When diplomacy turns into real estate development

In a shocking and controversial announcement, former President Donald Trump proposed a radical shift in the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape by declaring his intention to take over governance of the Gaza Strip. This announcement, which envisions the mass deportation or forced displacement of a significant portion of Gaza’s population and the complete flattening of what remains of the territory’s buildings, aims to turn the devastated region into the so-called “Riviera of the Middle East.” In Trump’s vision, Gaza would be transformed into a luxury resort destination, a symbol of what he calls “new opportunities,” with a focus on high-end tourism and real estate development. However, the proposal raises profound legal, moral, and political questions about its viability, its basis in international law, and its long-term consequences for the region.

The Legal Basis: A Question of Authority

At the heart of this proposal is an apparent assertion of sovereignty over Gaza, a Palestinian enclave currently governed by the militant group Hamas and subject to blockades by both Israel and Egypt. For Trump to assume control of Gaza’s governance and initiate such drastic measures, there must be a clear legal framework. However, no international law or recognized treaty grants a foreign power the authority to unilaterally annex or administer the Gaza Strip, especially through actions that would forcibly displace its population. The principles of territorial integrity and the protection of civilian populations under international humanitarian law — particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention — seem to directly contradict Trump’s vision. Mass deportation of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and the transformation of a contested region into a luxury resort could be seen as a violation of both the Geneva Conventions and the human rights obligations to which the United States and Israel are signatories.
Beyond legalities, such actions would invite widespread condemnation from the international community, especially from Arab and Muslim-majority countries, as well as from international organizations like the United Nations. A coalition of 6 Arab countries, key stakeholders in the region (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Palestine and the Arab League) have firmly condemned the proposal, which is to be considered a non starter. Given the high political stakes, any such move would face a protracted legal and diplomatic battle.

A More Logical Alternative: Israel’s Responsibility

Given the intricate and controversial history of Gaza’s occupation and governance, an alternative approach may be more grounded in existing diplomatic frameworks. For years, Israel has been in control of the broader Palestinian territories, and its policies over the past 15 months have undoubtedly contributed to the current humanitarian crisis. Instead of a foreign power swooping in to take control, it might be more consistent with international law and justice for Israel to take responsibility for the situation.
Israel could theoretically relocate Palestinians temporarily within its own borders, particularly as this is the original homeland of the Palestinians. The Israeli government could be tasked with funding and overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza, including its infrastructure, housing, and essential services, as a temporary measure to repair war damages, until the territory can be safely resettled. This would be a more humane and legally sound way of addressing the Gaza crisis, while acknowledging Israel’s ongoing control and responsibilities over the broader Palestinian Territories. Moreover, by resettling Palestinians in Gaza once the rebuilding process is complete, Israel could help stabilize the region and potentially ease tensions between Israel and the Palestinian population, offering a framework for reconciliation.

The U.S. Role and the Long-Term Impact

Trump’s proposal would also directly place the United States at the center of a highly volatile and sensitive situation in the Middle East, a region where the U.S. has historically wielded influence through Israel and its proxies. For years, Israel has served as the U.S.’s main strategic partner in the region, and its role as a “watchdog” for American interests in the area has kept the U.S. somewhat insulated from the most extreme consequences of its policies.
By intervening directly in Gaza, the U.S. would be setting a new precedent, with potentially devastating consequences for its standing in the region and the wider world. Such an approach could be viewed as yet another in a series of unilateral moves by Washington that undermine international consensus and deepen hostilities with Arab nations. If implemented, Trump’s Gaza plan could create an even more hostile environment for American diplomats, businesses, and military personnel in the region, as well as sow even greater instability within Palestinian and Arab communities.
Furthermore, Trump’s proposal to turn Gaza into a luxury resort could serve as an exploitation of the region’s misfortune, reinforcing the view of many critics that the U.S. is more interested in profiting from the turmoil than in genuinely addressing the root causes of the conflict. In the long term, this could erode any remaining goodwill toward the U.S. in the Arab world, perpetuating cycles of anger, resistance, and extremism.

A Dangerous Precedent

The announcement of a “Trump administration” governance of Gaza is not just a diplomatic misstep; it is an overt attempt to treat human suffering and geopolitical complexity as little more than a real estate development project. The legal and moral implications of such a move are vast, and it risks escalating an already tense situation. Whether the U.S. will follow through on this proposal remains to be seen, but it is clear that such actions would deepen the division, pain, and suffering of the Palestinian people and perpetuate the root causes that destabilise the region. The consequences also for the global reputation of the US administration cannot be underscored enough.
If the U.S. is truly committed to bringing peace to the Middle East, it should advocate for a more just, legal, and cooperative approach. This means asking Israel to take responsibility for the consequences of its occupation and policies, and it means respecting the human dignity of all people in the region. Anything less will only fuel further violence and resentment, leaving Gaza’s residents — and the Middle East as a whole — trapped in a cycle of destruction and despair.