Not much of one. If you read Friedman’s article, he’s pretty clearly just using Dubai as a metaphor - not an actual prediction that Gaza could have become an international development powerhouse.
Here’s the main thesis from Friedman’s discussion of Gaza:
Hamas then faced a critical choice: Now that it controlled the Palestinian parliament, it could work within the Oslo Accords and the Paris protocol that governed economic ties between Israel, Gaza and the West Bank — or not.
Hamas chose not to — making a clash between Hamas and Fatah, which supported Oslo, inevitable. In the end, Hamas violently ousted Fatah from Gaza in 2007, killing some of its officials and making clear that it would not abide by the Oslo Accords or the Paris protocol. That led to the first Israeli economic blockade of Gaza — and what would be 22 years of on-and-off Hamas rocket attacks, Israeli checkpoint openings and closings, wars and cease-fires, all culminating on Oct. 7.
These were fateful choices. Once Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza, Palestinians were left, for the first time ever, with total control over a piece of land. Yes, it was an impoverished slice of sand and coastal seawater, with some agricultural areas. And it was not the ancestral home of most of its residents. But it was theirs to build anything they wanted.
Friedman describes this choice metaphorically as a choice between 2023 Dubai and 1968 Hanoi, but the point still stands. Sure, actual economic opportunity in Gaza wasn’t completely unrestricted by Israel. Gaza was never going to end up as the new Dubai - for the same reasons that Jordan or Egypt or Syria aren’t anywhere near that wealthy. But it was was still a choice to continue economic interaction under Oslo, rather than what ended up happening with a continued adherence to violence and the ensuing blockade.