WASHINGTON: Former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again floated his controversial idea for the United States to assume control of the Gaza Strip, calling it “an incredible piece of important real estate” during a recent discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Sitting beside Netanyahu, Trump proposed a bold vision: that the U.S. should manage and govern Gaza, positioning itself as a stabilizing force in the volatile enclave. “Having a peace force like the United States there, controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be a good thing,” Trump said, suggesting the relocation of Gaza’s approximately two million Palestinians to other nations. He claimed that “plenty of countries” would be willing to take them in.
The proposal, which echoes a similar statement Trump made in February, has been met with strong rejection from Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, which have categorically opposed any forced resettlement of Palestinians.
While Netanyahu did not directly endorse Trump’s plan, he acknowledged the need for a new path forward in Gaza. “We are committed to eliminating Hamas and securing the release of hostages. We’re working on another deal and hope it will succeed,” Netanyahu said, leaving the door open for future governance discussions.
In contrast, France, Jordan, and Egypt have publicly backed the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate governing body for Gaza. In a joint statement, they emphasized the need to respect Palestinian sovereignty and warned against unilateral solutions that could further destabilize the region.
Back in February, Trump laid out a more detailed version of his plan, envisioning the U.S. transforming Gaza into a thriving economic zone. He proposed clearing the territory of hazards such as unexploded ordnance, then launching major infrastructure projects to create jobs and housing. Trump promoted this vision as turning Gaza into “one of the world’s greatest developments.”
He later reiterated the idea on Truth Social, promising that Palestinians would be relocated to modern, safer communities, and that no U.S. military presence would be necessary—claims that have drawn widespread criticism and concern from the international community.
