On February 4, President Trump held a press conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump surprised many by suggesting that the solution to the crisis in Gaza would be to relocate the Palestinians to another part of the Moslem world. He reasoned that this was the best way forward since the physical devastation rendered the area uninhabitable. He went on to suggest that it could be cleared and rebuilt to become demilitarized under international control, including a permanent role for the United States.
Trump went on to propose that investors from all over the world might be drawn there if it could be redeveloped in such a way that it became the “Riviera” of the Middle East.
After the initial ridicule and disbelief with which his proposal was greeted, some commentators tentatively suggested that his idea might draw serious consideration, even as just a starting point for a new direction in negotiations. After all, the current situation seems insoluble, especially after October 7.
It occurred to me that there are a number of parallels from the last century. Researching, I came across two studies that came out within the last year that show that such an approach might work. Property and The End of Empire in International Zones, 1919–1947, Oxford Academic, August 2024; International Zones in Global Urban History, Cambridge University Press, 6-05-2024.
I recognized that after both World Wars I and II, there were upheavals throughout the globe, where populations were displaced and national boundaries moved. Whole regions and populations shifted from one nation’s control to another’s.
Where territory was disputed and different ethnic groups clashed over who would dominate in a particular area, a solution was arrived at whereby certain places were designated “international zones” or “international cities.” This meant power was shared by different nations, but the areas in question were governed so that citizens of all nations could live, trade, and flourish there, without national or ethnic strife.
Perhaps the best-known example of these international communities was Shanghai in China. It dated back to the 19th century, with the U.S. and Great Britain first sharing responsibility for running the port. Eventually, eleven other nations joined with them in a consortium that administered Shanghai for more than seventy-five years. The result was an island of order and prosperity that was a haven from the chaos that afflicted the rest of China for decades.
One happy result was the Bund, a waterfront stretch of classic architecture that was and is one of the most dramatic urban landscapes in the world.
By the 1920s, Shanghai was a modern metropolis that drew people from all over the globe. Many sought economic opportunity; others were seeking refuge from repression in their own homelands. There was, for instance, the arrival of thousands of White Russians fleeing communism after the Bolshevik Revolution. It was followed a decade later by Jewish refugees from Hitler, who found a safe haven in Shanghai when they were turned away everywhere else.
A similar model of a combined sanctuary from political repression and/or free trade zone was found contemporaneously in another part of the world—in Tangier in North Africa. Starting in 1923, Tangier became an international zone separate from the rest of Morocco.
Governed by eight Western countries, it was demilitarized and neutral in wartime. It was also marked by religious freedom and legal protections for all the various peoples living there. These included a number of Europeans and Americans, as well as the local Muslims and Jews. In fact, it had such a charming, relaxed atmosphere that it became a home to members of the international social elite, as well as artists and literary figures. This is a status that it holds to this day, even though it was eventually reincorporated into Morocco when it later got its independence from France in the 1950s.
There are other examples from that era of international zones where disparate people could live in peace and prosperity in parts of the world otherwise beset by ethnic strife and disorder.
These included Danzig (claimed by both Germany and Poland), Trieste (claimed by both Italy and Yugoslavia), and Letitia (claimed by both Columbia and Peru).
Some may regard these ventures in creating zones under the control of foreign powers as a throwback to colonialism or imperialism. However, the actual outcome was preferable for all concerned. These entities could be run efficiently and become centers of commerce and finance. More importantly, they helped defuse tensions between different peoples in what otherwise would have become flash points for civil conflict.
Given their success, international zones might well be templates on how to deal with the most dangerous place in the world right now: Gaza. If this is compatible with President Trump’s vision for Gaza, history might well furnish a proven method of dealing with this seemingly insoluble geopolitical quandary. It’s worth a try since all else has failed.