On February 4, in a press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US. President Donald Trump unveiled a plan as audacious as it is alarming: the USA would “take over” the Gaza Strip, forcibly displace its 1.8 million Palestinian residents, and redevelop the territory into a luxury enclave he dubbed “the Riviera of the Middle East” .
This proposal, framed as a solution to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, actually reveals a dangerous blend of imperialist nostalgia, geopolitical naivety, and a developer’s myopic vision. While Trump claims his plan would “bring stability” and “unlimited jobs,” it has sparked global condemnation, drawing comparisons to colonialism and ethnic cleansing. This idea is not just impractical but morally indefensible— and what it says about the trajectory of US foreign policy in Trump’s second term.
Trump’s proposal is rooted in his real estate background, treating Gaza as a “demolition site” to be leveled and repurposed. He envisions US troops clearing unexploded ordnance, demolishing ruins, and constructing high-end housing and resorts along Gaza’s Mediterranean coast. Palestinians, he argues, would be resettled in neighbouring countries like Egypt and Jordan, where they could live in “peace” and “better conditions”.
This plan echoes earlier suggestions by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who in 2024 called Gaza’s waterfront “very valuable” and proposed relocating Palestinians to “clean up” the territory. Trump has doubled down on this vision, framing it as a humanitarian gesture: “You build really good quality housing… where they can live and not die”. Yet his rhetoric ignores the Palestinians’ deep ties to Gaza, where many families have lived for generations, even amid decades of conflict and blockade. When challenged by a reporter— “But it’s their home, sir. Why would they leave?”— Trump dismissed the question, replying, “The place has been hell”.
The proposal also aligns with the goals of Israel’s far-right factions. Figures like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has long advocated for Palestinian expulsion, praised Trump’s plan as the “beginning of a beautiful friendship” . Netanyahu, meanwhile, called it “worth paying attention to,” framing it as a potential “history-changing” opportunity to neutralize Gaza as a security threat.
Trump’s plan has been met with swift rejection from Arab states, international bodies, and even members of his own party. Saudi Arabia reaffirmed its “firm and unwavering” support for Palestinian statehood, while Egypt and Jordan— key US allies— denounced forced displacement as an “existential threat” . Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi bluntly stated: “Jordan is for Jordanians, and Palestine is for Palestinians”.
Critics argue the proposal undermines decades of US policy centered on a two-state solution. By endorsing mass relocation, Trump risks legitimizing Israel’s far-right push to annex Gaza and the West Bank, further eroding prospects for Palestinian self-determination. Saudi Arabia, which has conditioned normalization with Israel in progress toward Palestinian statehood, warned that Trump’s plan “threatens the region’s stability”. Even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, expressed skepticism: “We’ll see what our Arab friends say about that… I think most South Carolinians are probably not excited about sending Americans to take over Gaza”.
The humanitarian implications are equally dire. Over 90 percent of Gaza’s population is already displaced, with 46,600 killed in the Israel-Hamas war since October 2023. Forcing survivors to abandon their homes would violate international laws against population transfer, a crime akin to ethnic cleansing. As Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib argued, Trump is “openly calling for ethnic cleansing while sitting next to a genocidal war criminal”.
This episode underscores the dangers of treating geopolitics as a real estate transaction. Gaza is not a “demolition site” but a homeland—a place of profound suffering, yes, but also of resilience and rootedness. As the international community grapples with Trump’s latest provocation, one truth remains clear: lasting peace cannot be built on the ashes of forced displacement.
Trump’s vision for Gaza is steeped in a colonial mindset. By framing the territory as a “blank slate” for US-led development, he echoes European powers that carved up the Middle East after World War I, sowing conflicts that persist today. His reference to a “long-term ownership position” is particularly jarring, evoking 19th-century imperial ventures rather than modern diplomacy.
This approach also ignores the catastrophic legacy of US interventions in the region. From the Iraq War to the Libyan intervention, US attempts to “remake” the Middle East have resulted in chaos, extremism, and loss of life. Trump’s suggestion that Gaza could become an “international city” under US control— akin to his past musings about annexing Greenland or the Panama Canal— reveals a troubling fascination with territorial acquisition.
Moreover, the plan disregards Palestinian agency. As Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. The Middle East negotiator, noted: “It’s not a real estate deal for them… It’s an existential issue” . Despite Trump’s claims of benevolence, his refusal to consult Palestinians— or acknowledge their right to return— exposes a paternalistic worldview that reduces human lives to bargaining chips.
Trump’s timing raises questions about his motives. The proposal comes amid a fragile ceasefire in Gaza and escalating legal troubles for Netanyahu, who faces an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and domestic protests over his handling of the conflict. By aligning with Trump, Netanyahu gains a political lifeline, positioning himself as the indispensable conduit to Washington’s power.
In the USA, Democrats have accused Trump of using the plan to divert attention from controversies closer to home. Senator Tina Smith speculated that the announcement might be a “distraction” from Elon Musk’s controversial access to Treasury Department systems, which critics call a “constitutional crisis” . Others, like Senator Chris Murphy, dismissed the proposal as “insane,” warning that a US occupation of Gaza would ignite decades of conflict.
Yet Trump’s base, weary of “endless wars,” may question his willingness to deploy troops overseas. His suggestion that Arab nations would fund resettlement— despite their explicit rejections— highlights a recurring theme: a disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and reality.
Donald Trump aims to distinguish himself as a leader who thinks outside the box, seeking to reshape global geopolitics in his own way. His vision includes solidifying the Abraham Accords and pursuing a two-state solution for Israel, regardless of any challenges or threats that may arise in the future.
One of his potential strategies involves a US military presence in Gaza, which would not only provide oversight in the region but also offer strategic advantages in monitoring Iran and Lebanon. If Trump secures control over Gaza, he could shift his focus to Lebanon, where he envisions the complete dismantling of Hezbollah. This could lead to the emergence of a democratic, pro-Western government in Lebanon, aligning with broader US interests.
Interestingly, if Trump were to intervene in Gaza, it is unlikely that Russia or China would mount a significant protest. His ultimate goal is to eliminate anti-American a.k.a. anti-Israel terrorist organizations from the Middle East, creating a more stable and U.S.-aligned region.
However, the reality is far more complex. Gaza could easily become another Afghanistan, as Iran has long used religious influence to exert power across the Middle East. Trump’s aggressive approach might, in turn, provoke a surge in jihadist sentiments among Arab Muslims, potentially igniting widespread unrest and resistance.
Trump’s Gaza plan is unlikely to materialize. The logistical, legal, and political barriers are insurmountable: Arab states refuse cooperation, international law forbids forced displacement, and the US public has little appetite for another Middle East quagmire. One thing is clear: Trump always takes a strategic lead, much like a seasoned businessman. He sets an ambitious, high starting price to gain leverage in negotiations, ensuring he has room to bargain on his own terms.
This episode underscores the dangers of treating geopolitics as a real estate transaction. Gaza is not a “demolition site” but a homeland—a place of profound suffering, yes, but also of resilience and rootedness. As the international community grapples with Trump’s latest provocation, one truth remains clear: lasting peace cannot be built on the ashes of forced displacement.
