Chinese academic: Can the US actually take over Gaza?

During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the US on 4 February, US President Donald Trump asserted, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip… We’ll own it…” He even suggested that displaced Palestinians in Gaza be permanently resettled outside the territory.

This was in fact not the first time Trump suggested a plan to “clean out” Gaza. On 25 January, he publicly proposed relocating Gaza’s residents to Jordan and Egypt. According to Trump’s vision, Gaza is a big real estate development project that would become a haven for the rich. However, Gaza is not simply a location for real estate development, but a part of the Palestinian issue. Viewing Gaza, a region deeply imbued with political and ethnic significance, purely through a commercial lens is extremely inappropriate.

Furthermore, Egypt and Jordan, the countries designated by Trump as destinations for relocated Gaza residents, are already facing considerable developmental challenges. A sudden influx of millions of Palestinians would certainly severely impact the stability and even the survival of the regimes in both countries. Thus, Egypt’s president and Jordan’s king have both rejected Trump’s suggestion to take in displaced Palestinians.

Trump said that Gaza’s residents should relocate to other countries and “live out their lives in peace and harmony”. Indeed, the living conditions and even survival of Palestinians in Gaza are currently dire. Sixteen months into the still ongoing conflict, the 365 square kilometres of land have been largely reduced to rubble. If the US truly wants these Palestinians to “live out their lives in peace and harmony”, why not invite them to the US? I am sure most of them would love to go.

Besides, based on estimates by the US Census Bureau, 1.1 million immigrants entered the US in 2023, while the Congressional Budget Office estimated the number to be 3.3 million. It seems that the US certainly has the capacity to take in Gaza’s residents. Yet it will never do so.

So why did Trump make this suggestion knowing how challenging it would be? Firstly, he wanted to address political issues from a business perspective. The Middle East has become a key focus area for Trump and his team in recent years.

In February 2024, during an interview at Harvard University, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said, “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable... if people would focus on building up livelihoods.” He even suggested that he would do his best to “move the people out and then clean it up”. Similarly, Trump asserted, “I envision people living there, the world’s people. I think you’ll make that into an international, unbelievable place. I think the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable.” As early as October last year, Trump had already stated that Gaza could be “better than Monaco” in the future.

Secondly, he hoped to support and alleviate the pressure faced by Israel and Netanyahu, and to reassure pro-Israel groups in the US. In recent years — especially since the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023 that triggered the war in Gaza, and the escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict — Netanyahu has faced significant criticism in Israel, with Israel facing a crisis of recognition in the international community.

At the same time, voices sympathetic to and supportive of the Palestinians have also noticeably increased in the US. Pro-Israel groups in the US have faced obvious challenges, especially when large-scale pro-Palestinian student protests erupted at numerous universities in the spring and summer of 2024. 

During Netanyahu’s visit to the US, Trump clearly articulated the “take over” Gaza plan, which is highly favourable to Israel. This is evidently a gesture of support for Netanyahu and an attempt to reassure pro-Israel groups in the US.

Thirdly, it was an attempt to forge a new US-Middle East relationship. With changes in relations among Middle Eastern countries, shifts in regional dynamics and intense competition among global big powers, the US is keen to enhance its relationship with the Middle East. Improving relations with Iran is one of Washington’s key objectives. In fact, the stasis in diplomatic relations with Iran has long been detrimental to US national interests. Reconciliation with Iran would not only be beneficial for US-Middle East relations, it would also deal a blow to its global competitors. 

One of the major obstacles to Washington’s efforts to improve relations with Iran over the years has been the staunch opposition from Israel as well as pro-Israel factions within the US. During his first term, Trump had already won favour with the Israelis, especially right-wing factions. Now, Trump’s new proposal regarding Gaza has made him even more popular in the “Jewish state”. This approach will likely reduce resistance to his efforts to ease tensions with Iran, and thus promote the construction of a new US-Middle East relationship.

Lastly, the pursuit of personal repute. If Trump can achieve diplomatic success in the complex Middle Eastern landscape, or even simply demonstrate active concern, Trump could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — an award he has been nominated for several times. Moreover, Trump also has his hands in the Russia-Ukraine war.

To date, five US presidents and vice-presidents have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Apart from Theodore Roosevelt, who won in 1906 and was a Republican, the other recipients — including Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and Vice-President Al Gore — were Democrats. From the perspective of personal and Republican repute, the current leader of the US Republican Party, President Trump, will be eager to secure the Nobel Peace Prize. The present discourse circulated internationally on this issue is not without basis. 

Should Trump’s plan to “take over” or “clean out” Gaza be implemented, the international community will face a very chilly future: the failure of international law, the tyranny of might makes right and the helplessness of the weak. This is the fundamental reason why the international community — including the US’s European allies — broadly opposed Trump’s Gaza plan.

Naturally, China joins the international community in opposing Trump’s plan to relocate the Gaza population. China opined that “Palestinians governing Palestinians” is the fundamental principle for post-war governance in Gaza. It opposes the forced relocation of Gaza’s population and hopes that relevant parties will use both the ceasefire in Gaza and subsequent post-war governance as an opportunity to steer the Palestinian issue back onto the correct path of a political solution based on the two-state solution framework, in order to attain lasting peace in the Middle East. This is also the prevailing consensus across the international community.

Nevertheless, the prospect of an independent Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and full sovereignty, is becoming increasingly unlikely. A new approach is needed to address the Palestinian issue. However, in attempting to resolve the Gaza and Palestinian issues, the voices of the people of Gaza and Palestine must be heard. Any external plans that disregard the interests of the local people would be a reckless pursuit of self-interest.

It is quite understandable that Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu have supported President Trump’s Gaza plan. If the US president forcefully implements this plan and offers sufficient incentives in exchange, the plan cannot be entirely ruled out as a possibility.

With the outbreak of the Gaza conflict on 7 October 2023 and the crumbling of the “axis of resistance” led by Iran, a new round of relative power adjustments is underway amongst the major Middle Eastern nations. In this process, the US will play quite a prominent role.

Looking at present relations among major Middle Eastern states, essentially only one antagonistic relationship remains: that between Israel and Iran. During Trump’s second term, the possibility for a thawing in US-Iran-Israel trilateral relations exists.

My fundamental assessment is that American focus on and influence in the Middle East will increase following a brief period of strategic withdrawal — at least during the Trump administration. This evidently poses a challenge to China’s Middle East policy and diplomacy.

Related: Trump’s Gaza plans: A Middle East headache for China? | China’s Middle East strategy in the Trump era: Navigating uncertainty