JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Former U.S. President Donald Trump's vision for Gaza has reignited discussions surrounding the long-contested territory, with his audacious proposal for redevelopment under U.S. control raising eyebrows globally. Recognized as the 'Riviera of the Middle East,' Trump's plan echoes earlier aspirations of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who suggested last year the area's waterfront property could be exceptionally valuable if effectively managed.
During a recent press conference, Trump argued for the establishment of international resorts on formerly Palestinian land, expressing his belief this initiative could positively transform the war-torn enclave. "Gaza could be 'better than Monaco' if rebuilt properly," Trump stated, hinting at what critics describe as ethnic cleansing. His comments coincided with the aftermath of the violent attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and raised numerous concerns from both Palestinians and human rights advocates.
Responses to Trump's proposal have been overwhelmingly negative. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas condemned the remarks, viewing them as part of a broader strategy for displacement following over 15 months of bombardment of Gaza, which has resulted in significant loss of life and infrastructure.
Trump's remarks have drawn not only shock but also skepticism from foreign governments. Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry flatly rejected any efforts to displace Palestinian residents, emphasizing the importance of the current population's rights. According to sources close to the Saudi royal court, Trump's statements appear 'impossible to implement' and have not been thought through adequately.
Kushner's earlier comments also inform the current discussion. At various public appearances, he has characterized the Arab-Israeli conflict as "nothing more than a real estate dispute", emphasizing Gaza's potential for redevelopment. Speaking at Harvard, Kushner articulated, "It's unfortunate, but from Israel's perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.” This perspective has sparked fears of repeat historical traumas among Palestinians, who recall the 'Nakba' of 1948 when hundreds of thousands were displaced during the conflict.
The concept of creating luxurious beach resorts echoes past ambitions; Israeli leaders have historically criticized Palestinian authorities for not prioritizing economic development over military conflicts. Suggesting Gaza could become as popular as tourist destinations like Dubai or Singapore, the rhetoric surrounding its possible redevelopment often dismisses the humanitarian crises therein.
Nevertheless, the practicalities of establishing this vision remain unclear. Challenges persist, such as complicated land ownership laws and long-standing restrictions on foreign investments. Trump's own advisor and special Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, noted rebuilding would take at least ten to fifteen years and would demand enormous funding—estimates reach as high as $100 billion.
Despite vocal advocacy for the idea from some settler groups eyeing land returned to them post-evacuation, concerns about security and local governance remain prevalent. Israeli construction companies have kept silent on their potential involvement, likely due to the sensitive political environment.
Critics, meanwhile, have accused Trump of reducing geopolitical dynamics to mere business opportunities. One pointedly remarked, “The Palestinians are not a real estate deal, Donald,” referencing Trump's previous commentary on reclaiming foreign territories for U.S. interests.
An investor's mindset pervades the administration's approach, evident when Trump suggested, “Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning” Gaza's land, claiming it could create thousands of jobs. But the nuances of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people seem absent from his plan.
International culpability also lingers; Trump's proposal lacks clarity on what measures the U.S. intended to undertake for crisis resolution, should Palestinians reject plans to leave their homeland. Questions arose about financing, with the White House downplaying the use of U.S. taxpayer money for such endeavors.
While some see Trump's comments as innovative, others regard them as dismissive of historical grievances entrenched within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kushner’s past comments about attracting investments from Arab nations might provide some framework, yet leaders of those nations have expressed abandonment of these proposals until statehood discussions enable the Palestinian territories.
With the situation intensifying, this tempest over Trump's Gaza vision showcases the collisions among real estate aspirations, international law, regional power dynamics, and humanitarian imperatives. Observers watch intently as discussions evolve, hoping for resolutions respectful of historical contexts—especially for the people most affected by these proposals.