Trump’s proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip has been dismissed by many.

During a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a plan to assume control over the Gaza Strip. The proposal, as reported by Reuters, was framed as a bold vision for transforming the war-torn enclave into a luxurious global destination. This move would essentially forcibly displace its Palestinian residents.

Trump’s announcement arrived amid mounting concerns over Gaza’s future. The United Nations has reported catastrophic destruction across Gaza, with homes reduced to rubble and families displaced after more than 15 months of relentless conflict. The humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza is not new, but the intensity of destruction and displacement has reached unprecedented levels.

The Gaza Strip, a 360-square-kilometer (139-square-mile) coastal territory, has long been a flashpoint for conflict. Bordered by Israel to the north and east, Egypt to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Gaza’s history is one of occupation, resistance, and suffering. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, it fell under Egyptian administration and became a refuge for displaced Palestinians. But in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel seized control, leading to a prolonged occupation that persists in various forms today.

The 1990s Oslo Accords granted the Palestinian Authority partial autonomy over Gaza, yet the region’s trajectory shifted dramatically after Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory and subsequent takeover in 2007. In response, Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade, citing security concerns—a move that has strangled Gaza’s economy and exacerbated its humanitarian crisis.

The latest conflict erupted on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants launched a surprise attack on southern Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking 251 hostages. Israel retaliated on October 27 with a full-scale invasion of Gaza, igniting a 15-month war characterized by intense bombardment and civilian casualties. The United Nations estimates that approximately 69% of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed, displacing 1.9 million people—83% of the enclave’s population. By December, ongoing hostilities and relentless evacuation orders had left entire communities in perpetual flight.

Against this backdrop of devastation, Trump proposed what he described as a transformative solution: the relocation of Gazans to neighboring nations, such as Egypt and Jordan, and the redevelopment of the strip into a high-end coastal resort—a vision dubbed the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump’s plan triggered an immediate outcry. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, warned that forced displacement violates international law and could amount to ethnic cleansing, a charge with serious legal ramifications. Global leaders decried the proposal, arguing that it not only disregards Palestinian sovereignty but also threatens to destabilize an already volatile region further.

Security experts caution that assuming control over Gaza would entangle the United States in a profoundly complex geopolitical crisis. The territory remains a hub for militant groups and unresolved hostilities, raising concerns that U.S. intervention would require a long-term military presence, potentially escalating America’s involvement in the region.

Beyond security risks, the proposed redevelopment of Gaza presents significant economic and logistical hurdles. Estimates suggest that rebuilding the territory would cost between $30 billion and $80 billion, with no clear indication of where such funding would originate.

Domestically, Trump’s proposal has divided opinion. While some of the president’s supporters praised it as a bold, pragmatic solution, many Democrats consider it an ill-conceived departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy. Meanwhile, key Arab nations have outright rejected the idea. Egypt, already burdened by economic struggles and security concerns, has firmly opposed absorbing displaced Palestinians. Jordan, home to a substantial Palestinian refugee population, has also refused any plan that would alter its demographic balance.

Hamas, unsurprisingly, dismissed the proposal outright. Without its civilian population in Gaza, the group would lose a significant element of its strategic positioning. The uncertainty surrounding the plan also jeopardizes the fragile ceasefire agreement reached just days before Trump’s inauguration on January 15.

Trump’s plan risks exacerbating tensions and undermines the viability of the long-standing two-state solution. The framework, which envisions independent Israeli and Palestinian states coexisting peacefully, has been the cornerstone of international diplomatic efforts since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

The two-state solution was once the linchpin of U.S.-backed peace initiatives. Under the Oslo framework, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounced violence. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza. A future Palestinian state was envisioned in the West Bank and Gaza, connected by a corridor through Israel.

The 2003 Geneva Accord outlined potential compromises, including recognizing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as part of Israel and Arab neighborhoods as the capital of Palestine. Yet, the feasibility of such a solution has diminished over time. In early 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firmly rejected the idea, declaring, “In any future arrangement…Israel needs security control over all territory west of the Jordan River.”

Resolving the Gaza crisis requires more than unilateral proposals and radical realignments. Any sustainable solution must include immediate humanitarian relief, economic reconstruction, and a genuine commitment to political resolution. The first step is ensuring unimpeded access for humanitarian aid, allowing the battered population to rebuild their lives.

Yet, addressing the root causes of conflict is just as crucial. The two-state solution, while battered, remains the most viable pathway to long-term peace. However, recent developments cast serious doubt on its realization. Relocation proposals like Trump’s have been met with widespread condemnation. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has stressed that any resolution must categorically reject ethnic cleansing or forced displacement.

The complexity of the Gaza crisis demands a coordinated international response. Multilateral organizations, governments, and NGOs must collaborate to provide humanitarian assistance, support reconstruction efforts, and foster diplomatic dialogue. While Trump’s proposal has ignited controversy, the broader challenge remains: crafting a solution that is not only politically feasible but also respects the rights and dignity of those who call Gaza home.

With peace still a distant goal, the international community faces a stark choice: pursue reckless schemes that exacerbate tensions or commit to a comprehensive, inclusive strategy that prioritizes stability and human rights. The future of Gaza—and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict—hangs in the balance.