Donald Trump’s vision of Gaza as a US-controlled Riviera, devoid of Palestinians, aligns with the fantasies of Israel’s extremist right.
However, if taken seriously, it also builds on the expansionist foreign policy Trump has advocated since his presidency began. This approach is more reminiscent of mid-19th-century American imperialism than the isolationist stance his election initially suggested.
At Tuesday’s joint press conference, Benjamin Netanyahu appeared mostly pleased, except for one moment when Trump, negotiating in real time, stated that the US opposed Israeli ownership of Gaza.
The extraordinary press conference was Trump’s effort to assert control over the Middle East issue—not just future policy but also what he considers prime real estate, which Palestinians call their homeland.
He even declared a willingness to deploy US troops on the ground to secure “a long-term ownership position.” This marked a stark departure from his previous argument that the US should withdraw from the Middle East.
It remains unclear who, beyond a narrow group of Israeli extremists and US Christian Zionists, would support this plan. Saudi Arabia swiftly rejected it with a statement issued at 4 a.m. local time, and it has been widely dismissed—including at the UN Security Council—as either impractical or outright delusional.
Yet, the proposal serves certain interests. It alleviates domestic pressure on Netanyahu, who has avoided presenting a post-war plan for Gaza, fearing backlash from either the Biden administration or the far-right members of his cabinet. Trump has now resolved the issue in favor of the far right.
Additionally, this plan is likely just one part of a broader strategy, which will likely involve Trump granting Israel approval to annex large portions of the West Bank. The Palestinian claim to statehood would effectively be dismantled, as those in Gaza are relocated to “beautiful homes” elsewhere.
Netanyahu could hardly contain his satisfaction as Trump described Gaza as an uninhabitable wasteland—without once acknowledging Netanyahu’s role in its destruction.
Before the press conference, speculation suggested that Trump might confront Netanyahu—a man he distrusts and dislikes—and urge him to adhere to the two-stage hostage release deal brokered in Biden’s final days.
Instead, Trump’s land grab dominated the discussion. His plan is partly influenced by an assessment from Middle East peace envoy Steve Witkoff, who, speaking with the tone of a concerned structural engineer, estimated that it would take five years to clear Gaza’s rubble and neutralize Hamas tunnels before the envisioned “New Dubai” could be constructed over the following decade.
Witkoff deemed it unrealistic to tell Palestinians they could return in five years, and standing beside him, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz added, “This is just common sense.”
America To Own Gaza (Photo: Getty Images)
Their apparent lack of historical awareness or concern for international law meant they did not recognize that their proposal could be perceived as advocating a second Nakba.
Trump’s vision carries significant risks, but the most immediate danger is that Hamas may interpret his remarks as a reason to withdraw from the ceasefire negotiations, including the next hostage exchange. So far, Hamas has merely called Trump’s plan absurd.
This week, Qatar announced that talks on the second phase of the ceasefire had begun. However, if the exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners ultimately leads to a US annexation of Gaza, an Israeli takeover of the West Bank, and the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan, Hamas may reconsider its participation.
If Gaza is to be emptied, what role would remain for either Hamas or a reformed Palestinian Authority?
For now, Hamas is relying on the widespread international rejection of Trump’s plan, particularly among Arab and European leaders.
Both Jordan and Egypt—identified as potential destinations for displaced Palestinians—have firmly refused to cooperate. No amount of US financial incentives will persuade them to change their stance or, as Trump put it, to “open their hearts.”
Despite this, Trump, seemingly enthralled by his sense of imperial power, likely believes that this initial Arab rejection can be overcome.
He may see parallels with his success in persuading the United Arab Emirates to sign the Abraham Accords during his first term. He might also assume that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s insistence on a two-state solution as a prerequisite for normalizing ties with Israel is merely a negotiating tactic.
Netanyahu may hope to replicate his maneuver with the UAE—where he agreed to halt West Bank annexation in exchange for normalization—but Saudi officials insist their terms are non-negotiable.
They also point out that Bin Salman has publicly described Israel’s actions as genocide. In the White House, however, there is an assumption that all Arab leaders have a price and that they can, if they choose, erase Palestine from the consciousness of their populations.
Ultimately, it is possible—because so much of what Trump said defies logic—that he knows the US cannot be associated with ethnic cleansing.
While the world largely ignored the recent mass displacement in Nagorno-Karabakh, the forced expulsion of two million Palestinians under US direction would mark the end of America’s influence in the Middle East.
