-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
President Donald Trump has laid out a controversial plan to “take over Gaza” while permanently displacing its Palestinian residents, raising concerns that his ambitions go beyond merely stabilizing the region.
In a recent interview with Fox News, Trump declared that Palestinians would have “no alternative” but to leave the war-torn enclave and would not have a right of return under his proposed arrangement.
Trump’s remarks follow his earlier announcement, made during a summit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he revealed his intention to oversee Gaza’s future.
His comments, met with outrage across the Arab world and skepticism even among his closest advisers, signal a plan that aligns with far-right Israeli settler interests and evangelical supporters in the United States.
During the Fox interview with Bret Baier, Trump painted an image of himself not just as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, but as the de facto ruler of Gaza, referring to it as a “real estate development for the future.”
He dismissed the idea that displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return, instead proposing the construction of new permanent settlements outside Gaza, funded under his administration.
“No, they wouldn’t [return], because they’re going to have much better housing,” Trump said when asked about the right of return.
“Could be five, six, could be two,” he added, vaguely referencing the number of settlements he envisions. “But we’ll build safe communities, a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is.”
Trump claimed these settlements would offer Palestinians a more secure and modern alternative to returning to Gaza, which he argued was now uninhabitable due to destruction caused by Israel’s military operations.
His plan largely mirrors past proposals to relocate Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan—ideas that both nations, along with other major Arab states, have firmly rejected.
Despite the lack of formal discussions within the U.S. government on how such a massive resettlement effort would be legally or logistically executed, Trump has continued to push his vision.
Critics argue that his language suggests he is positioning himself as a leader of Gaza, as if he were a president without an election, rather than merely an overseer of its reconstruction.
“In the meantime, I would own this,” Trump stated about Gaza, doubling down on his vision of control. “Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. No big money spent.”
His remarks have been met with immediate backlash from international legal experts. Navi Pillay, the head of the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, told Politico that Trump’s proposal amounts to a violation of international law.
“Forcible displacement of an occupied group is an international crime and amounts to ethnic cleansing,” Pillay said. “There is no way under the law that Trump could carry out the threat to dislocate Palestinians from their land.”
The plan has, however, been welcomed by Israel’s far-right settler movement, which has long pushed for annexation of Palestinian territories, including Gaza and the West Bank. Evangelical Christian allies in the U.S., who see Israeli expansion as fulfilling biblical prophecy, have also embraced the idea.
Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric appears to ignore the historical and political realities of Palestinian displacement. More than 1.5 million Palestinian refugees, many of whom are descendants of those displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, currently live in camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank.
Experts warn that any forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza would only deepen instability in the region.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach is not about peace or stability but rather a personal ambition to control a region without any electoral legitimacy.
By positioning himself as the one to “own” Gaza and determine its future, he appears to be extending his personal brand of leadership beyond the U.S., seeing himself as the ultimate dealmaker even in geopolitics.
While Trump has framed his plan as a solution for Gaza’s long-term development, international opposition is mounting. Human rights organizations, Palestinian leaders, and legal experts continue to warn that the forced removal of an entire population is not only a violation of international law but also a dangerous precedent in global politics.
As tensions over Gaza’s future continue to rise, Trump’s statements have only intensified the debate. Whether his vision for Gaza will ever be implemented remains uncertain, but one thing is clear—his desire to control the region goes far beyond mere stabilization.
