ANALYST NOTES – 2/11/2025: Trump's Gaza Gambit: A Controversial Vision for Middle East Transformation

President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial plan for the United States to "take over" the Gaza Strip, which involves permanently displacing approximately two million Palestinians and redeveloping the territory into what he calls "the Riviera of the Middle East". This proposal, which Trump discussed during both a Fox News interview and a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has drawn widespread international condemnation and rejection from American allies and adversaries alike. Trump's suggestion includes demolishing existing structures in Gaza, clearing unexploded ordnance, and rebuilding the area under U.S. ownership. The displaced Palestinians potentially would be relocated to countries like Egypt and Jordan, both of which have swiftly rejected the idea. The proposal has added confusion to the already complex situation in the region, with top Trump administration officials attempting to walk back some of the president's comments. Meanwhile, Netanyahu praised the vision as "revolutionary and creative."

Analysis:  President Donald Trump's proposal for the United States to "take over" the Gaza Strip represents a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy with far-reaching geopolitical implications. While likely motivated by the terrorist attack on 7 October 2023, where Hamas militants carried out large scale attacks against Israeli civilians, this controversial idea challenges long-standing international norms and laws, potentially violating the prohibition on forced deportation or transfer of civilian populations. The proposal has been met with swift rejection from key U.S. allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Jordan, and has created a geopolitical hornet's nest across the globe.

The geopolitical ramifications of Trump's proposal are profound. It could further destabilize the Middle East by exacerbating tensions between Israel and its neighbors, worsening an already disastrous humanitarian crisis, and undermining decades of efforts towards a two-state solution. However, seen from a different perspective, both Israel and the Trump administration may be growing increasing fatigued by the lack of meaningful progress towards that same solution, particularly after the efforts during President Trump's previous term in office. With Gaza continuing to serve as an extremist breeding ground, this effort likely reflects an attempt to end the perilous status quo where Israel is forced to live under the constant threat of a ticking time bomb in its own backyard. Tolerating Gaza may have improved regional security and stability, but as evidenced by the recent escalation in attacks, this has largely come at the cost of Israel's own.

The Trump administration is undoubtedly aware that this plan risks alienating traditional U.S. allies and partners in the region and beyond, potentially reducing U.S. credibility as an impartial mediator in future peace talks. Aside from exposing the United States as a more attractive target for terror groups, the international community's swift and near unanimous rejection of the plan underscores the potential for diplomatic isolation and loss of soft power for the United States should it pursue this course of action. This suggests that this proposal is either being employed as a high stakes negotiation tactic to extract concessions to shift the current status quo, or it reflects the Trump administration's genuine belief that this drastic measure is necessary regardless of the substantial diplomatic and security costs.

It is unclear what influence the International community and regional powers will actually have over this unfolding situation. Despite their vocal condemnations of the proposal, these actors have also been unable to execute any of their own strategies to break the stalemate that has defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for much of this and the previous century. It is likely that the Trump administration has already assessed that many regional powers who benefit from keeping the conflict contained within Israel's borders, are unwilling, or unable, to make genuine efforts to resolve the situation.  Faced with this reality, Trump's proposal may ultimately prove to be more calculated than it initially seems.