Trump’s aides defended his Gaza transfer proposal but distanced themselves from parts of it amid global backlash. World powers, including Russia, China, and Germany, criticized the plan, with Saudi Arabia rejecting it outright.
Barely two weeks in the job, Trump shattered decades of U.S. policy on Tuesday with a vaguely worded announcement saying he envisioned transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” where international communities could coexist after nearly 16 months of Israeli bombardment devastated the coastal strip and killed more than 47,000 people, according to Palestinian tallies.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s Gaza proposal as “historic” but clarified he had not committed to deploying U.S. troops. She also walked back his claim of permanent resettlement, stating Gazans would be “temporarily relocated” for rebuilding.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said the idea was for Gazans to leave the territory for an “interim” period of reconstruction and debris-clearing.
Tall Claims?
It was unclear whether Trump would go ahead with his proposal or, in keeping with his self-image as a shrewd dealmaker, was simply laying out an extreme position as a bargaining ploy. His first term was replete with what critics said were over-the-top foreign policy pronouncements, many of which were never implemented.
Trump’s son-in-law and former aide, Jared Kushner, last year described Gaza as valuable waterfront property, and on Tuesday Trump made similar claims as he called for the permanent resettlement of the more than 2 million Palestinians from there.
Some experts said the proposed actions could violate international law. Others described his ideas as unworkable. Human rights advocates said it would amount to “ethnic cleansing.”
“Everybody loves it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier on Wednesday, referring to his Gaza idea.
Trump’s Gaza proposal clashes with U.S. public opinion, which opposes new military entanglements. While Democrats condemned it, some Republicans were skeptical, though others praised it as bold. Trump has long vowed to end “ridiculous” wars.
“I thought we voted for America first,” Republican Senator Rand Paul said on X. “We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood.”
On a trip to Guatemala, Rubio, apparently seeking to counter the wave of global criticism, insisted Trump’s proposal was not a hostile move but a generous one that expressed “the willingness of the United States to become responsible for the reconstruction of that area.”
In contrast, Leavitt said U.S. taxpayers would not foot the bill and that Trump would strike a deal with regional partners.
Trump offered no specifics as he announced his proposal while welcoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday.
‘Trump Can Go To Hell’
Netanyahu praised Trump’s new approach but avoided discussing his Gaza proposal. Leavitt confirmed Trump had informed Netanyahu beforehand. Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt rejected displacing Palestinians, with Egypt supporting Gaza recovery without relocation.
In Gaza, Palestinians living among the wreckage of their former homes said they would never accept the idea.
“Trump can go to hell, with his ideas, with his money, and with his beliefs. We are going nowhere. We are not some of his assets,” said Samir Abu Basel, a father of five in Gaza City displaced from his house by the war.
Since taking office, Trump has discussed U.S. control over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada becoming a state. Critics liken his rhetoric to imperialism, warning it could embolden Russia and China. World leaders reaffirmed support for a two-state solution, with Gaza as part of a future Palestinian state.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, before a meeting with Netanyahu, that the Pentagon was “prepared to look at all options” related to Gaza. Experts say a major deployment of U.S. forces would be needed to secure Gaza if Trump implements his proposal.
‘Ridiculous And Absurd’
An official from the Palestinian militant group Hamas called Trump’s proposal “ridiculous and absurd.” Hamas ruled the Gaza Strip before the war there, which was triggered by its October 7, 2023, cross-border attack on Israel in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 abducted, according to Israeli tallies.
“Any ideas of this kind are capable of igniting the region,” Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters, saying Hamas remains committed to the ceasefire accord with Israel and negotiating its next phase.
Trump’s proposal has unclear implications for indirect talks on the Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal. Hamas insists on staying in Gaza, while Netanyahu aims to eliminate the group. The proposal also raises questions about Saudi Arabia’s willingness to join a U.S.-brokered push for normalization with Israel.
Saudi Arabia Reacts
Saudi Arabia, a pivotal U.S. ally in the Middle East, said it would not establish ties with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state, contradicting Trump’s claim that Riyadh was not demanding a Palestinian homeland.
Trump would like Saudi Arabia to follow in the footsteps of the United Arab Emirates, a Middle East trade and business hub, and Bahrain, both of which signed the Abraham Accords in 2020 and normalised ties with Israel.
But on Wednesday, the kingdom’s foreign ministry said Saudi Arabia rejected any attempts to remove Palestinians from their land and said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had affirmed this position in “a clear and explicit manner.”
Contrasting Views
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right Israeli lawmaker and former minister for national security, said “encouraging” Gazans to emigrate was the only correct strategy at the end of the Gaza war and urged Netanyahu to adopt the policy “immediately”.
Gaza residents said after war and bombs had failed to eject them from Gaza that Trump would not succeed in doing so.
During a U.N. committee meeting, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told Trump: “In the search for solutions, we must not make the problem worse. It is vital to stay true to the bedrock of international law. It is essential to avoid any form of ‘ethnic cleansing’.”
(With inputs from Reuters)
