Before taking office, Donald Trump suggested his ambition to be -or at least to appear as- a “distinct leader” by putting forward ideas that were far outside the norms of diplomacy or civility, including proposals like annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal into the United States. Once he took office, he pursued many of these ideas, essentially adopting a version of Nixon’s “madman theory.”
Trump’s tendency to leave world leaders unsure about his judgment was something he acknowledged openly in October 2024. When asked by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board whether he would use military force to defend Taiwan from China, he downplayed the question, stating, “I wouldn’t have to, because he respects me and he knows I’m f***ing crazy,” referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping, as reported by the Journal.
Subsequently, Trump took the role of ‘bringing peace’ to Gaza, this time wearing his “real estate developer” hat. His most recent proposal, revealed alongside Israel’s genocidaire-in-chief Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was provocative, outrageous, and bizarre—definitely not in line with presidential decorum. The proposal suggested forcibly relocating Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, while the U.S. would oversee the redevelopment of Gaza, aiming to transform the region into what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Behind the Facade
Beneath an enticing slogan, however, lies a disturbing and impractical plan aimed at furthering the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Donald Trump’s controversial, widely condemned as a potential war crime, did not emerge in isolation but is rooted in the foundational principles of Zionism, a movement strongly supported by pro-Israeli figures in the U.S. and Western governments.
Zionism, framed as a quest for a Jewish homeland, has historically sought to establish a state for the “landless Jewish people” by treating Palestine as a “land without people,” thereby denying the existence and rights of Palestinians.
This ideology has underpinned systematic policies of displacement and ethnic cleansing since Israel’s establishment in 1948, exemplified by the Nakba, where 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled. In the West Bank, home demolitions and land confiscation continue, while U.S.-backed military operations in Gaza have repeatedly displaced populations. Trump’s statement about the U.S. “taking over” Gaza aligns with these policies, as Israel’s military has been instructed to prepare plans for the mass exit of Palestinians from the region.
Pro-Zionist leaders in the United States have a long history of supporting Israel’s expansion at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population. While explicit endorsements of ethnic cleansing are rare, some U.S. politicians have made statements or backed policies that enable the displacement of Palestinians. Beyond President Trump’s controversial proposals, figures like Mike Pompeo, who advocated for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and Jared Kushner, who crafted a peace plan criticised for denying Palestinian sovereignty, have pushed policies that marginalise Palestinians. Similarly, Newt Gingrich’s claim that Palestinians are an “invented” people has been seen as denying their historical identity.
Thus, Trump’s plan reflects a broader trend among pro-Zionist U.S. quarters. However, his statements sparked significant backlash, prompting the White House aides to engage in semantic manoeuvres to salvage the controversial proposal. While retracting certain aspects, Trump continued to push the idea of “U.S. ownership” of Gaza. To many observers, it became clear that the President’s intended policy would exacerbate the ongoing crisis, reinforcing what critics describe as genocidal conditions. This underscores the long-standing collaboration between the U.S. and Israel to undermine Palestinian rights and perpetuate displacement.
Survival at Stake
Trump’s real estate fantasy regarding Gaza is putting the U.S. Arab allies between a rock and a hard place. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have united in rejecting policies that displace Palestinians or undermine their rights. Egypt emphasised the importance of Gaza’s recovery without displacing its population, while Saudi Arabia declared it would not normalise ties with Israel without a Palestinian state, firmly opposing settlement expansion, annexation, or forced displacement. Similarly, Jordan’s King Abdullah II condemned Israeli settlement policies and any attempts to annex land or displace Palestinians, underscoring regional solidarity in supporting Palestinian self-determination and opposing actions that threaten their presence on their land.
Long accused of disregarding “the Palestinian Cause,” Arab leaders now confront a far more daunting challenge. Trump’s proposal to seize land from Gaza in favour of Israel, infused with real estate rhetoric, transcends a mere property transaction—it represents a de facto redrawing of the Middle East map in alignment with Israeli and allied interests. This elevates the issue beyond a cause that could be sacrificed for political expediency, transforming it into a broader, more existential geopolitical concern.
Arab governments’ objections highlight the severity of the situation and its threat to regional stability. Historically criticised for their reluctance to confront Zionist ambitions, these states now face a direct challenge to their sovereignty and influence due to Trump’s plan, which supports Israel’s expansionist policies and disrupts the Middle East’s fragile balance of power. The critical question is how Arab states will position themselves amid the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, where resistance has escalated into what many describe as genocide since October 7, 2023. Their response will not only shape Gaza’s future but also their own legitimacy and sovereignty. Failing to robustly counter Trump’s plan could weaken their standing, potentially reshaping regional alliances and power dynamics.
In conclusion, all Israel’s neighbours must recognise that Trump’s proposal is not merely a rhetorical political manoeuvre to demonstrate his distinct leadership but an existential threat demanding a unified and resolute response. They should effectively mobilise their political and economic resources to counter this plan, avoiding over-reliance on political support from Western counterparts. This effort must extend beyond mere rhetorical condemnations and opposition, as their ability to resist this plan will serve as a litmus test for their commitment to regional stability, the protection of Palestinian rights, and their capacity to safeguard their own future against expanding Zionist ambitions.