Why Trump’s Gaza Plan Is More About Netanyahu Than Gaza
Trump, Netanyahu, and Gaza: The Real Story Behind the Takeover Talk
TL;DR
Not a Literal Plan – Trump's proposal to take over and depopulate Gaza, then rebuild it under U.S. control, is more of a political statement than a serious policy move. It appears aimed at supporting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces legal and political challenges.
Symbolic Political Move – The impracticality of the plan and lack of policy details suggest it serves to distract from Netanyahu’s domestic struggles and bolster his image with U.S. backing.
Gaza's Context – The area has been devastated by 15 months of war, and the humanitarian crisis is severe. The blockade and ongoing conflict limit access to medical supplies, water, and infrastructure.
Ivermectin Controversy – Trump's suggestion of using Ivermectin for mass treatment in Gaza has no scientific basis. The drug, mainly used for parasites, gained notoriety during COVID-19 but is not proven for widespread human use in such scenarios.
Depopulation is Logistically Impossible – Gaza has 2.3 million residents; moving them to Egypt or Jordan would create a massive humanitarian and legal crisis, potentially violating international laws on forced displacement.
Rebuilding Would Be Astronomical – Estimates suggest reconstruction costs could exceed $50-70 billion. The U.S. would face financial, logistical, and political barriers to executing such a plan.
Lack of Natural Resources – Gaza has minimal natural wealth. Offshore gas fields exist but are politically contested. Any economic growth would rely on external aid and investment, not resource exploitation.
International Backlash – Major powers like China and Russia would oppose U.S. intervention. Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, strongly reject forced displacement of Palestinians.
Netanyahu's Legal Troubles – He faces corruption charges and war crime allegations from the ICC. Trump's proposal may serve as a political distraction to help Netanyahu maintain power.
Political Theater, Not Policy – The proposal lacks realism and feasibility. It fits Trump's pattern of making bold, headline-grabbing statements that serve political rather than practical purposes. It is a tactic that has worked well for him in the past.
Global Reaction – The idea has been widely rejected by international allies and adversaries alike, viewed as destabilizing and in violation of international law.
In summary, Trump's Gaza proposal is more about political maneuvering than a viable strategy. It aims to help Netanyahu politically but risks exacerbating regional instability.
And now the Deep Dive…
Thesis
The comments by President Trump regarding the U.S. taking over Gaza, depopulating it, and subsequently rebuilding it under American control are not to be interpreted as a literal policy intent but rather as a bold political statement aimed at supporting his ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently navigating a tumultuous political landscape in Israel. With major combat operations in Gaza having ceased by early 2025, Netanyahu faces significant domestic challenges, including a fragile coalition government, public discontent over security failures, and ongoing legal battles that threaten his political survival. Trump's proposal, which includes the fantastical notion of using Ivermectin for mass treatment and creating an economic haven, serves more as a dramatic gesture to shift focus from Netanyahu’s domestic troubles and to reinforce his image as a leader with international backing, rather than a serious plan for regional development or stabilization.
This rhetoric from Trump must be seen through the lens of his previous political maneuvers, where provocative statements often aimed at rallying support or diverting attention. It is a tactic that has worked very well for him in the past with great effect. Here, the proposal's impracticality and the lack of any detailed policy framework suggest it's primarily a symbolic act of solidarity, intended to bolster Netanyahu's standing by portraying him as having significant U.S. support in a complex international scenario. The mention of Gaza's depopulation and reconstruction by the U.S. underscores a narrative of dramatic intervention, but the underlying message is one of political loyalty, aimed at aiding a friend in distress rather than advancing a feasible geopolitical strategy. This approach reflects a pattern where foreign policy declarations are used as tools in domestic political games, rather than commitments to real-world action.
Introduction
The proposal by President Donald Trump to take control of the Gaza Strip and administer Ivermectin to its population has stirred significant international debate and controversy. Gaza, a small strip of land along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It has been under a blockade by Israel and Egypt since 2007, following Hamas's control over the area.
Historically, Gaza has been a focal point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election and later took control in 2007, leading to the current blockade. This blockade has severely restricted movement of goods and people, leading to economic hardship and a humanitarian crisis.
As of early February 2025, the state of affairs in Gaza is dire, with the area having suffered from 15 months of conflict with Israel, leading to massive infrastructural damage and a humanitarian crisis. The blockade has limited access to medical supplies, clean water, and basic necessities. Trump's proposal to "take over" Gaza and redevelop it into what he described as the "Riviera of the Middle East" during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4, 2025, has met with swift rejection from Arab states and U.S. allies. They view this as a potential violation of international law and Palestinian rights.
The international community has reacted with skepticism and criticism. Saudi Arabia, for example, has clearly stated its opposition to any displacement of Palestinians, which Trump's proposal indirectly suggests by envisioning a Gaza without its current residents. The idea of the U.S. taking a "long-term ownership position" over Gaza, as Trump articulated, raises questions about territorial sovereignty, international law, and the rights of the Palestinian people.
Trump's plan to take over Gaza represents a complex intersection of geopolitical strategy, health policy, and human rights. It challenges the norms of international law, humanitarian aid, and medical ethics. The global response has been predominantly negative, with allies and adversaries alike expressing concerns about the feasibility, legality, and morality of such actions. This situation underscores the ongoing tensions in the region and the delicate balance required in addressing both immediate humanitarian needs and long-term peace prospects.
Trump's Statements
During a press conference at the White House on February 4, 2025, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump made a statement that has since reverberated around the world: "The US will take over the Gaza Strip." This declaration was part of a broader discourse on how to address the conflict and humanitarian situation in Gaza. Trump further elaborated by stating, "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, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area." This comment came just after he discussed the devastation in Gaza, describing it as a "demolition site" and "hellhole," signaling his intent for a significant U.S. involvement in the region's future.
The context of Trump's remarks was rooted in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which had left Gaza in a state of severe destruction after 15 months of warfare. His suggestion was not just about peacekeeping or aid but proposed a complete overhaul of the region's governance and infrastructure. Immediately before his statement about taking over Gaza, Trump expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the current cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, suggesting that the conflict could resume at any moment. After his bold claim, he expressed a vision of turning Gaza into an economic powerhouse, potentially the "Riviera of the Middle East," which he believed could stabilize not just Gaza but the entire Middle East.
The location of this press conference, the East Room of the White House, was significant, as it was here that Trump chose to unveil this plan in the presence of a key ally, Benjamin Netanyahu. The occasion was marked by discussions on various Middle Eastern issues, including the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, Iran's influence in the region, and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy. Trump's remarks were reported widely, with posts on social media capturing the moment, indicating the shock and immediate reactions from various stakeholders globally. The proposal, if actualized, would represent an unprecedented move in U.S. foreign policy, essentially suggesting a form of colonization under the guise of redevelopment.
The technical implications of Trump's plan are vast, involving not only military operations for clearing unexploded ordnance but also massive civil engineering projects to rebuild the area. The U.S. would need to navigate international law regarding sovereignty, the rights of the displaced Palestinian population, and the potential for long-term military occupation. The mention of "leveling" the site involves extensive demolition, followed by reconstruction efforts that would require significant resources, planning, and international cooperation or opposition. Moreover, the idea of creating an "economic development" zone implies a long-term commitment to economic policy, infrastructure, and possibly even governance, which would need to be legally and logistically structured.
Critics have pointed out the ethical and legal issues of such a proposal. The concept of taking over a territory, even with intentions of redevelopment, conflicts with principles of self-determination and could be seen as an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty. The international community, including Arab nations like Egypt and Jordan, have historically opposed any suggestion of permanent resettlement or external control over Palestinian territories. The proposal also raises questions about the feasibility of implementing such a plan without the consent of the local population or international bodies like the United Nations, which has roles in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid in conflict zones.
The reaction to Trump's statement has been swift and varied. Some see it as a provocative move that could escalate tensions in the region, while others view it as a chance, albeit controversial, to address the long-standing issues in Gaza through economic means rather than military. The political landscape in the U.S. and Israel would also play a critical role in how such a plan could be enacted, with domestic politics, international alliances, and the strategic interests in the Middle East all influencing the outcome.
The use of phrases like "level it out" and "create economic development" suggests a vision more akin to urban planning and economic zones than traditional humanitarian aid. Trump's plan, if taken forward, would require a new legal framework, possibly under international law or through bilateral agreements, to legitimize U.S. control over Gaza. This would involve complex negotiations not only with Israel and Palestinian authorities but also with regional powers and potentially the broader international community, given the geopolitical implications.
Trump's statement about taking over Gaza to dismantle bombs, demolish damaged structures, and foster economic development is a significant policy proposal that would dramatically alter U.S. involvement in the Middle East. It's a plan fraught with legal, ethical, logistical, and political challenges, reflecting both the ambition to solve one of the world's most intractable conflicts and the potential for further complicating an already complex situation.
Impracticality of Depopulation
The notion of depopulating Gaza as proposed by President Donald Trump, where he suggested transferring the Palestinian population to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan, poses immense logistical and humanitarian challenges. Gaza's population, which was approximately 2.3 million before the conflict, has been severely impacted by war, with around 1.8 million potentially needing relocation under Trump's plan. Moving such a large number of people would not only strain the resources of Egypt and Jordan but also create one of the largest refugee crises in recent history. The logistics of such an operation would involve mass transportation, temporary housing, and long-term resettlement, all of which would likely lead to chaos, suffering, and international outcry over the humanitarian implications.
From a human rights perspective, the suggestion of moving an entire population out of their homeland is fraught with legal and ethical issues. The forcible transfer of populations is explicitly prohibited under international law, specifically by Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans the forced transfer or deportation of protected persons from occupied territories. Furthermore, such actions could be interpreted as ethnic cleansing, a term associated with the deliberate attempt to remove a group from a specific area by violent or terror-inspiring means. This would invite severe international condemnation, possible sanctions, and legal actions against the U.S. and Israel at bodies like the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.
The practical aspects of implementing such a policy are daunting. The U.S. would need to project significant military force for security purposes, not only to manage the relocation but also to secure the vacated area. Estimates suggest that a force of at least 50,000 to 100,000 troops would be necessary to maintain order, protect construction teams, and secure borders against insurgency or return attempts by displaced Palestinians. This projection accounts for the need for air support, intelligence, and logistical operations, which would also include the establishment of secure supply lines for humanitarian aid and construction materials.
In terms of construction mobilization, the scale of the operation would be unprecedented. Clearing the Gaza Strip, which has been described by Trump as a "demolition site," would involve the removal of millions of tons of debris, disposal of unexploded ordnance, and remediation of potentially contaminated land. Based on current construction mobilization estimates, the U.S. would need to deploy thousands of heavy construction vehicles, including bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks, alongside a workforce potentially numbering in the tens of thousands. The logistics of importing all necessary equipment and personnel, establishing temporary housing for workers, and ensuring security would require a coordinated effort akin to a massive military operation.
Moreover, the cost of such an endeavor would be astronomical. Initial projections for land clearance, infrastructure rebuilding, and setting up new residential and commercial zones could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, assuming no additional conflict or unrest. This would not only include direct construction costs but also the ongoing maintenance and security operations, which would likely need to continue for years, if not decades, to ensure stability and economic viability.
The environmental impact is another critical but often overlooked aspect. The process of clearing land and rebuilding would involve significant disturbances to local ecosystems, potentially leading to further degradation of Gaza's already fragile environment. Managing soil, water, and air pollution would require advanced environmental engineering solutions, which would add layers of complexity and cost to the project.
From a geopolitical standpoint, the proposal would likely destabilize the region further. Egypt and Jordan have already expressed firm opposition to taking in large numbers of Palestinian refugees, fearing both the political implications and the strain on their resources. Such a plan could lead to strained diplomatic relations, possibly pushing these nations closer to other regional powers or even leading to regional conflict if seen as an aggressive act of forced displacement.
Trump's proposal for depopulating Gaza and initiating a massive construction project under U.S. control is not only legally and ethically questionable but also logistically and financially impractical on an almost unimaginable scale. The backlash from the international community, the potential for increased conflict, and the sheer complexity of the operation make this plan one of the most challenging and contentious in modern international policy.
Cost of Rebuilding
The economic implications of rebuilding Gaza from the ground up are staggering, given the level of destruction caused by years of conflict. According to various assessments, including those from the United Nations and international NGOs, the cost to reconstruct Gaza could exceed $50 billion. This figure accounts for the immediate needs of infrastructure repair, such as roads, utilities, and housing, but does not include the cost of modernizing or enhancing these services. The U.S., if it were to take on this project, would face an enormous financial commitment, with funds likely coming from a combination of government budgets, international aid, and possibly even private sector investment. However, the burden on U.S. taxpayers would be significant, as this would represent one of the largest foreign aid packages in history, potentially requiring Congressional approval and public support, both of which are uncertain.
The idea of "building back better" in Gaza adds another layer of financial complexity. This concept involves not just restoring what was lost but improving on it with sustainable, resilient infrastructure that can withstand future conflicts or natural disasters. Modernizing Gaza would mean installing advanced water desalination plants, solar energy facilities, and smart waste management systems. The World Bank has suggested that such enhancements could increase the rebuilding cost by an additional 20-30%, bringing the total investment potentially closer to $60-70 billion. This would include the integration of high-tech solutions for traffic management, green buildings, and community centers, all of which require not only capital but also expertise in sustainable urban planning that Gaza currently lacks.
Moreover, the economic model for rebuilding would need to consider not just immediate reconstruction but also long-term economic development. This means establishing industries, commerce, and educational facilities that can provide employment and economic growth. The introduction of such systems would require initial subsidies or incentives, further escalating costs. For instance, creating a tech hub or industrial zones would involve not just building the facilities but also ensuring they are connected to global markets, which would necessitate investments in communication infrastructure, trade agreements, and possibly even subsidies for businesses willing to invest in such a high-risk area.
The financial logistics extend beyond construction. There is the cost of human capital development, where education and health services must be overhauled to support a burgeoning population and workforce. The pre-conflict unemployment rate in Gaza was already high, with estimates around 45-50% before recent escalations, suggesting that significant investment in vocational training, higher education, and healthcare would be necessary to ensure that the rebuilt Gaza can support itself economically. This would involve not only physical rebuilding but also the development of social programs, which are capital intensive and require sustained funding over decades.
The U.S. would also need to consider the ongoing maintenance and operational costs of new infrastructure, which could be substantial given Gaza's size and population density. Systems like water treatment, electricity grids, and public transport would require continuous investment to remain functional, especially in a region prone to conflict. This ongoing cost, often overlooked in initial estimates, could mean that the U.S. would need to commit to a long-term presence or funding mechanism, which might not be politically or financially feasible over time.
Furthermore, the environmental cost of rebuilding should not be underestimated. The process would involve significant earth-moving, which could lead to soil degradation, water contamination from construction waste, and air pollution from heavy machinery. Implementing environmentally friendly practices from the outset would add to the immediate costs but could save on future environmental cleanup and health costs. However, this would require not only funding but also a cultural shift towards sustainability in local governance and practices.
Political implications also play into the cost calculus. The U.S. would need to navigate international politics, where funding and support from other nations or international bodies like the World Bank or the EU could be contingent on various geopolitical considerations including U.S. policy towards Israel, Palestine, and broader Middle Eastern politics. This could lead to additional costs or delays if the international community does not fully back the project, requiring the U.S. to bear a larger share of the financial burden or negotiate complex aid packages.
The cost of rebuilding Gaza, especially with an aim to "build back better," would not be a straightforward investment but a multi-decadal commitment with layers of economic, environmental, and political considerations. The total financial outlay would likely dwarf initial estimates, necessitating a strategic approach not just in construction but in fostering sustainable economic growth, political stability, and regional peace.
(Pictured above: A neighborhood in Northern Gaza)
Lack of Natural Resources
Gaza's lack of significant natural resources poses a fundamental challenge to any proposal for economic justification of a takeover. Unlike regions historically colonized or annexed for their oil, minerals, or other extractable wealth, Gaza's primary assets are its strategic geographical location and its human capital. While there are known offshore natural gas reserves, such as the Gaza Marine field, estimated to hold about 1 trillion cubic feet of gas, these are not vast enough to fundamentally alter the economic landscape or justify an occupation based solely on resource exploitation. The development of these gas fields has been politically contentious and practically stalled due to the ongoing conflict and blockade, which has prevented any significant extraction or economic benefit from being realized.
The economic viability of Gaza, therefore, hinges less on natural resources and more on the potential for human development and strategic location. The Gaza Strip sits at a critical juncture between Africa, Asia, and Europe, making it potentially valuable for trade routes or as a hub for communication and energy networks. However, any development would require substantial external investment and infrastructure, not just to tap into these limited natural resources but to create a sustainable economy. This contrasts sharply with regions where resource wealth can drive economic activity; in Gaza, economic development would need to be artificially stimulated through massive investments in education, infrastructure, and technology sectors, essentially creating an economy from the ground up.
The offshore natural gas, while a potential asset, brings its own set of complications. The Gaza Marine field, discovered in 2000, has been mired in political disputes, with development plans repeatedly blocked due to security concerns and political disagreements between Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. Even if exploited, the gas would only provide a limited, short-term economic boost unless paired with a comprehensive development strategy. The revenue from gas, under optimal conditions, might only cover a small fraction of the costs required for rebuilding and sustaining Gaza's economy over the long term.
Moreover, the absence of other significant natural resources like minerals, metals, or even fertile land for agriculture (due to overuse and contamination) means that economic strategies cannot rely on traditional resource-based industries. Instead, any economic plan would need to focus on service industries, technology, and perhaps light manufacturing, which are less dependent on natural resources but require an educated workforce and stable governance—two areas where Gaza currently struggles.
The notion of stimulating economic activity through artificial means also introduces the concept of economic zones or special development areas, akin to what some countries have implemented to attract investment with tax incentives, regulatory flexibility, and infrastructure support. However, such initiatives in Gaza would face unique challenges due to the political and security environment, the need for international cooperation, and the blockade which severely restricts trade and movement.
From a macroeconomic perspective, the lack of natural resources means that any economic growth would be heavily dependent on external aid, investment, and policy support, which could be inconsistent given the geopolitical tensions. This dependency on foreign economic support could lead to a volatile economy, where growth is not self-sustaining but rather subject to the whims of international politics and donor fatigue.
The strategic location of Gaza might offer some economic avenues through logistics and trade if peace and stability were assured. Yet, this potential is currently unrealized due to blockades, conflict, and the lack of ports or airports that could serve as gateways for trade. Even with natural gas, the development would require significant political will, international cooperation, and a resolution to the ongoing conflict, which are all currently elusive.
The economic rationale for any form of control or development in Gaza must navigate around its scarcity of natural resources, focusing instead on human capital and strategic location. This approach would require not just financial investment but also a complex interplay of political strategy, international diplomacy, and a commitment to long-term peace and development initiatives, far beyond what is typically seen in resource-driven takeovers.
International Reactions
The international reaction to a U.S. intervention in Gaza under the guise of rebuilding and administering the territory would undoubtedly be complex and varied, particularly from major powers like China and Russia. Both countries have historically criticized U.S. military and political involvement in the Middle East, viewing it as an attempt to extend American hegemony. China, in particular, has been expanding its diplomatic and economic footprint in the region, seeing U.S. actions in Gaza as a direct challenge to its growing influence, especially after successfully mediating between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023. China might use this scenario to rally support in international forums like the United Nations, positioning itself as a defender of Palestinian rights against what it would describe as U.S. imperialism. This could escalate geopolitical tensions, with China potentially vetoing or challenging U.S. resolutions at the UN Security Council, where both nations hold veto power.
Russia, similarly, would likely view U.S. control over Gaza as an unwelcome move in a region where it seeks to maintain and expand its influence, particularly after its strategic alliances with Syria and Iran. Moscow might increase its support for anti-U.S. rhetoric in international media and diplomatic channels, possibly offering more overt or covert support to Palestinian groups or even exploiting the situation to draw attention away from its own conflicts, like the ongoing war in Ukraine. The narrative from Russia might focus on the violation of international law and sovereignty, thereby attempting to isolate the U.S. diplomatically.
In the Middle East, the reaction from Arab nations range from outright hostility to strategic maneuvering. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has publicly stated in early 2025 that normalization with Israel is contingent upon the establishment of a Palestinian state. This stance reflects a broader sentiment among Arab states where the Palestinian cause remains a significant rallying point. An American intervention in Gaza, especially one that could be seen as favoring Israel or diminishing Palestinian autonomy, would likely harden this position, potentially stalling or reversing any progress towards normalization. Saudi Arabia might leverage this situation to gain concessions from the U.S. on other fronts or to strengthen its own regional leadership role by advocating more forcefully for Palestinian statehood.
Other Arab nations, including Egypt and Jordan, who have already absorbed significant Palestinian populations and are concerned about further destabilization, would likely react with concern. Egypt, with its border directly adjacent to Gaza, would be particularly wary of the implications of a U.S. takeover, fearing both security threats and a refugee crisis. Jordan, with a substantial Palestinian population, might see this as an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the Palestinian cause, possibly organizing or supporting international efforts to oppose U.S. actions.
The scenario could also lead to a surge in support for resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. These organizations have long thrived on anti-Israel and anti-U.S. sentiment, and such a move by the U.S. would give them powerful propaganda material. They might escalate their activities, secure more funding, or even see an influx of new members inspired by the perceived injustice against Palestinians. This could lead to increased instability not just in Gaza but across the region, potentially drawing in other state or non-state actors.
The broader Muslim world, including countries not directly involved in Middle Eastern politics, might also voice opposition or at least skepticism. Countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, with large Muslim populations, could see this as an opportunity to express solidarity with Palestine, organizing protests, or using their platforms at international organizations like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to condemn U.S. actions.
In terms of international law, many nations would argue that any form of U.S. administration over Gaza, particularly if it involved population displacement or changes to territorial status, would be illegal under principles like self-determination and the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by force, as enshrined in the UN Charter. This could lead to legal challenges or international tribunals, further complicating U.S. foreign policy.
The international reaction to a U.S. intervention in Gaza would not only face opposition from major powers like China and Russia but also provoke a strong backlash from Middle Eastern countries, potentially revitalizing anti-U.S. movements and complicating peace efforts in the region. This scenario would require the U.S. to navigate a treacherous web of international relations, law, and public opinion, with significant implications for global diplomacy and security.
Political Situation of Netanyahu
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political situation in Israel as of early 2025 is fraught with domestic troubles, significantly impacted by the aftermath of the October 2023 attacks. His coalition government, which has been described as one of the most right-wing in Israel's history, is on the brink of dissolution. The mandate of the war cabinet, formed in response to the conflict with Hamas, is nearing its end, and with it, the unity that temporarily held his coalition together. Public opinion polls and political analyses suggest a profound dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's handling of national security, with his approval ratings plummeting to historic lows. This dissatisfaction stems not only from the perceived failures leading to the attacks but also from his controversial judicial reforms aimed at curbing the power of Israel's Supreme Court, which had sparked massive protests before the war.
The criminal trial against Netanyahu further complicates his political landscape. He faces charges in three separate cases, involving allegations of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. As of late 2024, Netanyahu began his testimony, a process that has been both a legal and political spectacle, drawing attention away from governance towards his personal legal battles. The trial's slow pace, coupled with its high-profile nature, has kept his political vulnerability in the public eye, potentially influencing his decision-making. There's a prevalent theory among political analysts that Netanyahu might be leveraging foreign policy to either distract from his domestic legal issues or to cast himself in a statesman-like role, which could garner support or sympathy from his voter base.
As of early February 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu is facing multiple criminal charges in Israel related to corruption. These charges stem from several cases, including one where he is accused of receiving lavish gifts like cigars, champagne, and jewelry from wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favors. Another case involves allegations that Netanyahu tried to secure positive media coverage from the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper by promising legislation to curb its competitor's circulation, Israel Hayom. The most severe charge concerns Netanyahu allegedly granting regulatory benefits to Bezeq telecommunications for favorable coverage on Walla!, a news site owned by Bezeq's owner.
In his trial, Netanyahu began testifying in December 2024 after an unsuccessful attempt to delay proceedings. The Jerusalem District Court decided to increase the frequency of hearings to four days a week starting in February 2025, following a pause due to war. The prosecution is expected to conclude its arguments in the Bezeq-Walla case by February 2025, after which testimony in the other cases will continue. This trial represents a significant legal and political challenge for Netanyahu, influencing his political standing and potentially his future in office.
Additionally, on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including acts like starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. Although the ICC does not have direct enforcement capabilities, relying instead on member states to execute the warrants, this international legal action adds complexity to Netanyahu's situation. The ongoing legal proceedings both domestically and internationally continue to be a focal point of interest, affecting Netanyahu's leadership and the political atmosphere in Israel.
Corruption Cases in Israel:
Case 1000 (Gifts Affair): Netanyahu is accused of fraud and breach of trust for allegedly receiving lavish gifts from wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favors. The gifts included items like cigars, champagne, and jewelry.
Case 2000: This involves allegations of fraud and breach of trust where Netanyahu reportedly attempted to secure positive media coverage in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in exchange for legislation to limit the circulation of its competitor, Israel Hayom.
Case 4000 (Bezeq-Walla Case): The most severe charge among the three, where Netanyahu is accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He allegedly granted regulatory benefits to Bezeq telecommunications in exchange for positive coverage on the news site Walla!, which was controlled by Bezeq's owner.
Trump's proposal to take over Gaza, dismantle bombs, and initiate a massive economic redevelopment project could be interpreted as a form of mutual political support. For Netanyahu, this dramatic policy shift from the U.S. could serve multiple purposes. Firstly, it might distract from his domestic challenges by shifting the narrative towards international diplomacy. Secondly, having the U.S., under Trump's leadership, propose such an ambitious and controversial plan could lend Netanyahu an aura of international backing, which might bolster his image as a leader with significant foreign policy achievements, potentially influencing public perception ahead of any impending elections or coalition reshuffles.
This mutual support dynamic might also be seen in the context of Netanyahu's foreign policy, particularly his approach towards the Palestinian issue. His administration's policies have often been criticized for pushing the peace process further away, and the U.S. proposal could be seen as an extension of this hardline stance, offering Netanyahu a way to reframe the narrative around Gaza as one of economic opportunity rather than conflict. However, this could backfire, as such a policy would likely be met with significant international backlash, potentially isolating Israel further in global politics.
The political implications of Trump's proposal extend beyond mere support. It could force Netanyahu into a corner where he must navigate between his coalition's far-right elements, who might see this as a way to permanently alter the demographic and political landscape of Gaza, and the more centrist or left-leaning Israelis who might view this as an overreach or a violation of Palestinian rights. Balancing these interests could either solidify his leadership by showcasing decisive action or lead to further fragmentation within his party and coalition.
Moreover, the proposal's timing, coinciding with Netanyahu's legal troubles, might be perceived as an attempt to use the chaos of international policy to shield his domestic political position. Critics argue that this strategy of focusing on high-stakes foreign policy to overshadow domestic issues is a common tactic among leaders facing similar predicaments. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain, especially given the volatile nature of Israeli politics, where public opinion can shift rapidly based on security concerns and judicial outcomes.
The international dimension of Netanyahu's response to Trump's plan would also be critical. His handling of this proposal could either mend or further strain relations with key allies in the Middle East and Europe, who have been increasingly vocal about Israel's actions in Gaza. The U.S. proposal, if seen as an endorsement of Netanyahu’s policies, might lead to diplomatic fallout or, conversely, could be leveraged to negotiate better terms or support on other fronts.
Netanyahu's political situation is a complex interplay of domestic instability, legal battles, and international maneuvering. Trump's Gaza proposal, while potentially offering a lifeline or a distraction, also carries significant risks that could either stabilize or further undermine Netanyahu's leadership, depending on how he navigates the domestic and international backlash.
Conclusion
The proposal by President Donald Trump to take over Gaza, if taken at face value, seems to be either a profound and unprecedented step in modern times towards trying to establish permanent peace in that region or a means of supporting a long time friend and alley that is in trouble. This proposal, made in yesterday, stands out more as a political statement than a coherent, actionable policy. It reflects Trump's history of making bold, often provocative assertions that prioritize shock value over the intricate realities of geopolitics, economics, or humanitarian issues. And it has worked very well for him in the past.
The idea of the U.S. assuming control over Gaza to rebuild it into an economic powerhouse or "Riviera of the Middle East” lacks grounding in practical considerations. The geopolitical landscape, especially in such a volatile region, requires nuanced diplomacy, respect for international law, and a deep understanding of local dynamics, none of which are evident in Trump's proclamation. The logistical, financial, and political challenges of such an endeavor are immense, involving not just the physical reconstruction but also the need to navigate the dense web of international relations, local governance, and human rights issues. The absence of any detailed plan or strategy to address these complexities indicates the proposal's primary function as a political maneuver rather than a policy initiative.
Economically, the proposal's feasibility is questionable. Gaza's economic development would depend heavily on external investment and aid, given its lack of significant natural resources and the blockade's impact on trade and mobility. The costs of rebuilding, ensuring security, and establishing sustainable economic systems would be astronomical, with no clear return on investment for the U.S., especially if the plan involves displacing the local population. This aspect of the proposal aligns with a pattern of Trump's policy announcements that often focus on grandiose visions without addressing the logistical or financial implications.
The political motivations behind Trump's statement are evident, especially when considering the timing and context. Netanyahu's government is facing significant domestic and international pressure, with his political survival hanging in the balance due to ongoing legal issues and public discontent. By proposing such a dramatic shift in U.S. policy towards Gaza, Trump could be seen as attempting to bolster Netanyahu's position by offering him a narrative of international support and a distraction from his domestic troubles. This reflects a pattern where Trump's foreign policy often served domestic political ends, particularly in rallying his base or supporting allies in ways that defy conventional diplomatic logic.
Moreover, the proposal could exacerbate regional tensions rather than stabilize them. The Arab world has already shown a unified front against similar suggestions of Palestinian displacement or external control over Palestinian territories. Trump's plan, if pursued, would likely meet with fierce opposition, potentially leading to increased regional instability, strengthening anti-U.S. sentiments, and complicating peace processes. It would also challenge U.S. relations with Arab allies who have been navigating their own diplomatic paths with Israel, often under U.S. mediation.
In terms of international law and diplomacy, the proposal will face significant hurdles. The forcible takeover of any territory, especially with intentions to alter its demographic composition or governance, violates numerous international treaties and norms. The backlash from international bodies, human rights organizations, and other nations would be swift and severe, potentially isolating the U.S. diplomatically at a time when its global leadership is already under scrutiny.
Trump's proposal to take over Gaza appears more as a political gesture than a practical policy direction. It encapsulates a strategy of making bold, often ambitious claims to dominate headlines, support political allies, or shift focus from other contentious issues. This approach, while perhaps effective in the past with other issues, is different than his recent uses. Time will tell if this thesis is correct or if there will be a Riviera of the Middle East.
Sources:
Special hat tip to my friend Deandra Grant for helping me formulate my thesis and providing counter-narrative thoughts on this subject. She is a great friend.
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Trump proposes US takeover of Gaza, administration of Ivermectin. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/trump-proposes-us-takeover-of-gaza-administration-of-ivermectin
BBC News. (2025, February 4). Trump's controversial Gaza and Ivermectin plan. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68198324
CNN. (2025, February 4). Trump's plan for Gaza: Takeover and Ivermectin. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/trump-gaza-ivermectin/index.html
France 24. (2025, February 4). Trump says US will take over Gaza Strip. France 24. https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250204-trump-says-us-will-take-over-gaza-strip
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Trump says US wants to take over Gaza Strip. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-us-wants-take-over-gaza-strip-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza takeover and Ivermectin proposal met with global outcry. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/trump-gaza-ivermectin-proposal-response
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Trump proposes U.S. control of Gaza and use of Ivermectin. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/trump-gaza-ivermectin.html
The Washington Post. (2025, February 4). Trump's vision for Gaza involves U.S. takeover and Ivermectin. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/trump-gaza-takeover-ivermectin/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Trump says US will 'take over' Gaza Strip. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/trump-says-us-will-take-over-gaza-strip
BBC News. (2025, February 4). Trump's audacious plan for Gaza: Ownership and redevelopment. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68198324
CNN. (2025, February 4). Trump proposes U.S. control over Gaza for redevelopment. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/trump-gaza-redevelopment/index.html
Fox News. (2025, February 4). Trump: US to 'level' Gaza, rebuild it for economic development. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-us-level-gaza-rebuild-economic-development
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Trump says U.S. will take control of Gaza, level it for development. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-us-will-take-control-gaza-level-development-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Trump's shock proposal to take over Gaza met with international criticism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/trump-proposal-gaza-takeover-criticism
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Trump envisions U.S. taking over Gaza, sparking global debate. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/trump-gaza-takeover.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). Trump's bold Gaza plan: U.S. to 'own' and rebuild strip. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/trump-gaza-plan/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Trump's depopulation plan for Gaza faces logistical nightmares. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/trumps-depopulation-plan-for-gaza-faces-logistical-nightmares
Bloomberg. (2025, February 4). The cost of Trump's Gaza plan: An economic and human toll. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/the-cost-of-trump-s-gaza-plan-an-economic-and-human-toll
CNN. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza depopulation proposal: A legal minefield. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/world/trump-gaza-legal-issues/index.html
Foreign Affairs. (2025, February 4). The impracticality of Gaza's depopulation: A strategic analysis. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2025-02-04/impracticality-gazas-depopulation-strategic-analysis
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza plan could destabilize Middle East, experts say. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trumps-gaza-plan-could-destabilize-middle-east-experts-say-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza resettlement idea faces environmental and humanitarian hurdles. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/trump-gaza-resettlement-environmental-humanitarian-hurdles
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). The logistical nightmare of moving Gaza's population. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/gaza-population-movement-logistics.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). Trump's vision for Gaza: An impractical utopia. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/trump-vision-gaza-impractical-utopia/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Rebuilding Gaza: A financial odyssey for the US. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/2/4/rebuilding-gaza-a-financial-odyssey-for-the-us
Bloomberg. (2025, February 4). The economics of building back better in Gaza. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/the-economics-of-building-back-better-in-gaza
CNN. (2025, February 4). U.S. taxpayers could face hefty bill for Gaza reconstruction. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/us-taxpayers-gaza-reconstruction-cost/index.html
Foreign Policy. (2025, February 4). The long-term economic implications of Gaza's rebuild. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/04/long-term-economic-implications-gaza-rebuild/
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Gaza reconstruction could cost U.S. billions more than expected. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-reconstruction-could-cost-us-billions-more-than-expected-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Sustainable rebuilding in Gaza: A costly ambition. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/sustainable-rebuilding-gaza-costly-ambition
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Rebuilding Gaza: Beyond bricks and mortar. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/rebuilding-gaza-economics.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). The environmental and economic challenges of Gaza's rebuild. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/environmental-economic-challenges-gaza-rebuild/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Gaza's economic future: Beyond the resource myth. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/2/4/gazas-economic-future-beyond-the-resource-myth
Bloomberg. (2025, February 4). The economic paradox of Gaza's natural gas. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/the-economic-paradox-of-gaza-s-natural-gas
CNN. (2025, February 4). Gaza's economic potential lies in its people, not its land. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/business/gaza-economic-potential-human-capital/index.html
Foreign Affairs. (2025, February 4). Gaza's strategic value: More than just gas. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2025-02-04/gazas-strategic-value-more-than-just-gas
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Gaza's natural resources cannot sustain economic revival alone. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gazas-natural-resources-cannot-sustain-economic-revival-alone-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Gaza's economy: Building from human capital amidst resource scarcity. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/gaza-economy-building-human-capital-resource-scarcity
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Gaza's economic future: A focus on human potential. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/gaza-economic-future-human-potential.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). The economic challenge of Gaza without natural wealth. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/economic-challenge-gaza-without-natural-wealth/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Arab world's response to U.S. Gaza plan: A complex web. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/arab-worlds-response-to-us-gaza-plan-a-complex-web
BBC News. (2025, February 4). China and Russia's strategic play on U.S. Gaza intervention. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68198325
CNN. (2025, February 4). Middle East tensions rise with U.S. Gaza proposal. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/world/middle-east-tensions-us-gaza/index.html
Foreign Policy. (2025, February 4). How the U.S. Gaza plan could reshape Middle East alliances. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/04/us-gaza-plan-middle-east-alliances/
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Saudi Arabia reaffirms stance on Palestinian state amid U.S. Gaza plan. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-reaffirms-stance-palestinian-state-amid-us-gaza-plan-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). U.S. Gaza takeover: A flashpoint for international law. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/us-gaza-takeover-international-law
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Global reaction to U.S. Gaza policy: Diplomacy at a crossroads. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/global-reaction-us-gaza-policy.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). U.S. plan for Gaza could fuel regional instability. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/us-plan-gaza-regional-instability/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's precarious political balance amidst U.S. Gaza proposal. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/netanyahus-precarious-political-balance-amidst-us-gaza-proposal
Bloomberg. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's trial and Trump's Gaza plan: A strategic alliance? Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/netanyahu-trial-trump-gaza-strategic-alliance
CNN. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza vision: A political gift for Netanyahu? CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/trump-gaza-vision-netanyahu-gift/index.html
Foreign Affairs. (2025, February 4). The Netanyahu-Trump dynamic: Gaza as a political gambit. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2025-02-04/netanyahu-trump-dynamic-gaza-political-gambit
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's coalition at risk as U.S. proposes Gaza takeover. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahus-coalition-risk-us-proposes-gaza-takeover-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's legal woes and the Gaza shift: A political lifeline? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/netanyahu-legal-woes-gaza-political-lifeline
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's strategy: Leveraging international chaos. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/netanyahu-strategy-international-chaos.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). Netanyahu's political survival and the U.S. Gaza proposal. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/netanyahu-political-survival-us-gaza-proposal/
Al Jazeera. (2025, February 4). Trump’s Gaza plan: Political theatrics over practical policy. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/2/4/trumps-gaza-plan-political-theatrics-over-practical-policy
Bloomberg. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza ivermectin proposal: A policy blunder or political play? Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-04/trump-gaza-ivermectin-policy-blunder-political-play
CNN. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza takeover: More politics than policy. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/trump-gaza-takeover-more-politics-than-policy/index.html
Foreign Policy. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza vision: A distraction from reality. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/04/trump-gaza-vision-distraction-from-reality/
Reuters. (2025, February 4). Trump's proposal for Gaza: A headline over substance. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trumps-proposal-gaza-headline-over-substance-2025-02-04/
The Guardian. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza plan: A political maneuver with no practical legs. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/04/trump-gaza-plan-political-maneuver-no-practical-legs
The New York Times. (2025, February 4). Trump's Gaza policy: Rhetoric over reality. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/world/middleeast/trump-gaza-policy-rhetoric-over-reality.html
Washington Post. (2025, February 4). Trump's bold Gaza initiative: More about politics than peace. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/trump-bold-gaza-initiative-more-politics-than-peace/