TRUMP-KUSHNER GAZA BEACH ESTATES
Resettling Gaza: Trump’s Empire-Building
Agenda?
February 13, 2025
In his signature style, President Donald Trump has doubled down on his vision for the future of Gaza, suggesting that the United States could assume control of the embattled territory once hostilities subside. Speaking on December 6, Trump outlined a plan in which Israel would transfer the Gaza Strip to U.S. oversight, emphasizing that the move would involve resettling Palestinians into what he described as “far safer and more beautiful communities” across the region. Notably, he assured that no American troops would be required to execute this vision.
The proposal, however, has sparked immediate backlash. Critics have accused Trump of endorsing a form of ethnic cleansing, a charge vehemently denied by his administration. The United Nations, human rights organizations, and Arab leaders have condemned the idea, while analysts remain skeptical of its feasibility. Trump’s initial remarks, made during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, framed Gaza’s transformation into the “Riviera of the Middle East” as a permanent shift. Yet, subsequent clarifications from his officials have painted a different picture, suggesting that any displacement would be temporary and would allow for reconstruction and debris clearance.
The contradictions within Trump’s camp have only deepened the controversy. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt and Secretary of State Rubio both emphasized the interim nature of the plan, directly contradicting Trump’s earlier implications of permanence. Meanwhile, Trump’s post on Truth Social left key questions unanswered, particularly whether Gaza’s two million residents would eventually be permitted to return. Under international law, the forced transfer of populations from occupied territories is explicitly prohibited, adding another layer of complexity to Trump’s proposal. Trump’s vision, though ambitious, appears mired in legal, logistical, and ethical challenges, raising doubts about its viability.
In advocating a prolonged U.S. occupation of Gaza and the expulsion of Palestinians, President Donald Trump is not only aligning himself with the far-right vision of Israel’s supremacist factions but also endorsing what can only be described as a war crime. This stance betrays any commitment to peace he might have professed during his inaugural address. Trump, who took an oath to uphold the U.S. constitution, has now proposed on February 4 that the United States take control over Gaza under the pretext of reconstruction—a thinly veiled prelude to a predatory real estate venture that explicitly excludes Palestinians. Trump’s unwavering support for Israeli policies is well documented. His unilateral decisions, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thus recognizing the city as Israel’s capital, and legitimizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, set a precedent during his first term (2017-2021).
In advocating for the forceful displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Trump has taken a significant step towards solidifying his alignment with the Israeli far-right. This segment of Israeli politics envisions the conflict in terms of absolute dominion and subjugation. Furthermore, Trump’s shocking announcement about Gaza might soon be followed by similar stances on the annexation of significant portions of the West Bank. By denying Palestinians their legitimate right to self-determination in the land that is rightfully theirs, Trump is essentially rewriting history to fit a narrative of dominance and control. This distortion of historical facts into a narrative of supremacy risks being endorsed as official policy by the world’s leading power.
This trajectory must be halted. Peace is achievable only through compromise and mutual recognition, not through the oppression of a beleaguered people. The pursuit of such a catastrophic project would undoubtedly incite dangerous Israeli messianism, to the detriment of both sides.
Trump is also disregarding how this announcement will affect the ongoing normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which hinge on the creation of a Palestinian state. The expressed refusal by Egypt and Jordan to be complicit in this proposed ethnic cleansing by taking in displaced Palestinians similarly falls on deaf ears. Trump appears convinced that the force he wields from the White House supersedes all other considerations. This conviction harkens back to the misadventures of another Republican administration in the wake of 9/11, which saw the United States engage in disastrous military endeavors across the Middle East. The resulting damage to America’s global standing, the loss of countless lives, and the squandering of vast resources were all counterproductive to the intended outcomes. Trump entered the political arena a decade ago by criticizing these very missteps, yet now he champions a form of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism that demands a physical presence in foreign lands. Far from restoring America’s greatness, as he claims, Trump risks dragging the nation back into a bloody quagmire from its past.
The public sentiment in Arab countries has been overwhelmingly negative towards the plan. Many perceive it as an imperialistic act that negates Palestinian self-determination and threatens regional stability. The geopolitical consequences of this proposal are likely to be severe. The displacement of Palestinians could ignite riots and violence, not just in Gaza, but throughout the Middle East. Countries in the region are already grappling with socio-economic challenges and political risks, and may not be able to manage the additional burden of displaced Palestinians. Moreover, this plan could strain relations between the United States and key Middle Eastern allies. Strategic partners like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan might reconsider their diplomatic ties with the United States if it pursues such a policy. The broader Muslim world, including Turkey and Iran, would likely amplify their objections to America’s role in the region.
The challenges of implementing such a transformation are immense, even though Trump envisions Gaza as an economic hub. Relocating more than 1.8 million people is not feasible. Neighboring countries, already dealing with their own economic and political issues, are unlikely to open their borders to such an influx. The lack of options for the Palestinians exacerbates the situation. Furthermore, security risks would deter investors, even if the land were cleared for redevelopment. Transforming Gaza economically would require substantial foreign investment, but the displacement of its population would discourage many international businesses. Yet, the cost of demolishing and rebuilding Gaza would be prohibitively high, necessitating immediate and long-term involvement from a reluctant if not openly hostile international community.
Another significant issue is security. The evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza would provoke strong resistance from local militias and other regions and countries. Hamas and other militant groups would likely launch counterattacks, leading to further conflict. The U.S. control of Gaza would necessitate a sustained military presence, resulting in prolonged insurgency and terrorist activity. Past experiences of military occupations in volatile regions like Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that such interventions often lead to significant losses, financial strain, and long-term instability rather than successful outcomes.
Trump’s proposal to seize the Gaza Strip and relocate its Palestinian residents raises numerous legal, ethical, and geopolitical questions. Mass deportation of people is not only a violation of international law but also a practice that could lead to further conflict and strained relations with other nations. Ultimately, any effort to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue must begin with the recognition of the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. A multilateral and sustainable approach, grounded in the principles of international law and involving all parties in the conflict, is essential for establishing lasting peace in the region.
This first appeared on FPIF.
A Thief’s Mentality: Trump, Real Estate and Dreams of Ethnic Cleansing
Photograph Source: Dan Scavino – Public Domain
President Donald J. Trump likes teasing out the unmentionable, and the Israel-Palestinian situation was hardly going to be any different. With a touch of horror and the grotesque, he offered a solution to the issue of what would happen to Gaza at the conclusion of hostilities. In a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he declared that the United States “take over and own the Gaza Strip”, in the process promising to “create an economic development that will supply an unlimited number of jobs and housing for people of the area.”
The strip, one of the most densely populated stretches of territory on the planet, would be reconstructed, redeveloped and turned, effectively, into a beach resort, “the Riviera of the Middle East.” Here was the double battering being dished out to an impoverished, tormented, tortured population: not only would any aspiration of political independence and Palestinian sovereignty be terminated, it would reach its terminus in the form of tourist capitalism and real estate transactions.
This development idea in Trumpland is not new. In October 2024, the then Republican presidential candidate told a radio interviewer that Gaza could be “better than Monaco”, provided it was built in the appropriate way. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, conceded at an event held at Harvard in February last year that “waterfront property” in Gaza “could be very valuable”. Israel, he proposed, could “move the people out and then clean it up”.
The logistics of the plan remain inscrutable. Trump does not envisage using US troops in the endeavour (“No soldiers by the US would be needed!”), but Israel’s defence minister Israel Katz has already ordered the military to draft plans for Palestinians wishing to “voluntarily” leave. With heaped upon praise, Katz thought the plan would “allow a large population in Gaza to leave for various places in the world” via land crossings, sea and air. He also suggested that the Palestinians find abodes in such countries as Spain and Norway, countries critical of Israel’s war efforts. For those countries not to accept them would expose “their hypocrisy”.
Netanyahu, for his part, saw Trump’s Gaza plan as “completely different”, offering a “much better vision for Israel”. It would open “up many, many possibilities for us.” He was particularly delighted by the notion that Gazans could leave. “The actual idea of allowing Gazans who want to leave – I mean, what’s wrong with that?” he told Fox News. “They can leave, they can then come back.” Informed cynicism hardly permits such a view to be taken seriously, and a number of Israeli politicians would simply see such departures as a prelude to rebuilding Jewish settlements.
On Truth Social, Trump insisted that Palestinians would be duly “resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.” Where in the region he does not say. He also makes no mention of Hamas as an obstacle, a group Israel has failed to eliminate despite various lofty claims.
For those in Congress, and for allies of the United States to agree with this, would be tantamount to signing off on a gross violation of international law. The phenomenon of ethnic cleansing, so aggressively evident in the redrawing of boundaries in Europe and the Indian subcontinent after the Second World War, came, in time, to be seen as a category almost as heinous as genocide.
It did not take too long for the human rights advocates to see through the plan’s inherent nastiness. To displace Palestinians from Gaza, argued Navi Pillay, chair of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, could not be seen as anything other than proposed ethnic cleansing. “Trump is woefully ignorant of international law and the law of occupation. Forcible displacement of an occupied group is an international crime, and amounts to ethnic cleansing,” she explained to POLITICO.
Other states that are expected to have some say in the political arrangements of post-war Gaza have been, in various measures, cold and aghast at the proposal. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry, for instance, stated that Palestinian statehood “is not the subject of negotiation or concessions”. Columnist Hamoud Abu Taleb, writing for Okaz, suggested that Trump believed “that countries are no different from his Mar-a-Lago resort and can be taken over in deals, and if necessary, by force.”
The attitude from certain Palestinians returning to their ruined homes captured the sentiment most acutely of all. Muhammad Abdel Majeed, a man in his mid-30s who returned to northern Gaza to find the family home in Jabalia refugee camp pulverised, felt that Trump was operating with “a thief’s mentality”. It was one that placed investments and money before “a person’s right to a decent life”.
Thieving it may well be, but the Trump formula may simply be a provocation designed to draw upon Arab involvement. A bluff is a possibility, insofar as a threat to occupy or displace the residents of Gaza prompts Arab states to supply forces while also considering the process of normalisation with Israel.
Much in law entails the twist and the crack that turns a benign expression into something sinister. It can also render the sinister benign. While greeted as “innovative” and an inducement for other states to put forth their own Gaza proposals, to execute with any seriousness a measure to displace a whole, brutalised population would not only be criminal but a further incitement to violence. It hardly matters that such violence will be exercised by Hamas or some successor organisation. What matters is that it will take place with relentless, retributive tenacity.
