- Trump proposed that the U.S. “buy and own Gaza,” sparking global controversy.
- His plan challenges Palestinian sovereignty and could inflame tensions in the Arab world.
- Israel faces a dilemma—weakening Hamas while risking further instability.
- The proposal defies international law, risking U.S. isolation and diplomatic fallout.
In a provocative statement that has reignited longstanding debates over sovereignty and international intervention, former U.S. President Donald Trump declared his commitment to “buying and owning Gaza.” He added that while the United States would assume control, it might delegate reconstruction efforts to other Middle Eastern states under its auspices. The statement, intended to signal a tough stance against Hamas and an aggressive approach to Middle Eastern policy, carries profound implications for the region, Israel, and the broader international community.
At the core of Trump’s assertion is unilateral acquisition and control, which diverges sharply from established norms of self-determination and international law. By proposing that the U.S. own Gaza, Trump not only challenges the historical claims of the Palestinian people but also seeks to reshape the power dynamics in one of the world’s most volatile regions. This approach reflects an “America First” mindset that prioritises U.S. strategic interests, even when disregarding regional sovereignty and the delicate balance of power in the Middle East.
For the Middle East, the implications are multifaceted. Arab states have long viewed Gaza as a critical component of Palestinian national identity and a symbol of resistance against external domination. Trump’s plan, if seriously pursued, could be perceived as an imposition of foreign will on a people who have fought for their statehood. The proposal might incite significant anger among Palestinians and their allies across the Arab world, potentially fuelling anti-American sentiment and complicating efforts toward a negotiated peace. This potential backlash from the Arab world underscores the far-reaching geopolitical implications of Trump’s proposal.
Israel is another critical stakeholder in this scenario. For decades, Israel has grappled with the challenge of ensuring its security while navigating complex relationships with its neighbours. On one hand, Israel may welcome any measure that neutralises Hamas, the militant organisation that has repeatedly launched attacks from Gaza. However, the idea of U.S. ownership over Gaza would also force Israel to confront the implications of altering the status quo in a manner that undermines Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Such a shift could destabilise the fragile peace process and possibly invite further regional realignments. While some right-wing factions in Israel might view the proposal as a means to curb Hamas’s influence, others could see it as a dangerous precedent that deepens divisions and perpetuates conflict.
Trump’s statement risks isolating on the global stage, underscoring the potential for significant geopolitical shifts in the United States from its traditional allies and multilateral institutions. The international community has long supported a two-state solution as the cornerstone for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. A unilateral move by the U.S. to assert control over Gaza would likely be met with widespread condemnation from countries committed to upholding international law and self-determination. Such a policy could weaken U.S. credibility and diminish its moral authority in global affairs. Moreover, critics argue that delegating reconstruction to other Middle Eastern states while retaining ownership creates a dual system that might complicate governance, accountability, and rebuilding a war-torn society.
Furthermore, by framing the issue regarding ownership and control, the U.S. risks reducing a complex humanitarian and political crisis to a transactional exercise. The focus on property rights and market mechanisms does not address the underlying socio-political grievances that have fueled decades of regional conflict. Instead of fostering sustainable peace, the proposal might deepen existing divides and set the stage for future unrest, potentially leading to further conflict.
In conclusion, Trump’s declaration that the United States will “buy and own Gaza” signals a radical departure from conventional diplomatic practices. While aimed at countering Hamas and securing U.S. strategic interests, the proposal carries significant risks. It threatens to undermine Palestinian self-determination, complicate Israel’s security calculus, and isolate the U.S. in a rapidly shifting global order. The long-term consequences of such an approach could reshape the geopolitics of the Middle East and the principles that govern international relations.
Shashank is a Master’s student in Diplomacy, Law, and Business at O.P. Jindal Global University. He is also a researcher and coordinator at the Center for Global South and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. His research interests include Southeast Asia, Chinese foreign policy, India’s Act East Policy, and global security dynamics. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Piyush Anand 
Aayush Pal 
Balaji Subramanian