Imagine if a university professor had hinted at the possibility of the US owning Gaza before US President Donald Trump’s proposal. It wouldn’t be surprising for a professor to present this idea as a perpetuation and demonstration of American and Zionist colonialism, racism, and genocide, or for students to immediately reject it, affirming their perceptions.
But a professor genuinely engaging with this idea would have been unlikely before Trump shocked the world with his unprecedented, crazy proposal. Why? Precisely because it was crazy and unprecedented, overly controversial, and could have “offended” ideological and overly sensitive students given the implications.
As non-politically correct as Trump’s rhetoric can be, only he could have made this proposal. Regardless of feelings, the fact is that this is a defining moment in history.
After “Mar-a-Gaza” made global headlines and memes overtook social media platforms, an alternative to the two-state solution inevitably entered the academic fold.
A George Washington University (GW) peer shared that the day following the Trump-Netanyahu press conference, her professor opened the floor for student opinions. Mar-a-Gaza became the center of attention and, expectedly, condemnation.
Having endured fifteen minutes of anti-Trumpian and anti-Israel criticism, the student raised her hand and attempted to offer a more balanced perspective. She detailed the October 7 attacks, the history of the 2005 Gaza disengagement, and more.
“Let’s move on to a different topic now, shall we?” the professor said, quickly shutting down any substantial, balanced discussion of Trump’s plan.
It should now be clear why I mentioned that discussing a theoretical Mar-a-Gaza plan would have been unlikely in a university classroom prior to Trump’s unveiling.
The academy, it seems, has been taken over by meitzarim, Hebrew for “limitations.” These limitations are precisely the ideological shackles President Trump seeks to break with his Mar-a-Gaza proposal. Maybe he’s serious, maybe he isn’t. Maybe it’s just another stab at the art of the deal.
Last week’s Torah portion, Parshat Beshalach recounts the early stages of the Exodus, where we learn that just as Mitzrayim (Egypt) physically constrained the Jewish people, these physical limitations created a mentality of meitzarim – one that binds us to certain ideas. For the Jews to have faith in the divine parting of the sea, they first needed to experience the physical freedom that would allow them to have such faith.
This biblical story is metaphorical for limitations imposed on thinking, particularly ideas considered taboo, controversial, or offensive. Other ideas, however – like global communism or the “From the river to the sea” ideology – are freely disseminated and have been accepted in numerous academic circles.
When politics and ideology shape our boundaries, we risk adopting idealistic and impractical perspectives amid demonizing opposing views. This mirrors Mitzrayim, where the Jews would never have believed that they could escape and where the Egyptians could have convinced them they would remain enslaved forever.
TODAY, THE academy is imposing meitzarim on our generation by failing to educate students on global realities and by restricting the exploration of alternative solutions, notably in the Middle Eastern context. Many students in the West enter university slightly opinionated but mostly unaware of all the nuances of Middle Eastern dynamics.
Academia is failing students and their novel ideas
Instead of encouraging these students to think outside the box and consider novel ideas – especially those backed by facts – students are unconsciously primed for intellectual rigidity driven by ideology. This narrow intellectual imposition leads students to reactiveness and unproductive engagement. Education should never be politicized, but politics should always be a source of engagement.
Many Western scholars, policymakers, and university students have failed to think beyond the two-state solution. The two-state solution has become religiously preached and received. Falsely framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as merely a territorial dispute has become dogmatic.
This theoretical failure reflects the criticism that academia has thrown at unconventional plans like Trump’s – that they lack realism – while ignoring the real challenges posed by Hamas’s jihadist ideology and dismissing the need for fresh, out-of-the-box ideas.
Propositions by various scholars surely exist, yet they are rarely brought into university discussions in the Middle East studies arena. What we typically hear is that Israeli occupation and apartheid are why the two-state solution has failed.
The heinous crimes of October 7 should have taught the academy the lesson it was waiting for: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not simply a territorial dispute but an ideological one, and we need to consider alternatives to guarantee Israeli security and improve life for Palestinians, along with regional stability in the long run. Now, as two-state doubt spreads, alternative proposals should force the academy to reckon with this reality.
This is not to say that Trump’s plan is grounded in absolute reality, nor am I claiming it is viable. The details of any plan must be thoroughly examined – that is the very purpose of the academy.
If anti-Zionism – the eradication of the Jewish state – can be taught freely, then plans like Trump’s Mar-a-Gaza, Brig.-Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi’s Sinai and Jordanian plans outlined in his book No Retreat, or Bar-Ilan University Professor Mordechai Kedar’s “Palestinian Emirates” solution should be equally explored.
Known as “the man with the plan,” GW Professor Joseph Pelzman, who is the visionary behind Mar-a-Gaza, should encourage other faculty to teach, discuss, and debate it openly with their students. Students like the GW peer described above should continue asserting themselves with provocative questions and courageously put forth their ideas no matter how unconventional.
The shock of the Mar-a-Gaza plan and the reactions it prompts in academia will likely have two outcomes: it will be used to further demonize Trump, the Republican Party, and Israel, or it could set a precedent for thinking outside the box – not only in the Middle Eastern domain but across other academic disciplines.
Striving for the latter can enhance intellectual rigor and foster improved, innovative ideas in future policy-making arenas.
The writer works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy (ISGAP) and will graduate from the George Washington University this spring.