-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
President Trump on Sunday defended his controversial plan for the United States to take control of Gaza, arguing that the move would help bring long-term stability to the Middle East. He dismissed any urgency in developing the region, instead framing it as a long-term real estate project that would gradually reshape the war-torn area.
“Think of it as a big real estate site, and the United States is going to own it,” Trump told reporters. “And will slowly, very slowly—we’re in no rush—begin development. We’re going to bring stability to the Middle East.”
His remarks marked a sharp departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy and drew skepticism not only from regional Arab leaders but also from some of his Republican allies. The proposal has raised questions about its feasibility, legality, and the potential consequences of an American presence in Gaza.
Trump described Gaza as a “demolition site” and suggested that the area would be completely rebuilt under U.S. oversight.
“It’ll be reclaimed. It’ll be leveled out, fixed up. There won’t be anybody there. Hamas won’t be there,” he said.
“We’ll be building through other very rich countries in the Middle East, and they’ll create beautiful places for Palestinians to live in. They’ll be living in harmony and peace—relatively—for the first time in hundreds of years.”
The president’s comments echoed statements he made on Friday, when he claimed that Israel would hand Gaza over to the United States. He also reinforced his stance that Palestinians should leave the region, a position that has been widely condemned by international leaders.
Earlier in the week, Trump had proposed resettling Palestinians in Egypt and Jordan, despite both countries immediately rejecting such a plan.
Trump has repeatedly argued that his approach would promote regional stability at minimal cost. “It would lead to great stability in the area for very little money,” he said Friday.
However, he has provided no clear details on how such a plan would be executed, leaving unanswered questions about whether it would require American troops on the ground or direct U.S. governance of the region.
While Trump’s rhetoric emphasizes economic development, his proposal has sparked significant diplomatic pushback. Arab leaders have expressed deep concerns over the implications of American control in Gaza, warning that it could inflame tensions rather than ease them.
Critics argue that the forced displacement of Palestinians would violate international law and further destabilize the already fragile region.
Trump’s position on Gaza has also divided opinions within his own party. Some Republican lawmakers, particularly those with strong ties to pro-Israel groups, have refrained from endorsing the plan.
Others have warned that any U.S. military involvement in Gaza could create unnecessary risks and entangle the country in another prolonged conflict.
Despite the backlash, Trump has continued to promote his vision, insisting that the United States would take a leading role in reshaping the region.
His comments suggest that he envisions a future where wealthy Gulf nations contribute funding to rebuild Gaza under U.S. leadership, though he has not provided specifics on how such an arrangement would be negotiated.
Analysts have questioned whether Trump’s plan is realistic or simply political posturing. Some view his statements as an attempt to appeal to his base by projecting strength on foreign policy, rather than presenting a concrete policy initiative.
Others suggest that his proposal is intended to pressure Israel and Palestinian leaders into negotiations on terms more favorable to the U.S.
At this stage, it remains unclear whether Trump’s idea will gain any traction beyond rhetoric. His administration has yet to release a formal policy document outlining the specifics of how the U.S. would take control of Gaza, what governance structure would be implemented, or how Palestinian rights would be addressed in the process.
With mounting international criticism and resistance from Middle Eastern leaders, Trump’s proposal faces significant hurdles. While he continues to advocate for his vision of Gaza’s future, many experts argue that his plan is both legally questionable and practically unworkable.
As the situation evolves, the international community will be closely watching whether Trump takes any concrete steps toward implementing his proposal or whether it remains a contentious talking point in his broader Middle East strategy.
