Donald Trump is known for his unconventional, often shocking, approach to politics. His latest idea— taking over Gaza and relocating its Palestinian population— sounds like something out of a satirical novel. However, despite its absurdity, this proposal reveals a great deal about Trump’s mindset, his approach to problem-solving, and the way he views global conflicts through the lens of business and personal branding.
At first glance, the idea of “owning” Gaza seems ridiculous. The region is plagued by deep-seated historical conflicts, a severe humanitarian crisis, and complex geopolitical dynamics that have eluded resolution for decades. Yet, for Trump, everything is possible and Gaza might represent an opportunity to cement his legacy as the ultimate dealmaker— a Nobel Peace Prize-worthy achievement, in his view.
By exploring this hypothetical scenario, we can uncover the broader implications of applying a ‘business-first’ mentality to international diplomacy. Could Gaza really be transformed into a “Trump-branded” success story? Or does this idea reflect a fundamental misunderstanding by Trump of geopolitics, human rights, and Middle Eastern affairs?
Throughout his career, Trump has prided himself on making deals— whether in real estate, media, or politics. His belief in his ability to “fix” complex situations through negotiation and economic incentives underpins much of his foreign policy thinking. During his first term in the presidency, it was more evident.
But Gaza is not a struggling casino in Atlantic City— it is a densely populated war zone with a long history of resistance and oppression. The fundamental flaw in Trump’s approach is that he views international conflicts as business problems, solvable through transactions rather than diplomacy and justice.
Trump’s obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize may also play a role in his interest in Gaza. He has long sought global recognition for his role in peace deals, most notably his attempts to broker agreements between Israel and Arab nations. In his mind, a drastic move like “solving” Gaza’s crisis could elevate him to the status of a historic peacemaker, despite the ethical and legal implications.
If Trump were to “own” Gaza, what would it look like? His track record suggests a grandiose vision filled with luxury developments, flashy branding, and promises of economic revival.
Imagine a Trump Tower Gaza, a gleaming golden skyscraper rising amidst the ruins. Alongside it, there could be a Gaza International Golf Resort, a luxury destination promising “peace through commerce.” Trump might envision turning Gaza into a “free trade zone,” attracting foreign investors to set up businesses, casinos, and shopping malls. His belief in economic incentives as a tool for political stability could lead to ambitious plans to commercialize the region.
In Trump’s usual style, security measures would likely involve a large border wall, supposedly funded by Gulf states like Qatar or Saudi Arabia. He would frame this as a “solution” to security concerns, while avoiding deeper political engagement. The most controversial aspect of Trump’s proposal is the idea of moving Gaza’s population to Jordan or Egypt. This would amount to ethnic cleansing, violating international law and triggering global outrage.
Trump’s vision clashes entirely with the on-the-ground realities of Gaza: The Palestinian struggle is not about economic deprivation alone— it is about sovereignty, self-determination, and freedom from occupation. No amount of luxury development can compensate for political disenfranchisement. While some elements of the Israeli government might welcome Trump’s plan as a way to eliminate Palestinian claims to Gaza, others would recognize the international backlash and logistical impossibility of mass relocation.
Jordan and Egypt have already refused to absorb Gaza’s population. Their governments understand that such a move would destabilize their own countries and provoke widespread unrest. After the Iraq War, most Americans are wary of any further military entanglements in the Middle East. The idea of forcibly removing a population from its land would also be politically disastrous at home.
At its heart, this absurd proposal reflects the growing disconnect between business-minded leaders and the real-world struggles of displaced, oppressed populations. And if there’s one lesson history has taught us, it’s that you can’t solve occupation, war, and ethnic conflict with a hotel chain.
Beyond Trump’s personal motivations, larger geopolitical forces are at play. The USA, Israel, and various energy players are all invested in shaping Gaza’s future— not necessarily for humanitarian reasons, but for strategic and economic gain.
One of the most overlooked reasons for US interest in Gaza is its offshore natural gas reserves. Israel has been developing its Leviathan and Tamar gas fields, while European powers seek to reduce dependence on Russian energy. Gaza’s own gas fields— which were recently granted exploration rights to European and Israeli companies— represent a valuable energy asset. A stabilized, depopulated Gaza could make gas extraction easier, reducing security risks to infrastructure.
Trump’s plan also plays into broader Middle Eastern realignments: if Gaza’s issue were “resolved” (even forcibly), it could pave the way for deeper diplomatic ties between Israel and the Gulf states. There have been renewed talks about a Qatar-Turkey pipeline, which could benefit from reduced instability in the region. The USA and Europe are eager to push Russia out of global gas markets. By controlling Gaza’s energy resources, they could further this goal.
A massive reconstruction effort in Gaza, led by US and Israeli firms, would be highly profitable. If Trump were to secure backing for a “new Gaza,” construction companies, defense contractors, and infrastructure firms would all stand to benefit.
While Trump’s idea of “owning” Gaza is unlikely to materialize, his rhetoric has serious consequences. Far-right Israeli politicians, like Ben Gavir, have already embraced the idea of permanently removing Palestinians from Gaza. Trump’s comments may embolden these figures to push for more aggressive policies.
The forced displacement of Palestinians would eliminate any possibility of a negotiated peace settlement. It would further cement Israel’s control over Palestinian territories, leading to prolonged conflict.
Palestinian resistance groups, including Hamas, would likely respond to such a plan with increased violence. Jordan and Egypt, already burdened with refugee populations, would face massive political and economic strain. Any move toward forced displacement would violate international law, reducing US credibility when it criticizes Russian or Chinese territorial ambitions.
Trump’s Gaza proposal may seem like a joke, but it highlights a dangerous trend— treating complex geopolitical crises as business deals rather than issues of justice, human rights, and historical struggle.
His vision ignores the realities of Palestinian resistance, international law, and the deeply rooted ideological and psychological nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While he may believe in solving problems through branding and economic incentives, Gaza’s crisis requires diplomacy, humanitarian solutions, and political will—not a Trump Tower and a relocation plan.
At its heart, this absurd proposal reflects the growing disconnect between business-minded leaders and the real-world struggles of displaced, oppressed populations. And if there’s one lesson history has taught us, it’s that you can’t solve occupation, war, and ethnic conflict with a hotel chain.
