The idea of Trump's plan is neither good nor bad

In a complex world, Trump can't force anything on the people of Gaza. But his idea is shaking up the system, and the system needed shaking up. What matters now is how everyone else responds to it

Donald Trump’s plan to permanently expel the Gaza Strip’s Palestinians and take U.S. ownership of the tiny enclave for property development continues to reverberate around the world. The Israeli government has warmly embraced it, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it a “bold vision.” Most of the Arab world, major European powers and naturally the Palestinians rejected it. Even Jewish leaders abroad condemned it, with 350 U.S. rabbis calling it “ethnic cleansing.”

It is not surprising that a plan to resolve a bloody, decades-long conflict by physically removing some 2 million people (population estimates of Gaza range from 1.8 million to 2.3 million) should elicit intense emotions on both sides. For Israelis, it offers the promise of finally achieving peace and security and removing the threat that led to the October 7 massacre, the worst day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. For Palestinians, it triggers the trauma of the Nakba of 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from their homes, never to return.

I could simply explain all the reasons why I believe implementing this plan would have disastrous consequences and why it’s unfeasible. That would be nice and easy. But as Tina Turner once said, “We never, ever do nothing nice and easy. We always do it nice and rough.” And that means looking at his proposal through the lens of complexity science.

[Quick recap of complexity science’s four rules (click here for my fuller explanation and here for a deeper dive and cool interview): 1) the more interacting parts or individuals within a system, the more complexity you can get; 2) negative feedback loops always have to predominate to keep the system self-sustaining; 3) global structures arise from local interactions; and 4) there has to be a low level of randomness that allows for the creativity and adaptability of a living system.]

In that regard, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff has had the most astute comment recently that hints at the role of Trump’s plan within the complex system of relationships surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “First of all, as usual, the president comes out, says something new and unique. He gets attacked for it. By the way, that happens when new and unique proposals come to the fore. But it also encouraged a lot of conversation. So now we have the Egyptians saying, we have a plan. The Jordanians are saying, we have a plan.”

The significance of this statement is that it distinguishes between the plan itself and the repercussions of the plan being released into the discourse around solving the conflict. In that regard, the plan itself is neither good nor bad – it’s what people do with it that will either cause further harm or begin to heal wounds. I’ll start with how the plan makes sense in the context of complexity science and then comment on its ramifications.

First, the plan is an emergent phenomenon that grew out of the October 7 massacre. The Hamas attack and Israel’s massive response have made the system more complex by creating such destruction and deepening the intensity of the enmity between the two sides. The scope of the destruction that Israel has caused in response has made it seem virtually impossible to return to the status quo ante, as Israel and Hamas did in all their previous mini-wars. By profoundly piercing Israel’s sense of security, the massacre created the adjacent possibility of expulsion – an idea that seemed preposterous and immoral before October 7 to so many people now contemplating it.

Second, the intention of Trump’s plan is to resolve the conflict between Israel and Gaza. But will it succeed in triggering a negative feedback loop toward peace and prosperity? It’s too early to tell. In the classic example of an A/C unit acting as a negative feedback loop to prevent a room from getting too hot, Trump’s plan is like the sound of the unit kicking into gear. We know it’s turned on, but will it blow hot air or cold air? It depends on whether it contributes to a process by which Gazans are truly able to rehabilitate their society and free themselves of radical Islamists or their misery is multiplied by violent displacement and dislocation.

Third, Trump’s plan was conceived at the global level, but just because he has power doesn’t mean it will happen. In the end, the plan will succeed or fail at the local level – whether there will be soldiers to physically expel the Palestinians and others to rebuild Gaza. Trump came up with it in consultation with few people if anyone – some credit son-in-law Jared Kushner and others GWU professor Joseph Pelzman. But he will have to sell it to Jordanian King Abdullah and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi for them to accept any potential expellees, and so far the answer is “No.” And then there are 2 million Palestinians to reckon with. They also have to agree to go quietly, or else there will be mass resistance and violence. Trump has pledged no U.S. troops on the ground, so who will agree to risk their troops?

Fourth, the Trump plan represents a randomness to the system. The conflict had become stale and stuck since the last attempt at securing a two-state solution in 2008 failed. The system is in need of a creative solution, and this is but one attempt. As his press secretary noted, the plan represents “out-of-the-box-thing” like it or not. The upside of the plan arousing so much opposition is that it forces other leaders to come up with alternate solutions. Even allies of Trump recognize its problems. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries are meeting this Friday to formulate an alternate plan. Egypt is reportedly working on a plan to keep Gazans in a safe zone for five years within the enclave while the reconstruction goes on. It’s hard to imagine Egypt working on this proposal without Trump’s plan preceding it.

Out of this randomness will thus hopefully emerge a better, more feasible and more acceptable plan. The best one will combine all the elements necessary for the system to adapt: addressing the complexity of the conflict, introducing a negative feedback loop that breaks the cycle of violence, incentivizing cooperation at the local level and keeping the system dynamic so that there will be opportunities for growth for all parties. But all parties will have to do the work. Dramatic declarations won’t suffice.

Damaged structures in Gaza. Credit: EPA Images pic