President Donald Trump's proposal to take control of the Gaza Strip, or in his words, "own" it, and relocate 1.8 million residents to neighboring Arab countries has shocked the world, and for good reason. It is difficult to recall a proposal so far-reaching to resolve the Gaza problem.
In a sense, one cannot help but be impressed by the boldness of this vision, which almost seems inevitable given the complexity of the Gaza problem, its protracted nature, and its broader historical, geographic, and political context. However, at this stage, it is reasonable and necessary to ask whether this is, at least for now, nothing more than a shiny package with very little substance, if at all.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the idea of "owning the Gaza Strip" only began circulating in Trump's inner circle in recent days, and only a handful of close associates were even aware of its existence. If the proposal is serious, it will likely be further developed in the near future, and Trump and his team will have to address some key questions.
First. No Arab country has agreed to accept Palestinians from Gaza. Jordan, with its 2.39 million registered refugees, has no need or incentive to further burden itself with this historical headache (see: Black September). Egypt, for its part, neither wants nor likely has the ability to create a refugee crisis in Sinai, which could become a breeding ground for extremism and pose a threat to Israel across the border, and to the peace treaty itself.
Second. Even if Arab states were to agree, what about the Gazans themselves? Trump talks about relocating 1.8 million people as if they were 1.8 million pieces of furniture to be moved. But what if the Gazans refuse to leave? And to places that do not even want them? Like it or not, human beings have rights and, indeed, their own will. It would also be unwise to underestimate the historical and emotional connection that Gazans have to their land and homes, even if those homes have been reduced to rubble due to wars caused by Hamas.
Third. International law prohibits forcibly transferring a population unless there is a clear military necessity for a limited period (see: the IDF's evacuation of northern Gaza). It also prohibits changing the ethnic, religious, or racial composition of a population. Trump's plan envisions a permanent transfer. Even if there is a humanitarian aspect to the proposal, such as clearing unexploded ordnance and rebuilding infrastructure, it is doubtful whether the end goal, a permanent exodus that would turn Gaza into an international zone, justifies the means.
Fourth. Speaking of international law, under what mandate would the US operate in Gaza? What authority would allow it to remove the local population and assume control? Interestingly, Trump referred to "owning" Gaza and developing it, language that aligns with his real estate background, where he has infused business terminology into politics.However, Gaza is not the Moon (though parts of it may look like it), where one can simply land and start developing as they please. Even the Moon is subject to international agreements. Does Trump's plan assume the approval of the UN Security Council? A bilateral deal with China or Russia, countries that have little interest in boosting Trump's geopolitical standing? Would Gulf states partner with the US on this, which would still require international legitimacy?
Fifth. Let's assume Arab states agree, but Gazans, or at least some of them, refuse. How would the evacuation be carried out? By force? Would Trump be willing to deploy US troops to Gaza, putting American soldiers at risk?
Sixth. Trump's entire election campaign was centered on "America First" and focusing inward, prioritizing domestic American issues. How does sending US troops and engaging in unprecedented involvement in the Middle East's oldest conflict align with that message? Trump himself has repeatedly spoken about the need for the US to withdraw from the Middle East ("only blood and sand," he once described it). Surely, he would not deploy American forces into one of the most volatile areas in the region, entangling the US for years to come. According to real estate developer Steve Witkoff, rebuilding Gaza would take 10 to 15 years. Trump has spoken about ending wars worldwide, yet a US military landing in Gaza would do anything but that.Even Trump's strongest allies were stunned by his Gaza vision, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. "The proposal is highly problematic," said Graham, a staunch supporter of Israel in the Senate. "I don't think voters in South Carolina will be enthusiastic about sending American troops to govern Gaza. We'll see how the Arab world reacts, but the plan has major issues on multiple levels."
Seventh. On a related note, direct military involvement in Gaza would cost American taxpayers a fortune. Does the US currently have hundreds of billions of dollars available for this project? Has its economy suddenly become strong enough to withstand such an expense? This, after all, is the same economic vulnerability that helped propel Trump into the White House just three months ago.
Eighth. How would this be perceived worldwide, not just in the Muslim world? Would an American plan to take over Gaza and relocate its population not ignite additional conflicts, precisely when Trump has promised to be a peacemaker and campaigned (in part) on that promise? One could argue, and hope, that his proposal is genuinely aimed at bringing peace to this troubled land by transforming Gaza into a Mediterranean Riviera. However, given what is currently known about the plan, and more importantly, what remains unknown. it would be rational, at the very least, to doubt whether it would bring the long-awaited peace.
Many questions remain about the highly surprising vision that emerged from the White House overnight. One can only hope that its architects have thoroughly considered every detail and all possible consequences. and that they are not merely selling empty rhetoric in fancy packaging. Unless, of course, this "vision" is nothing more than a trial balloon or a pressure tactic designed to reshuffle the deck.
