In a move that has shocked the world, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to take control of the Gaza Strip and economically revive it after resettling its Palestinian inhabitants in neighbouring countries. The announcement, made during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday (February 4), signifies a radical departure from decades of U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The implications of Trump’s proposal are vast, raising questions about its legality, feasibility, and potential repercussions on regional stability.
Hamas, the Palestinian group that governs Gaza, swiftly condemned the proposal as a “recipe for creating chaos and tension” in the region.
“We call on the American administration and President Trump to walk back from these irresponsible remarks that contradict international law and the basic rights of our Palestinian people on their land,” said Hamas.
The Secretary-General of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Hussein al-Sheikh, said the PLO “affirms its rejection of all calls for the displacement of the Palestinian people from their homeland” and renews its support for a two-state solution. Trump’s extraordinary proposal has now cast a pall of uncertainty over the next round of negotiations to extend the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
What Trump said about taking over Gaza strip
“The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Trump told reporters. “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.”
“We’re going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it’ll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of,” Trump said. “I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East.”
He described Gaza as a “demolition site” that required American intervention to create jobs and housing, and suggested that the enclave could become “The Riviera of the Middle East.” For this to happen, over two million Palestinians who currently reside in Gaza should be forcibly resettled in countries like Jordan and Egypt, both of which have historically rejected the idea of hosting Gaza’s refugees.
A U.N. damage assessment released in January showed that clearing over 50 million tonnes of rubble left in Gaza in the aftermath of Israel’s bombardment could take 21 years and cost up to $1.2 billion.
Also Read: Trump in White House: Is He Set to Cross Red Lines in International Affairs?
While Trump has expressed a vision of turning Gaza into a prosperous region, he has failed to provide concrete details about how this would be achieved or under what authority the U.S. could legitimately take over Gaza, a coastal strip 45 km long and at most10 km wide, with a violent history.
Saudi Arabia was quick to react to Trump’s latest plan for Gaza. Riyadh said it would not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state and rejected the idea of displacing Palestinians from the enclave. According to a statement issued by the country’s foreign ministry on Wednesday (February 5) its stance towards the Palestinians is not negotiable.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also reaffirms its unequivocal rejection of any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, whether through Israeli settlement policies, land annexation, or attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land,” the ministry said.
Trump’s plan raises ethical concerns about forced displacement
With that, the fate of the so-called Abraham Accords, the U.S.-brokered push for a historic normalisation of relations with U.S. ally Israel along with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, hangs in the balance.
“All Palestinians without exception completely reject Trump’s comments,” Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian opposition politician in the occupied West Bank, said in a statement. He added that Trump’s “suggestions are in complete violation of international law and represent a call for ethnic cleansing, which is a war crime.”
For decades, U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has centered around the notion of a two-state solution, envisioning an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. Trump’s plan not only upends this framework but also raises ethical concerns about forced displacement, a practice that is widely prohibited under international law.
Forced displacement of populations is regarded as ethnic cleansing in many circles, and the international community has generally been opposed to such actions. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri condemned Trump’s remarks as “expulsion from their land.”
Reactions to Trump’s plan have been swift and predominantly negative. Britain, Germany, China, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Spain, and France are among the growing number of nations rejecting Trump’s Gaza grab. The UN Human Rights Office has warned that Trump’s idea is against international humanitarian law. New Delhi has made no comments so far.
Opposition from Democratic lawmakers
Democratic lawmakers have condemned the proposal, with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the sole Palestinian member of the US Congress, accusing Trump of “openly calling for ethnic cleansing while sitting next to a genocidal war criminal.”
Conversely, Netanyahu praised Trump for ” thinking outside the box with fresh ideas” and “showing willingness to puncture conventional thinking.”
It has long been a desire of the ultranationalist far-right in Israel to expel Palestinians from the occupied territories and expand Jewish settlements in their place. Since the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, these groups – leaders of whom have been part of Netanyahu’s coalition – have demanded the war against Hamas continues indefinitely, vowing ultimately to re-establish Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu’s endorsement further emphasises the extent to which Trump’s proposal aligns with ultra-nationalist ambitions within Israeli politics.
There are considerable barriers to the feasibility of Trump’s plan. The lack of a legal foundation is a critical hole in the proposal. Under international law, forcible eviction of a population is not permissible, and a unilateral U.S. takeover of a territory under such circumstances would likely face severe criticism and lack international support.
Also Read: Trump’s Second Presidency is Recipe For Chaos, Not American Greatness
The acceptance of resettled Palestinians in surrounding countries remains a daunting challenge. Jordan and Egypt have historically rejected the prospect of absorbing Palestinian refugees, fearing that it would shift the demographic balance and complicate their own national identities. Moreover, the Arab world generally views Gaza as a territory rooted in Palestinian sovereignty, making any discussion of U.S. control appear as a foreign imperialist bid.
Trump’s rhetoric and ambitious claims about transforming Gaza into a “beautiful” place reveal a lack of understanding of the complexities involved. The move could reinforce perceptions of American imperialism and disregard for local populations, leading to a backlash not only within the Palestinian sphere but across the Arab world as well as globally.
Trump’s expansionist rhetoric echoes old-style imperialism
Some critics maintain that Trump’s expansionist rhetoric echoes old-style imperialism, suggesting it could encourage Russia in its war in Ukraine and give China justification for invading self-ruled Taiwan.
Trump’s Gaza proposal followed a frenetic first two weeks in office in which he issued a number of expansionist declarations. He has already talked about a U.S. takeover of Greenland, warned of the possible seizure of the Panama Canal and declared that Canada should be the 51st U.S. state.
Some experts have suggested Trump sometimes takes an extreme position internationally to set the parameters for future negotiations. In his first term, Trump at times issued what were seen as over-the-top foreign policy pronouncements, many of which he never implemented.
The potential for international legal challenges combined with regional opposition raises further questions on whether Trump can move beyond mere rhetoric to enacting his ambitious vision.
As Trump pushes for radical changes to longstanding U.S. policy amid an already intricate situation, the potential backlash could further destabilise a region that has borne the weight of conflict for decades. As the international community watches, the urgency for diplomatic solutions grounded in respect for sovereignty and humanitarian rights remains paramount.
Although Trump’s proposal may prove to be more a rhetorical flourish than a serious policy initiative, it reaffirms the need for nuanced and collaborative approaches to peace in the Middle East. The calls for a two-state solution, however compromised, are unlikely to fade as long as there exists a shared commitment to achieving lasting, equitable peace in the region.
E.D. Mathew is a former U.N. spokesperson. He posts @edmathew on X.