Adam Milstein: Approach Trump Proposal With Jewish Pragmatism
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House the week of February 3, 2025, President Trump made a slew of shocking announcements.
Most prevalent was his proposal for the U.S. to “take over” Gaza in order to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In his plan, Gaza’s 1.7 million residents would be relocated to neighboring countries such as Egypt or Jordan. It was unclear whether he meant the U.S. would put boots on the ground and he did not specify who would be footing the bill.
This proposal sent the entire world into a panic, prompting Trump aides to attempt to walk back some of his comments the following day. The relocation of Gazans would only be temporary rather than permanent, for example. In true Trump fashion, however, the president torpedoed these walk-back efforts by doubling down on his comments. He sees the strip as a “big real estate site” and “the United States is going to own it and we’ll slowly — very slowly, we’re in no rush — develop it.” These rebuilding efforts, he says, will bring stability to the Middle East. He then made clear that Gazans would not be allowed to return to the strip, indicating a permanent displacement.
Prime Minister Netanyahu praised Trump’s plan, calling it “the first fresh idea in years, and it has the potential to change everything in Gaza.” He labelled Trump “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” Far right member of the Israeli Knesset Itamar Ben Gvir, who left Netanyahu’s government when the ceasefire deal was signed, said the chances of his party’s return to the coalition increased following Trump’s announcement. The Israeli center was less overtly enthusiastic about the details of Trump plan but didn’t rule out its potential, while head of the Arab party said that it’s “impossible to carry out a [population] transfer without committing war crimes,” a statement many in the international community agree with.
Regardless of Trump’s true agenda, his comments shook up international diplomacy, forcing all relevant players to question the norms they’ve been operating on for decades – namely, the two state solution. Several groups were quick to dismiss the idea on its face, calling it infeasible and unethical, but it’s worth exploring its merits. Adam Milstein, a Los Angeles based venture philanthropist, wrote a piece in The Jerusalem Post recently that advocated for American Jewish pragmatism and working across the aisle, despite having a conservative president in office. He argues that it’s imperative to “work holistically with common allies left and right of center across the entire spectrum” should they be acting in support of Israel. It’s vital in situations like these to exercise the kind of pragmatism Milstein calls for in order to lend support to the best solutions and outcomes for Israel.
Milstein is the co-founder of the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation, a nonprofit founded in 2000 dedicated to supporting a network of organizations that strengthen American values, support the U.S.-Israel alliance and combat hatred and bigotry in all forms. He is also a founding member of the Israel American Council, which since 2007 has fostered an engaged and dedicated Israeli-American community. Milstein now serves as board member and Chair Emeritus. Twenty-five years of active Jewish philanthropy has given Milstein an expert understanding of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to advocating for Israel and Jewish affairs.
Milstein’s argument stems from the fact that the American Democratic party has, in recent years, significantly abandoned support for Israel thanks to its extreme left wing. Despite the Jewish community’s decades-long support and spearheading of progressive policies, he says “progressive circles have embraced hostility towards Israel and often, by extension, toward Jews.” Jewish Americans have long ignored the unholy alliance between the progressive left and Middle East Islamists as well as “the normalization of anti-Israel rhetoric on the left.” Too often in progressive circles, “Jews are routinely asked to choose between their identity [as Zionists] and their party loyalty.”
Therefore it behooves the Jewish community to “collaborate across the political spectrum,” even if that means working with conservatives whose ideas, on a number of things, may seem distasteful at first – such as the relocation of Palestinians to rebuild Gaza. Milstein makes the point that in his first term, Trump “led some of the most significant pro-Israel actions in modern history,” such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He engaged in a maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against Iran “to ensure that this evil regime would never get nuclear weapons.” Trump has recently reimposed this maximum pressure campaign which, Reuters reports, “includes efforts to drive [Iran’s] oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Engaging with Trump and his out-of-the-box ideas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has grown even more intractable over the last sixteen months “does not mean abandoning values or turning our backs on long-standing relationships” in Milstein’s mind. “Rather, it means acknowledging that political landscapes change, and alliances should not be dictated by tradition or blind loyalty but rather by a clear-eyed pragmatism.” Indeed, the political, diplomatic and military landscape changes rapidly in the region, and it’s no longer pragmatic to project stale ways of thinking onto an issue that requires creative ideas.
American Jews should always operate with a healthy dose of skepticism, however. Trump has hosted and given a platform to known antisemites in the past, and Milstein has written on the dangers these actions posed to Jews. Both political parties are “flawed,” so it’s up to Jews to exercise critical thinking when deciding who to give their support to. But the bottom line, Milstein argues, is that anyone who “support[s] our core values and stand[s] with us against common enemies” deserves to have their ideas heard if not advocated for, regardless of political party.
