Author of Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel
April 20, 2025
President Donald Trump’s recent proposal for the United States to assume control over Gaza, initially perceived as a bold negotiation tactic, has evolved into a serious policy proposition. His vision of transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” involving the displacement of its Palestinian population, has drawn widespread condemnation from Arab nations and the international community.
The Arab League responded swiftly, endorsing a $53 billion reconstruction plan for Gaza that emphasizes rebuilding the territory while maintaining its population. This initiative aims to establish a technocratic committee to oversee reconstruction efforts, sidelining Hamas and restoring governance to the Palestinian Authority.
Complicating matters further, an AI-generated video circulated on social media, depicting Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu lounging on Gaza’s beaches amidst luxury developments. Intended to showcase a vision of prosperity, the video was widely criticized as insensitive and offensive, exacerbating tensions in the region.
The subsequent hostage negotiations did not yield the anticipated results. Instead of capitulating under pressure, Hamas utilized the situation to garner global attention, publicly parading hostages and undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts.
Underlying these geopolitical maneuvers is the significant influence of financial interests. Reports indicate that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are preparing to invest substantial sums into the U.S. economy, leveraging their economic power to influence foreign policy decisions. Notably, key figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have financial ties to these Gulf nations, raising questions about the intersection of business interests and diplomatic strategies.
As the author of Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel, I have documented the historical consequences of pressuring Israel to cede land. The pattern is repeating. When financial interests override strategic clarity and biblical conviction, the outcome is not peace—it is instability.
Israel’s security must not become a bargaining tool in larger economic negotiations. The Abrahamic covenant, as understood by millions around the world, views the land of Israel as non-negotiable. Any attempt to compromise that, even in pursuit of business or political advantage, carries significant consequences.
As the region continues to shift, the United States faces a critical question: Is it pursuing stability and security in the Middle East—or merely chasing influence and investment?
Postscript: A Word of Watchfulness
As this article goes to publication, my spirit remains unsettled—not out of fear, but out of discernment.
What is unfolding in the Middle East is not just geopolitical repositioning. It is a convergence of interests—economic, military, religious, and strategic—unlike anything we have seen in recent memory. Nations are moving quickly, deals are being made quietly, and voices that once carried clarity have grown complex or silent.
But in the midst of this, we must not lose sight of the spiritual dimension.
There is a pattern that has repeated itself throughout modern history: when leaders of nations—especially those with influence over Israel’s future—begin to prioritize political gain or financial interest above biblical truth, the consequences have not been merely diplomatic. They have been historic.
This is not a moment for casual analysis. It is a time for watchfulness, for humility, and for those who believe in the covenant promises of God to stand in the gap.
I offer this not as a political critique, but as a call to alertness—for intercessors, for policymakers, for the Church, and for all who carry responsibility in this hour.
May we not be found aligning with what is expedient, but with what is true.
And may we indeed pray for the peace of Jerusalem.