The Philosophy of Sovereignty and Justice in Trump's Project for Gaza

Author: منتهى ربايعة

Trump's plan, announced at a joint press conference with Netanyahu on September 29, 2025, concerning the Gaza Strip, represents a new juncture in a series of political initiatives that intersect with the stakes of power, geopolitical calculations, and the strategic aspirations of major powers. It is not merely a technical initiative or a temporary settlement aimed at halting the ongoing cycle of violence; it carries within it a project to reshape the political and security landscape in Gaza and redraw the boundaries of sovereignty and the limits of Palestinian decision-making. 

This plan comes in the context of a long historical narrative of American and Israeli attempts to formulate "solutions" that place Palestinians before limited options, transforming the conflict from a question of freedom and justice into security and economic equations governed by a balance of power.

Therefore, engaging with the plan should not be limited to dismantling its political and practical dimensions; it requires a philosophical approach that raises deeper questions about meaning, power, justice, and destiny. At its core, the issue is not just about security arrangements or reconstruction projects, but rather an essential dialectic: who holds the right to decide the fate of a human community? Is peace merely the absence of war, or does it rely on the presence of justice as an absolute human value?

The logic of the plan is based on the notion that Palestinian sovereignty is postponed and conditioned upon reforms and international oversight, meaning that the inhabitants of Gaza are not active participants in shaping their future, but rather subjects of external decisions. The initiative, as formulated, deprives Palestinians of exercising their right to self-determination, making any change or transformation contingent upon international supervision.

Additionally, the plan strips the people of Gaza of agency, placing them under the guardianship of a Peace Council led by Trump as the supreme authority, which resurrects the idea of the colonial ruler in political philosophy. Hobbes’ conception of the necessity of an absolute authority to ensure security and order can be used to justify colonial rule, where the presence of a power imposing its control becomes imperative for the continuity of stability.

The reading also reveals a philosophical debate between justice and utility; the proposal is based on humanitarian and political trade-offs: hostages for prisoners, weapons for amnesty, land for reconstruction. This logic approaches utilitarianism, which seeks to achieve the greatest benefit and least harm. However, the fundamental question remains: is justice measured by trade-offs, or is it an absolute principle that cannot be compromised? According to the Kantian perspective, a human is an end in themselves, not a means to achieve political ends, which contradicts the logic of exchange adopted by the plan. The Kantian philosophy emphasizes justice as an absolute value that cannot be fragmented or negotiated.

The plan includes a fundamental condition, which is the disarmament of Hamas in exchange for promises of peaceful coexistence. However, this raises a philosophical question: if tools of violence are removed without restoring real legitimate authority to the Palestinians, will there be peace or merely a calm imposed by force? This paradox brings the discussion back to the philosophical question of peace: is peace defined solely by the absence of war, or by the presence of justice as well? This approach reflects a mentality that considers security control more important than justice and sees the cessation of killing as an end in itself, regardless of Palestinian rights.

The plan promises what it calls a prosperous Gaza, based on establishing a special economic zone and providing job opportunities and investments. This technocratic discourse treats Gaza as a developmental project reliant on infrastructure and economic numbers, while marginalizing core values such as history, identity, freedom, and justice. 

From a philosophical standpoint, this reflects what is known as instrumental rationality, which focuses on effectiveness and economic viability while ignoring ethical and humanitarian dimensions. This proposal embodies a desire to transform Gaza into an urban project under external oversight, excluding Palestinians from participating in shaping their future.

In conclusion, it becomes evident that the disregard for Palestinian rights and Arab roles reveals a mentality focused on absolute control and prioritizing practical outcomes at the expense of justice and dignity. The plan embodies a vision of peace as crisis management rather than justice for peoples, transforming tragedy into an economic urban project subject to international guardianship, yet at the same time ignoring fundamental questions: who decides? Who holds accountable? And what does freedom mean after disarmament and reconstruction? At its core, it presents a vision of peace without memory, and development without sovereignty, which may sow the seeds of a new conflict that reproduces violence instead of ending it.