Watan-Even parties aligned with the Israeli camp or those hostile to Gaza and Hamas could not hide their astonishment and shock at U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement during his joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening at the White House. Trump declared that the United States would take control of Gaza and treat it as its “own private property” for a long time.
His bizarre remarks, which dropped like a bombshell, raised questions about their seriousness—how and on what grounds can one simply erase another’s sovereignty over their land and confiscate it so easily?
Especially when this comes as part of a plan that includes the forced displacement of Gaza’s Palestinians under the guise of attractive housing offers, appearing to pave the way for ultimately transferring this “ownership” to Israel. This demographic displacement would, in the end, lead to a geographical transfer that would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse once implemented.
Adding to the ambiguity and suspicion, Trump left his proposal open to interpretation. The process of displacement and seizing control of Gaza seemed “strange” and incoherent. The belief that Netanyahu was behind the idea suggests he aimed to kill two birds with one stone: increasing pressure on Hamas to release detainees and entangling Trump in a commitment that might require the use of force—something Trump himself stated he would resort to in Gaza if necessary.
This stance contradicts a previous promise he made to avoid engaging in any foreign wars. Other scenarios suggest that Trump may have offered Netanyahu a promise on paper in exchange for restraining the latter’s ambitions regarding Iran and dissuading him from pushing Trump into a military confrontation with Tehran. It was no coincidence that Trump emphasized, during the press conference, the importance of dialogue with Iran.
“The belief that Netanyahu was behind the idea suggests he aimed to kill two birds with one stone.”
However, President Trump made remarks that caught analysts’ attention—most notably his near-confidence that some regional states would comply with his request to accept Palestinian refugees from Gaza. He specifically mentioned Egypt and Jordan, saying that “despite their rejection, they will open their hearts to the matter.”
He also extensively promoted the idea of displacement, presenting it as a transition from the “hell of destruction and rubble” to luxurious housing, moving Gaza’s residents from a place “no longer livable” to an alternative location, which he elaborated on in glowing terms, as if marketing a real estate deal with attractive benefits. He repeatedly emphasized that “the wealth of the region’s billionaires” would fund the construction of this “beautiful” housing project, which could be established in “several countries” in the region.
His focus on this point clearly aimed to preempt expected Arab objections to his project, which, despite his attempts to present it as an appealing opportunity, remains a forced displacement of Gaza’s population—evoking memories of the first Nakba.
Despite Netanyahu’s success in rallying the U.S. administration behind his project, many observers believe that it is unlikely to reach its desired conclusion due to its coercive nature on the one hand and the improbability of Arab compliance on the other. It was noted that President Trump, at least twice in his responses, avoided endorsing a two-state solution, instead emphasizing the importance of “peace,” which, he claimed, everyone in the region desires.
He also mentioned that he had “consulted with some regional states about this matter, and they welcomed the idea.” His insistent and overt disclosures about these discussions—normally expected to remain within diplomatic circles—suggest an attempt to block Arab capitals from outright rejecting the project. However, many American circles remain skeptical about the feasibility of such a grand-scale displacement plan. Key U.S. senators, such as Democrat Chris Murphy and Senator Martin Heinrich, have dismissed the possibility of successfully implementing a mass exodus of this scale, instead urging the administration to “encourage Israel to
-
-
-
-
-
-
