President Trump’s controversial and unexpected plan regarding the future of Gaza has shocked the world. According to this plan, the United States would assume control of the Gaza Strip and permanently remove its 2.3 million Palestinian residents from the area. Speaking at a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Donald Trump explicitly stated that the U.S. should “own Gaza” and take responsibility for it. He emphasized that he would do whatever it takes to turn Gaza into a “Riviera that the entire Middle East would be proud of.”
Following this, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in a post on social media platform X that the United States was ready to take the lead and “rebuild Gaza beautifully” to establish lasting peace in the region. However, he later attempted to soften Trump’s statements by claiming that the relocation of Gaza’s residents would be temporary and limited to the reconstruction period. In the same vein, Michael Waltz, Trump’s National Security Advisor, described the plan as a humanitarian initiative aimed at helping Palestinians by transferring them to third countries.
Such statements have been enthusiastically received by far-right circles in Israel, who have long advocated for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza. However, they have also provoked widespread outrage and criticism across the Arab world and beyond. Critics argue that the forced displacement of Gaza’s residents and the potential for ethnic cleansing are among the hidden objectives behind this plan, viewing it as a blatant violation of internationally recognized rights.
These reactions have not remained mere rhetoric. On February 4, the foreign ministers of five Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt—issued a joint statement rejecting any attempts to violate the inalienable rights of Palestinians, whether through settlement expansion, forced expulsions, land annexation, or the evacuation of Palestinian territories. Then, on February 22, the leaders of seven Arab nations—Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain—gathered in Riyadh to propose an alternative plan for Gaza’s future. However, as of now, no official report has been released regarding the meeting, and it remains unclear whether a concrete agreement was reached.
These nations hope to include the Gaza issue on the agenda of the upcoming Arab League summit in Cairo on March 4, with the goal of formulating a widely supported alternative plan for Gaza within the Arab world. The message from such initiatives—particularly from a group of countries that do not usually act in a coordinated manner—sends a clear signal to the Trump administration: From their perspective, the two-state solution remains the only acceptable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This stands in stark contrast to Trump and his highly pro-Israel administration’s vision.
Trump’s remarks reflect either a lack of understanding or a deliberate disregard for the historical context, the complexity of governance mechanisms, the interests of U.S. regional and global allies, and most importantly, the deep emotional attachment of Middle Eastern peoples to their homeland. The consequences of such an approach will undoubtedly deepen regional conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors and cast doubt on the U.S. role in shaping the region’s future. In reality, implementing this plan would be disastrous for Netanyahu and Israel, as it would only increase instability in the region. It would also pose challenges for America’s other regional allies and partners.
The opposition of Jordanian and Egyptian leaders to resettling Gaza’s Palestinians in their countries is not merely a matter of international law but also one of internal stability. For both nations, such a move could be seen as an existential threat. This action could bolster Israeli hardliners who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. The issue is particularly concerning for Jordan, where more than half of the population is of Palestinian descent.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah II fear that some of the displaced Palestinians might belong to, or at least sympathize with, militant factions. The responsibility of controlling such individuals would fall on the governments of Egypt and Jordan. There are even fears that these groups could organize attacks against Cairo and Amman. Netanyahu surely understands that any instability in Jordan or Egypt would lead to broader regional turmoil and, ultimately, greater security threats to Israel.
But the negative repercussions of this plan do not stop there. It could also severely damage U.S. and Israeli relations with Gulf states. After Trump stated that he believed “many countries would soon join this amazing agreement,” Saudi Arabia immediately issued a statement rejecting any efforts to displace Palestinians from their homeland. The kingdom also clarified that it would not normalize relations with Israel without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The same holds true for the UAE, a country Trump praised for signing the Abraham Accords.
Trump’s goal of upending many long-standing domestic and international norms established since World War II is no secret. His controversial plan is part of a broader effort to redefine the Middle East and America’s interests in it in a fundamental way. From his perspective, the only way to reduce America’s long-term commitments to the region—especially those tied to security support—is to completely destroy Gaza and rebuild it from scratch. According to this logic, taking control of Gaza is the best way to establish a peaceful zone and ultimately lower U.S. security costs, whereas leaving it as is would mean continued American involvement and expenditures in the Middle East.
However, an analysis of the potential consequences of forcibly removing Gaza’s population—a move that would undoubtedly require military intervention—reveals a paradoxical reality: Trump’s vision of a “Middle East Riviera” would not bring peace but would instead fuel further instability, dashing any remaining hopes for resolution. If this policy is pursued, we will undoubtedly witness an even deeper divide between the Arab world’s stance on Gaza and the future of the “New Middle East” and the shared position of Washington and Tel Aviv.
