else’s territory or that the forcible removal of an entire population would be a violation of international law.”

“​Gaza, unlike most places in the world, is not part of any sovereign state and thus not ‘someone else’s’ in the usual sense. Nor has Trump favored forcible removal of anyone, though the Grey Lady apparently favors forcible incarceration of the entire population of Gaza,” Kontorovich said in a post on X.

The next two sentences of the Times article were also error-ridden. “Never mind that resettling two million Palestinians would be a gargantuan logistical and financial challenge, not to mention politically explosive. Never mind that it would surely require many thousands of US troops and possibly trigger more violent conflict,” the article said.

However, such an operation would not “surely require many thousands of US troops.” Trump posted to social media Thursday morning that “the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting … No soldiers by the US would be needed!”

That news analysis is not the only Times article that misleads readers about Trump’s Gaza plan or the historical context in which it is made.

As is often the case, the more named Times reporters that are involved with a story, the less reliable it is. A page-one Times article with three bylines — Michael Shear, Peter Baker, and Isabel Kershner — and with reporting and research contributed by another three journalists — Edward Wong, Adam Rasgon, and Ephrat Livni — claims “Egypt captured Gaza during the 1948 war and controlled it until Israel seized it, along with other Palestinian territory, in a 1967 war against a coalition of Arab nations seeking to destroy the Jewish state.”

Yet that ignores a period in 1956 and 1957 during which Israel, not Egypt, controlled Gaza. A headline on the New York Times front page of Sunday, Nov. 11, 1956 said, “Israel Terms Gaza Strip Integral Part of Nation.” The Nov. 3, 1956, front page Times headline included the phrase “Israelis Capture Gaza.”

The Times journalists of 2025 appear to have forgotten the 1956 to 1957 period. Or maybe they just never learned the history of the Suez crisis. The alternative — that the Times journalists themselves are aware of it, but are trying to prevent Times readers from learning about it — requires assuming an almost unthinkable level of arrogance of the Times journalists. Do they think today’s readers have no other sources of information or are incapable of checking a history book or the Times online archives?

One reason the Times might prefer to avoid mentioning the 1956 to 1957 period is that it is further evidence for the proposition that the Arabs will use Gaza as a base to launch attacks against Israel. It is also further evidence for the related proposition that when Israel withdraws from Gaza and the Arabs remain there, the Arabs will then revert to the practice of using Gaza as a base to launch attacks against Israel. That is the long pattern that Trump’s proposal for a US takeover of Gaza, and for voluntary resettlement of Gaza Arabs in other destinations, is designed to disrupt. The chance that it could succeed might explain the vehemence of some of the opposition, at the New York Times and elsewhere.

It is reminiscent of the panics during the first Trump term surrounding American withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, recognition of Israel sovereignty in the Golan Heights, and moving of the embassy to Jerusalem. Each of those steps was accompanied by endless Times warnings of “experts” and local governments predicting dire consequences and explaining the impossibility of whatever was about to happen. They made the Times look ridiculous.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The post New York Times Freaks Out Over Trump Gaza Plan first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room at the White House in Washington, US, Feb. 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis

Donald Trump has never been one to think small. Whether it’s real estate, presidential campaigns, or diplomatic deals, he swings for the fences — never mind if there’s no stadium, no scoreboard, and half the world is telling him he’s out before he’s even up to bat.

This week, facing the press in the East Room of the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump unveiled what might be his most audacious foreign policy brainstorm yet: the United States should take ownership of Gaza. Not manage, not advise, not even bankroll — straight-out own it.

In true Trumpian fashion, he envisions a Gaza transformed from a bombed-out wasteland into a shimmering economic paradise — “the Riviera of the Middle East.” A Middle Eastern Monaco, minus the gambling. A Dubai-on-the-Med.

And before anyone could even absorb the sheer magnitude of what he was proposing, Trump kept rolling: 1.8 million Palestinians could be relocated — details to be worked out later. The US would “level” Gaza, clear the unexploded ordnance, and oversee a massive 10-15-year international redevelopment project.

If that sounds ambitious, unexpected, and slightly surreal, don’t worry — Trump assured everyone that it’s definitely an idea worth exploring. And just to drive the point home, he announced that he’d personally visit Israel and Gaza to get the ball rolling.

Netanyahu smiled sheepishly, looking bemused and a little shocked as he carefully navigated Trump’s latest foreign policy bombshell. “I think it’s something that could change history,” he offered tactfully, while reporters shouted questions and cameras snapped away furiously.

Was this classic Trump hyperbole or the first step toward an unprecedented geopolitical shakeup? With Trump, you can love it, hate it, or just shake your head in disbelief — but you definitely can’t ignore it.

But as the world predictably yells “ethnic cleansing” and dismisses Trump’s idea as delusional, it’s worth remembering Gaza’s extensive Jewish roots — and that, if anything, it’s the Jews who have been ethnically cleansed from Gaza.

Because let’s face it, the notion of Jews having a stake in Gaza isn’t some modern Zionist invention — it’s a historical reality stretching back over 3,000 years. Long before Gaza became a terrorist stronghold run by radical Islamist murderers and rapists, this strip of land was part of the biblical Land of Israel, allotted to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:47). Samson had his fateful showdown in Gaza (Judges 16:23-30), collapsing the Philistine temple and everyone inside it, in his final act of defiance.

Fast forward to the Second Temple period, and Gaza remained vital to Jewish life. After the Hasmoneans liberated Judea from Greek rule, they conquered Gaza in 96 BCE, incorporating it into the Jewish kingdom.

Even under Roman rule, Gaza’s Jewish community thrived. Jewish merchants played a key role in the city’s bustling market — as referenced in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11b).

During the Byzantine period, the Jewish presence in Gaza was so significant that the local community boasted a magnificent synagogue rediscovered near the ancient port in 1965. Its mosaic floor depicted King David playing a harp — a Jewish-themed biblical tribute quite literally set in stone.

And the Jewish connection didn’t end there. In medieval times, Jewish travelers, scholars, and kabbalists lived and taught in Gaza. Under Ottoman rule, Jews continued to reside in the city, engaging in commerce and religious scholarship.

The famed preacher and kabbalist, Rabbi Israel Najara, served as Gaza’s chief rabbi in the early 1600s. Curiously, Gaza’s most famous Jewish son during that period was the notorious Nathan of Gaza (“Natan Azzati”), a 17th-century mystic who became the chief promoter and “prophet” of the false messiah Shabbetai Tzvi. And even in the modern era, a small Jewish community remained in Gaza — until the 1929 Arab riots forced them to flee.

So there you have it. Those are the facts. Gaza was Jewish long before it became a Hamas terror base. The real historical anomaly isn’t the thought of Jews returning and Arabs leaving — it’s the insistence that Gaza must remain forever Judenrein.

As the Bible recalls, Gaza’s first great collapse came at the hands of Samson. Blinded, shackled, and dragged into the Philistine temple, he was meant to be their trophy — proof that Israel’s strength had been broken.

But in his final act, Samson grasped the pillars, pushed with all his might, and brought the entire structure down. Thousands were crushed, including the Philistine rulers, marking the beginning of the end for Philistine dominance in Gaza.

The prophets of Israel saw this as a pattern. Amos (1:6-7), Zephaniah (2:4-7), and Zechariah (9:5-7) all foretold Gaza’s destruction and desolation due to its cruelty toward Israel. And time proved them right — Gaza fell again and again, each time brought low by its own unbridled violence against the Jewish people.

And now, in our own time, we are watching that prophecy unfold before our eyes yet again. Hamas has led Gaza into ruin and utter collapse, just as the Philistines did before them. The question is: what do we do with this moment?

When the Jewish people left Egypt in the Exodus story, God deliberately steered them away from Gaza (Ex. 13:17): “For God said, lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt.” But although the Israelites avoided the confrontation then, it only led to more brutal battles later on.

History teaches us that avoiding evil does not make it disappear — it only delays the inevitable. Thankfully, the Philistines met their end, as the prophets predicted. Today, in a truly historic moment, we have a rare opportunity to finally reshape Gaza’s future for the good — and end Hamas once and for all — but only if we recognize that history rewards those who seize the moment, not those who run from it.

And maybe that’s President Trump’s point. His unorthodox approach may need some reframing, but he is at least forcing a conversation that most world leaders and opinion-formers would rather avoid.

The question isn’t whether Trump’s idea is radical — the real question is whether the world is finally ready to confront Gaza’s reality instead of endlessly postponing it. Because the past suggests one thing: when Gaza collapses under the weight of its own destruction, history doesn’t end — it resets. The only thing we should consider is whether we will shape what comes next, or let Gaza slip back into the hands of those who would destroy it again.

The post Gaza’s Forgotten Jewish History first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A general view shows destroyed buildings in northern Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, near the Israel-Gaza border, Nov. 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen

The United Nations considers most Gaza residents to be refugees displaced by the creation of Israel way back in 1948. Of course, few if any individuals from that time are still living, but the UN has declared that all their descendants maintain that refugee status as well. UNRWA, the UN agency created to assist Palestinian refugees, is in fact quite deliberate in referring to the areas in Gaza where Palestinians live as refugee camps. Even though these places have fixed structures, paved streets, and are in every other way ordinary cities, UNRWA wants to remind us that these are supposed to be mere temporary living places for uprooted people, waiting generations to return to the land that is now Israel.

Even before the recent war, life in Gaza was difficult. Hamas attempted to smuggle arms and attack Israel, and Israel tightly restricted the inflow of supplies to Gaza in order to fight this. Palestinian advocates frequently referred to Gaza as an “open-air prison.” Human Rights Watch released a report describing in detail the enormous difficulties Gaza residents face when attempting to travel for personal, professional, or even medical reasons.

It’s against this backdrop that we should understand reaction to President Trump’s recent statement that Gaza is currently not suitable for habitation, and that the most humane solution is to relocate the population either permanently or temporarily to facilitate massive rebuilding.

One would expect that refugees, whose only geographic interest is supposedly returning to the land they left behind, would be largely indifferent to such a proposal. They would evaluate the offer on practical terms, asking where their economic, social, and security needs could best be met and whether the new opportunity might give them the chance to once and for all finally put down new roots.

One would also expect that people who have been subjected to decades of living in what they’ve termed an open-air prison would welcome any opportunity to leave and be grateful to whatever country makes it possible. They would be enthusiastic about the chance to finally have freedom of movement, and would be happy to relocate to a new country where they would no longer suffer the consequences of Hamas arms smuggling and the corresponding Israeli restrictions attempting to thwart it.

But of course, this is not what we’re hearing. Instead, Arab political leaders have condemned Trump’s plan and human rights experts have declared it a terrible violation of International Law.

None of these politicians or human rights spokespeople seem to have even entertained the possibility that Gaza’s Palestinians might like Trump’s idea and should be given the opportunity to decide about it for themselves. They also ignore that the Geneva Conventions specifically allow for population transfer when necessary for the security of the civilians involved, and due to the lack of housing and basic services, ordinance, and threats of further violence that exception could certainly apply.

But they also seamlessly shift from describing Gaza residents as long suffering refugees hoping to someday return to their homes to a native population firmly and comfortably entrenched in place. Riyadh Mansour, the Palestinian representative to the UN, went so far as to be quoted saying that Gaza was a precious part of a state of Palestine. He added, “We are not going to leave Gaza … There is no power on earth that can remove the Palestinian people from our ancestral homeland.”

Human rights activists are trying to have it both ways. When they want to use Gaza to accuse Israel of creating a refugee crisis and denying said refugees the right to return, they say Palestinians in Gaza are living in squalid refugee camps. When they want to accuse Israel of violating international law and collective punishment, they call it an open-air prison.

But now, when Trump gives a suggestion that would resolve Palestinians’ status such that they could no longer be weaponized for use in the decades-long campaign against Israel, they change their tune. Suddenly Gaza becomes a place where Palestinians are firmly rooted and can’t bear to leave. Gaza is no longer an open-air prison, but instead the beloved place where for many years Palestinians have been living a wholesome, fulfilling existence that would be shattered by having to move anyplace else.

No matter what claims politicians make, people in Gaza should not be forced to leave against their will. But they also should not be forced to stay if another country is willing to accept them and they would like to go.

Whatever becomes of Trump’s idea, it has already accomplished something important. It has helped to further expose the lies and hypocrisy of those advocating for Palestine. We see clearly how they altered their portrayal of Palestinians as refugees and their description of life in Gaza at a moment’s notice simply to fulfill their goal of constantly accusing Israel of crimes and blaming it for problems. The purpose of Palestinian activism is again exposed as unfortunately not a desire to help Palestinians but rather as an obsession with using them to attack Israel. That’s the greatest violation of Palestinian human rights and the biggest obstacle to peace of all.

Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he writes about legal developments related to human rights issues of interest to the Jewish community. You can find him at https://hrhaggadah.com/.

The post Shouldn’t Refugees Want to Leave an Open-Air Prison? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.