Is Trump’s ‘takeover’ of Gaza an American colonial enterprise or a negotiation tactic?

Barely a month into his presidency, US President, Donald Trump, has made shockwaves throughout the world with his numerous proposals and plans, each one topping the predecessor in its seeming insanity and chaotic absurdity.

After talks with Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, last week, Trump announced at a White House press conference that “the US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it”.

Calling it the future “Riviera of the Middle East”, he claimed that “we’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, [and] create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.”

When asked whether the US would send troops to Gaza in order to achieve that, Trump said “if it’s necessary, we’ll do that.” Placing his plans in the scope of humanitarian claims, the American President expressed apparent plans “to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it will be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of”.

The concept of the American President speaking of Gaza and its human inhabitants as if a property developer touring a demolition site for its real estate opportunities has, of course, won over the hearts of Zionists and much of the far-right throughout the West, with a gleeful Netanyahu praising Trump’s proposal as “the first good idea that I’ve heard” and saying it should be “pursued and done, because I think it will create a different future for everyone”.

A thief’s mentality: Trump, real estate and dreams of ethnic cleansing

Following the global outcry over the proposal to ethnically cleanse Gaza and turn it into a luxury real estate project, a slew of senior US government officials have backtracked on the wording of such plans, claiming that such a move would be temporary and that Palestinians would be allowed to return.

Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, for example, attempted to assure that the proposal “was not meant as hostile” but that it was simply a “generous move” and an “offer to rebuild and to be in charge of the rebuilding”. The expulsion of Gazans from the territory would be for an “interim” period of reconstruction and debris-clearing rather than a permanent resettlement to neighbouring states, he claimed.

White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, further backed that up, stating that Gaza is “a demolition site right now. It’s not a liveable place for any human being”, while claiming that Trump was “very clear” in his expectations for Egypt, Jordan and other states “to accept Palestinian refugees, temporarily, so that we can rebuild their home”.

To make the situation even more ironic, Netanyahu himself also said Palestinians would not have to leave the Strip indefinitely, but that “they can leave, they can then come back, they can relocate and come back, but you have to rebuild Gaza”.

One thing we can be almost certain of is that the Trump administration – and, most definitely, the Israelis under the current coalition government – has no intention of allowing Gazans to return to their territory.

Once the Palestinians are out, they will likely stay out and be given no right of return, with the ongoing plight of the ‘Nakba’ generation – who were expelled from their homes in historic Palestine in 1948, and never allowed to return until now – showing us a clear pathway of the intentions of Israel’s displacement policy.

Tel Aviv is highly unlikely to change that policy this time round, particularly under the current far-right and expansionist coalition government, even despite the Trump administration’s assurances of the Palestinian population’s eventual return to Gaza along newly-built boulevards and a corniche under the shade of palms and shiny towers.

On the contrary, there are signs that the US may even positively favour Israeli expansion, in particular the Netanyahu government’s ongoing plans to annex the Occupied West Bank.

When asked earlier this month in the Oval Office about the possibility of backing West Bank annexation, Trump refrained from publicly stating his position on the matter, but called Israel “a small country in terms of land”. Holding up a pen on his desk, he said that “this wonderful pen on my desk is the Middle East, and the top of the pen — that’s Israel. That’s not good, right? You know, it’s a pretty big difference.”

That is also not to mention the President’s history of holding such a position when he proposed Israel’s annexation of 30 per cent of the territory in his Middle East ‘peace plan’ during his first term, as well as the fact that he surrounds himself with pro-settler advisors and figures.

OPINION: Trump’s imaginary riviera

There are also alternate theories on Trump’s true intentions, however, with the US President and long-time business mogul potentially employing negotiation tactics in search of a deal that would satisfy multiple fronts in his Middle East policy and, ultimately, further cement his legacy.

His comments – which initially seem wild, reckless and unruly – are a key component of this, reflecting the negotiation tactic of stating an offer so outrageous that any other offer following on from that seems like a deal or a significant compromise in comparison.

That deal-making mindset encompasses almost every aspect of this policy push, a key example being Trump’s emphasis on the US “owning” Gaza while getting other states – likely the wealthy Gulf Arab states – to pay for its reconstruction. Like any good deal, the ideal outcome is maximum benefit and ownership at minimum cost.

There are yet more theories circulating that speculate Trump is even undermining the Israeli government under Netanyahu by essentially leaving Tel Aviv out of the equation in post-war Gaza, particularly after he stated in a Truth Social post last week that the Strip “would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting”.

Again, that may potentially be another part of the President’s possible negotiation strategy: upping the pressure on both sides of the table that he seeks to ‘mediate’, while also testing the boundaries on what they would find acceptable or unacceptable.

For now, Trump is holding his cards close to his chest, if he indeed has any cards ready to play with, and there is a strong possibility – like in any effort to find a deal – that he himself is still biding his time to figure out his best course of action.

Whatever his next moves, however, there is little doubt that he is heavily in favour of Israel, its Occupation and its expansion.

OPINION: Is Trump really playing ‘5D chess’ against Israel?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.