Trump proposes U.S. takeover of gaza strip ‘If necessary’
In a shocking announcement on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump unveiled a new and highly controversial plan for the Gaza Strip, suggesting that the United States could take control of the war-torn region and relocate its Palestinian population to neighbouring countries. His comments, made during a press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have ignited strong reactions across the globe.
Trump, whose background as a property developer has influenced his approach to geopolitics, declared that the U.S. would take over the Gaza Strip, with a focus on rebuilding and providing humanitarian aid. “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons… level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings,” he stated, drawing on his vision of transforming Gaza’s coastal location into an upscale destination. He described the region’s climate and location as ideal for tourism, promising to create “the Riviera of the Middle East” through large-scale reconstruction projects that would also provide jobs for the local population.
When asked whether military force would be necessary to implement this plan, Trump responded affirmatively, saying, “If it’s necessary.” His statement raised alarm, especially among Palestinians, who have long endured the consequences of territorial conflict and who now face the prospect of displacement.
The proposal, which suggests relocating Gaza’s population of over two million Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan, has sparked widespread condemnation. Critics, including Palestinian activists and human rights organisations, have branded the idea as a form of “ethnic cleansing.” With Gaza’s control currently held by Hamas and a fragile ceasefire in place following violent clashes, Trump’s words appear to further complicate the already volatile situation in the Middle East.
Despite the backlash, Netanyahu appeared supportive of Trump’s bold idea, calling it a “different future” for Gaza and praising the U.S. President’s unconventional approach. “You see things others refuse to see… you say things others refuse to say,” Netanyahu remarked, highlighting Trump’s willingness to offer new solutions to the long-standing conflict. The Israeli leader, who faces growing challenges at home and potential international prosecution, embraced the plan as a sign of his continued alliance with the United States.
However, Trump’s proposal also raises significant concerns about the future of Gaza and the broader Middle East peace process. His comments stand in stark contrast to the traditional “Two-State Solution,” which has been the cornerstone of international efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. The notion of the U.S. taking control of Gaza, while also uprooting its Palestinian inhabitants, would likely alienate many of America’s allies in the region.
Trump insisted that his plan had been carefully considered and received widespread support, stating, “Everybody I’ve spoken to… loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.” Yet, it remains unclear which nations would cooperate with such an unprecedented proposal. The idea of resettling Palestinians in Egypt and Jordan was swiftly rejected by both countries, leaving the proposal in limbo.
More Read
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has been exacerbated by Israeli military operations in response to the October 7 Hamas attacks, which have led to over 40,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands displaced. Trump, however, argued that his plan would address the urgent needs of the region by offering Palestinians a safe and prosperous future, free from the constant threat of violence. “If we can get a beautiful area to resettle people, permanently, in nice homes where they can be happy and not be shot… that’s what we’re talking about,” he said.
Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, reinforced the idea, arguing that the rebuilding of Gaza needed to be approached with a realistic timeline, which he suggested could take up to 15 years. Waltz emphasised that Gaza’s current state, with its rubble and unexploded ordnance, required immediate attention.
Despite the rhetoric, Trump’s proposal seems unlikely to gain traction, given the complexity of the situation. The fate of Gaza and its people remains uncertain, as international responses continue to evolve. Trump’s vision of U.S. dominance in Gaza may ultimately serve only to deepen the divide between the conflicting parties and further complicate efforts toward lasting peace in the Middle East.
