President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the United States “take over” Gaza and resettle its population has ignited fierce backlash from global leaders, human rights groups, and lawmakers across party lines. While Trump envisions turning the war-torn strip into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” critics argue that his proposal disregards international law and Palestinian sovereignty.
“The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too,” Trump said on Tuesday during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A Temporary Move or Permanent Displacement?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to clarify Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that the resettlement plan would be “temporary.” Speaking during a trip to Guatemala, Rubio insisted that the proposal was not “hostile” but rather a “generous move” demonstrating America’s willingness to aid in Gaza’s reconstruction.
“The idea is for Gazans to leave the territory for an interim period while debris is cleared and rebuilding takes place,” Rubio said. However, international law strictly prohibits the forced transfer of populations from occupied territories, raising serious legal and ethical questions about the feasibility of the plan.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt further stated that the U.S. had no intention of putting “boots on the ground,” but declined to rule out the use of military forces in some capacity.
These statements contradict Trump’s stance. On Tuesday February 4th, he asserted that the displacement would be permanent.
Mixed Reactions
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump’s idea “worth paying attention to,” while Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz voiced support for allowing Gazans “freedom of exit and immigration” but provided no clear framework for implementation.
Katz controversially suggested that nations critical of Israel, such as Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have a “legal obligation” to accept Gazan refugees. Spain’s foreign minister quickly dismissed the notion, while other European leaders condemned the proposal outright.
Arab nations, including Egypt and Jordan, expressed outrage at the suggestion that they should absorb displaced Gazans, warning that such a move could destabilize the region further. The United Nations estimates that nearly two-thirds of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed during the 15-month-long war, making reconstruction a monumental challenge.
Bipartisan Criticism in the U.S.
Trump’s proposal has drawn significant criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the idea “problematic,” while Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) labeled it “deranged” and “nuts.”
“I don’t know where this came from, but I can tell you … that would not get many expressions of support from Democrats or Republicans up here,” Kaine said.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was reportedly left speechless upon hearing Trump’s remarks, calling them “ins8ne.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American member of Congress, was more blunt, calling the proposal “ethnic cleansing” and “fanatical bull—” on social media.
Not all Republicans dismissed Trump’s plan. Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), members of the House Republican Israel Caucus, expressed support. Mace even suggested on X: “Let’s turn Gaza into Mar-A-Lago.”
Legal and Political Implications
International legal experts have warned that forcibly removing Gazans from their land would be a direct violation of international law, specifically the Geneva Conventions. The potential for U.S. military involvement in enforcing such a policy raises further concerns about the risk of escalating tensions in the already volatile Middle East.
Beyond legal issues, Trump’s remarks could disrupt ongoing ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. If Hamas perceives that the end goal is the depopulation of Gaza, it may be less willing to continue negotiations, potentially prolonging the conflict.
A Shift in U.S. Middle East Policy?
Trump’s statements suggest a dramatic shift in longstanding U.S. policy, which has historically supported a two-state solution involving Gaza and the West Bank as part of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. By advocating for the removal of Gaza’s population and dismissing Palestinian sovereignty, Trump risks alienating allies and further entrenching divisions in the region.
While some speculate that Trump’s comments may be a negotiation tactic rather than a concrete policy, the global backlash underscores the high stakes of any plan that alters Gaza’s status quo. As the international community grapples with the proposal’s implications, one thing is clear: the future of Gaza remains uncertain, and Trump’s vision for the region is likely to face significant resistance.
As with Trump’s recent bullish and outlandish claims about US control over Greenland or the Panama Canal, it is not yet clear whether Trump really means it or if the comments represent an opening, bargaining position ahead of a bruising set of negotiations on Gaza’s future.
