A recently leaked plan, dubbed the GREAT plan, has ignited fierce debate over its implications for the Palestinian population in Gaza. Israeli officials were the chief architects of the proposal, and they are similarly in favor of the US- and Israeli-supported Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This proposal materialized only days after this White House meeting, where in meetings led by former President Donald Trump on post-conflict strategies for Gaza.
This controversial plan outlines the temporary relocation of Gaza’s more than 2 million residents, raising serious concerns about potential ethnic cleansing. Environmentalists and other critics have been voicing their opposition to the plan. They call it a “perverse” and “insane” effort to hide massive demographic shifts in the metropolitan area.
The ambitious vision of the GREAT plan includes transforming Gaza into a bustling port city crisscrossed by a waterway, flanked by up to eight high-tech megacities powered by artificial intelligence. The project is likely to need $100 billion in investment, with no hope of it coming from the United States.
Unfortunately, the plan appears to miss the mark on focusing on the needs of the local people. Housing proposals provide as little as 323 square feet per person for those who stay in Gaza. This size would be downright paltry, even by the paltry prior standards of the region. The report goes on to propose a far bolder concept—a manufacturing “Elon Musk” park. This park would ascend from the ashes of the Erez industrial zone and place technology and commerce above the reestablishment of community.
Under the gorgeous plan, Palestinians should relocate to a 3rd nation of their choosing—voluntarily. Or on the other hand, they may be shunted into Cartesian bubbles as long as rebuilding occurs. This all raises fear for those who choose not to evacuate. As cities face these rapid transformations, we need to think about how to safeguard their rights amidst the upheaval.
There are no mentions in the plan of provisions for Palestinian self-determination. Rather, it groups Gaza, Israel, and Egypt together as fungible regions within the Israeli state. The proposal further states that Israel will retain “overarching rights” of Gaza – even to address its security concerns. This blueprint even calls for the confiscation of hundreds of acres of Gaza’s farmland to create a security buffer zone.
Unfortunately, critics are already raising alarms about the prospectus. They contend that it appears as though it were designed by individuals with little understanding of Gaza’s geographical realities, political context, or the complexities of post-conflict recovery. The subtitle of the plan, “From a Demolished Iranian Proxy to a Prosperous Abrahamic Ally,” has drawn particular scrutiny for its marketing tone.
While stimulating the economy undergirds this proposal, a multitude of issues remains. Experts have already sounded alarm over liability protections for companies that commit to this plan. Katie Gallagher warns that “any company that aligns itself with Israel – and seemingly, Trump – in a plan to forcibly transfer Palestinians from their homes in Gaza is opening itself up to significant legal liability at home and under universal jurisdiction.”
Philip Grant described the proposal as “a blueprint for mass deportation, marketed as development.” He added, “The outcome? A textbook case of international crimes on an unimaginable scale: forcible population transfer, demographic engineering, and collective punishment.” He pointed out that anyone who planned and carried out such an effort would be vulnerable to prosecution for decades.
In an article for USIP, HA Hellyer underscored that the plan “underscores what has long been the reality” of the denial of Palestinian sovereignty. He stated, “What is important is what the plan points to, and that is not a new idea: the Israel determination that there should be no Palestinian sovereignty or self-determination in Gaza.” He noted that “the US has made clear since February that they are OK with the idea of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.” Hellyer concluded, “Gaza is … part of the greater Palestinian homeland.”
The GREAT plan has met opposition not just from human rights advocates, but more generally across the political spectrum. Many view it as a continuation of historical injustices faced by Palestinians and a stark reminder of the ongoing complexities surrounding peace in the region.