Why does Trump want to take over Gaza
Donald Trump has sparked global controversy by suggesting that the U.S. could “take over” and “own” Gaza, proposing the resettlement of its population as part of the plan. The former U.S. president reiterated elements of this idea on social media, stating that Gaza would be “turned over” to the U.S. by Israel under his proposal. The White House later clarified that any displacement of Palestinians would be temporary, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio described it as an “interim” arrangement.
However, the proposal has faced widespread condemnation, including from Middle Eastern nations, close U.S. allies, and the United Nations. Analysts have warned that Trump’s comments could undermine the fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, remarked that the idea was “worth paying attention to.”
The suggestion comes amid ongoing uncertainty about Gaza’s future following 15 months of conflict, during which the UN estimates that around two-thirds of buildings in the region have been destroyed or damaged. Trump’s ambiguous proposal could represent a significant shift in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, potentially challenging the long-standing international consensus supporting a two-state solution—where a Palestinian state comprising Gaza and the occupied West Bank would exist alongside Israel. The idea has raised concerns about its implications for regional stability and the prospects for peace.
Donald Trump’s recent comments about the U.S. potentially “taking over” Gaza and resettling its population come at a time when decades of U.S. diplomacy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed to yield a lasting resolution. Peace proposals and presidential efforts have come and gone, yet the underlying issues have persisted, culminating in the devastating Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Trump, drawing on his background as a property developer, made a pragmatic observation: if Gaza is to be rebuilt—essentially from scratch in many areas—it would be impractical to have hundreds of thousands of civilians living among the rubble. The scale of reconstruction required is immense. Unexploded munitions and vast amounts of debris must be cleared, water and power infrastructure repaired, and essential facilities like schools, hospitals, and shops rebuilt.
His comments reflect a recognition of the enormous challenges facing Gaza’s reconstruction and the need for a new approach. However, his proposal has been met with widespread criticism and concern, particularly regarding the displacement of Palestinians and the potential destabilization of the region. While Trump’s remarks highlight the urgency of addressing Gaza’s humanitarian and infrastructural crises, they also underscore the complexities and sensitivities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has acknowledged that rebuilding Gaza could take years, during which the displaced Palestinian population would need temporary relocation. However, rather than focusing on solutions that keep them close to home—such as establishing camps in central or southern Gaza—Trump has proposed encouraging Palestinians to leave the region permanently.
Trump envisions that, in their absence, Gaza could be transformed into an American-owned “Riviera of the Middle East,” rising from the ashes of destruction. He believes this new development would create thousands of jobs, attract significant investment, and ultimately become a desirable destination for “the world’s people to live.” This vision reflects Trump’s background as a property developer and his preference for large-scale, transformative projects.
However, the proposal has sparked widespread criticism, with many viewing it as a disregard for the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. The idea of permanently displacing Gazans and reshaping the territory under U.S. control has raised ethical, legal, and geopolitical concerns, particularly given the long-standing international consensus on the need for a two-state solution. Critics argue that such a plan could further destabilize the region and undermine efforts toward a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Donald Trump’s comments about the U.S. potentially “taking over” Gaza and resettling its population are highly controversial for several reasons. Even for a president known for upending U.S. Middle East policy—such as relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights—this proposal represents an unprecedented and radical shift.
Historically, no U.S. president has ever suggested solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by seizing Palestinian territory and displacing its population. Such an action, if carried out by force, would constitute a severe violation of international law, raising significant ethical and legal concerns.
While some Palestinians might choose to leave Gaza voluntarily to rebuild their lives elsewhere—indeed, around 150,000 have done so since October 2023—many others cannot or will not. Financial constraints, deep emotional ties to Gaza as part of their homeland, and a strong sense of identity and belonging make permanent displacement unthinkable for countless Palestinians.
Trump’s proposal has been widely condemned as dismissive of Palestinian rights and aspirations, undermining decades of international efforts to achieve a two-state solution. Critics argue that such a plan would exacerbate tensions, deepen humanitarian suffering, and further destabilize the region, making it one of the most contentious and provocative ideas in recent U.S. foreign policy discourse.
Donald Trump’s proposal to resettle Gaza’s population and effectively “take over” the territory is deeply controversial, particularly given the historical and emotional significance of Gaza to the Palestinian people. Many Gazans are descendants of those who fled or were forcibly displaced during the 1948 creation of Israel—an event Palestinians refer to as the *Nakba*, or “catastrophe.” The idea of another mass displacement is profoundly painful for many, and they are likely to cling fiercely to what remains of their homes and land in Gaza, despite the devastation.
For Palestinians who aspire to an independent state alongside Israel, the loss of Gaza would feel like an amputation. Gaza has been physically separated from the West Bank since 1948, and previous peace efforts, including Trump’s 2020 “Vision for Peace,” included proposals to connect the two territories through tunnels or railways. Now, Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians should give up on Gaza entirely represents a stark departure from these earlier plans.
While Trump does not explicitly advocate for forced deportation—which would violate international law—he is clearly encouraging Palestinians to leave. Palestinian officials have accused Israel of obstructing the delivery of tens of thousands of caravans that could provide temporary housing for Gazans in less damaged areas while reconstruction occurs. Meanwhile, Arab nations like Egypt and Jordan, which Trump has suggested should accept up to 1.8 million Gazan refugees, have reacted with outrage. Both countries already face significant challenges and view the prospect of absorbing such a large refugee population as an untenable burden.
Trump’s proposal has been met with widespread condemnation, as it disregards the rights, aspirations, and historical ties of the Palestinian people while placing additional strain on neighboring countries. Critics argue that such a plan would deepen the humanitarian crisis, undermine prospects for peace, and further destabilize the region.
