The remarks made were nothing short of astonishing, leaving many in disbelief. France’s Libération described them as “worldwide shock,” while a more restrained New York Times termed them “unlikely.” A U.S. senator voiced what is likely to become a spreading accusation throughout the Middle East and beyond, that Donald Trump’s comments on Gaza equated to “ethnic cleansing by any other name.”
In a meeting at the White House with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, President Trump proposed that the U.S. take control of the Gaza Strip and relocate its 2.2 million Palestinian residents permanently to countries like Egypt and Jordan. He claimed that the U.S. would take ownership and responsibility for the area, intending to develop it into a thriving region. Trump talked of creating numerous jobs and housing for the local people, though he didn’t specify who these people would be, envisioning Gaza as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
This idea was yet another potentially disruptive maneuver in a region already ravaged by bloodshed following a horrific Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, which led to 16 months of sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza. Predictably, the proposal was quickly opposed by key stakeholders looking to find peace solutions. Within hours, Saudi Arabia rejected the idea of displacing Palestinians, reaffirming its refusal to forge diplomatic ties with Israel—a key element of Trump’s Middle East policy plans—unless a Palestinian state was realized.
The question mark hanging over the fragile ceasefire process currently unfolding between Hamas and Israel is sizeable. The next round of discussions for the ceasefire is scheduled for next week, involving the U.S., Israel, Hamas, Egypt, and Qatar. The focus is on further prisoner and hostage swaps, extending the current temporary truce indefinitely, and settling the governance of Gaza.
Trump’s latest comments send this aspect of the negotiations into uncertainty, affecting the entire process. The stakes are undeniably high; without an agreement, hostilities between Israel and Hamas could flare up again in weeks, something Netanyahu, a primary beneficiary of Trump’s indiscreet style, might not necessarily avoid, as it could help maintain his fractious government. Some of Israel’s most extreme right-wing factions, which view Gaza as an integral part of Israel, will see Trump’s declarations as advantageous, with possible implications for the West Bank as well. For Palestinians, the proposal represents nothing but betrayal.
The world, and particularly the U.S., was caught off guard by Trump’s statements, but they were not entirely without precedent. Even before retaking office, Trump had occasionally expressed similar opinions. He described Gaza as a “major demolition site” following his January inauguration. “It’s a phenomenal seaside location—great weather. You know, there’s potential for beautiful developments there,” he had said.
At the time, it sounded more like real estate magnate Trump rather than President Trump speaking. Tuesday’s remarks echoed this confusion. However, Trump tends to mix personal and political ambitions. It would be misguided to dismiss him as unserious. Just last week, he dispatched his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff—a billionaire real estate mogul himself—to be the first U.S. official to visit Gaza since the conflict began.
It’s crucial not to underestimate the element of bluff and misdirection in Trump’s barrage of shocking announcements covering varied topics as well as the Middle East. Still, for a president reelected in 2017, and now in 2023, advocating both times to prioritize the U.S., Tuesday’s propositions represent a dramatic shift with potentially vast consequences if ever pursued seriously.
Since the Iraq invasion in 2003, U.S. foreign policy has been cautious about intervention, engagement, and occupation, especially within the Middle East. During this period, U.S. forces have occasionally assumed pivotal roles, sometimes covertly, in conflicts from Libya to Syria, and Afghanistan too. However, Trump’s primary international position has always been withdrawing U.S. troops from danger, while expecting allies—as with Europe in the Ukraine situation—to increase their commitments.
On Tuesday, though, Trump seemed open to deploying U.S. troops to support his Gaza occupation scheme. The expectation is that they would implement the forced removal of Palestinians as well. Imagining such an operation, with its blatant defiance of international law and the likely involvement of thousands of military personnel, without U.S. forces facing confrontations, casualties, and potential human rights allegations akin to those from Iraq, is hard. It represents precisely the kind of engagement abroad Trump outwardly opposes.
Yet, Trump’s second presidency seems different. Most notably, as shown by the Gaza remarks, he leans more towards imperialistic rhetoric. He’s made outlandish threats, from taking over Greenland to reclaiming the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and now taking over Gaza. Next week, he might suggest relocating Palestinians to Newfoundland.
The real question is whether any of these claims have substance. Trump stated on Tuesday that “this wasn’t a decision made lightly.” However, the idea lacks specifics and seems so impractical that likely not even Trump can say for certain if a single U.S. soldier will set foot in Gaza or if any U.S. investment will ever rejuvenate its seaside.
Importantly, seriousness manifests in various ways as Trump’s second term unfolds. Trump’s actual intent to occupy Gaza might be insubstantial; yet merely talking about it alters the dynamics, affecting realities both in the Middle East and U.S. domestic politics.
In less than three weeks since taking office again, Trump is proving a sharper politician than during his often turbulent first term. The showy nature of his executive orders may indeed be reshaping the U.S., or they might simply be persuading the public into perceiving change. The distinction between the two may be less significant than assumed.
In a political climate driven by social media rather than legislative processes, crafting an impression, even in a far-fetched situation like Gaza, can be more compelling and immediate than the kind of careful policy planning seen under leaders like Keir Starmer. Trump might not deliver significant material benefits to those who supported him, but his skill in convincing them that he is achieving something highlights unsettling trends for future politics.
If you have thoughts on the topics raised in this article, we welcome responses of up to 300 words for our letters section. Please click here to submit your contribution.
