Trump: We “own” Gaza and rebuild, and drive them out

With a shock wave around the world, President Donald Trump has announced plans to dominate the Gaza area and relocate the remaining Palestinian residents to neighboring countries. The announcement has led to a wary of legal, financial, and geopolitical results, which represents the fundamental expansion of the U.S. Empire.

Gaza Take Over Plan

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington DC, where he met President Trump and discussed the progress in the Middle East. At a joint press conference, Trump surprised the observer by announcing an unprecedented plan. The United States “controls” Gaza and “owns”. After first deleting the Palestinian population, he supervises its “leveling” and then coaches.

This announcement was not an off -cuff statement. Trump read the statement:

The United States rules the Gaza area, and we work with it. We own it, dismantle all the dangers of the site and all other weapons, level the site, and remove the destroyed buildings. It is a paralyzed and creates economic development that supplies unlimited work and housing to local people. Do something and do something different. I can't go back. When you come back, it will end in the same way as 100 years.

The announcement shows a sharp break from Trump's previous campaign messages, emphasizing that new foreign conflicts will be avoided. Instead, this policy suggests a dramatic US and economic commitment that can threaten the U.S. forces in one of the world's most unstable areas.

Gaza's “help”: forced displacement

The United States has rebuilt the “work” place, but the rest of the survivors on the flying area must come out.

When asked if the Palestinians had “rights” to return to Gaza after reconstruction, President Trump rejected the possibility. At first glance he seems to be biased: “Why do they want to go back? That place was hell … no one could live there.”

One of the reporters is asked to interrupt Trump. “It's their house, sir! Why are they leaving?”

The president continues to suggest that Gaza Palestinians can relocate to Jordan, Egypt, and other unspecified countries. Trump argued that a “large amount of money” from a “wealthy country” would be used to provide funds to their third country. He has promised a “high -quality house” for a Palestinian in a maximum of six designated areas, away from his hometown, which was devastated in the war.

Trump emphasized that if they stayed, Gaza would “die.”

(You) can build something like a beautiful town like a place where (Gazan) does not die. Gaza guarantees that they will die. The same will happen again. It happened over and over again. And as you stand there, it will certainly happen again.

Trump enclosed this plan as a generous act of help. He ignored the death of the private sector as a mere example of “dying”, rather than being “killed” or escaping. Before the war occurred in October 2023, the population of the Gaza area was about 2.1 million. At a press conference, Trump mentioned 1.7 to 1.8 million people.

Healthcape by design

Last week, Trump called Gaza a “demolition site.”

The flying land has experienced large -scale destruction for long -term conflicts. Recent analysis shows that about 69 % of Gaza buildings have been damaged and considerable numbers have been completely destroyed. The northern part of Gaza was hit especially violently. The latest estimates suggest that 70-80 % of all buildings in this area have been damaged or destroyed. The devastation contains residential areas, schools, hospitals, and essential infrastructure, making the huge section in the area unmanned.

This extensive destruction is a direct result of a relentless Israel bombing and the United States.

Since October 7, 2024, the United States has provided more than $ 17.9 billion military assistance to Israel. With the approval of the Biden, the Biden administration has supplied Israel with precision guidelines, heavy shells, and bunker buster ammunition. These weapons have helped a large -scale crushing of Gaza infrastructure. The administration has consistently assembled the transfer of these weapons as supporting Israel's “limited” military operations against Hamas. However, the devastating scale led to an increase in accusations from many countries and international human rights organizations. They claimed that these weapons were used to worsen the suffering of civilians and systematically level the entire district.

Since the destruction combined with the number of deaths of large -scale civilians is extremely extreme, South Africa filed a Genocide lawsuit against Israel in December 2023 in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the 1948 Geno Side Treaty. I blamed that I was violating. ICJ issued a provisional measures in January 2024 and ordered Israel to prevent Genocide and allow humanitarian assistance. Israel denied the accusation and called them “unfounded.”

Gaza's “ownership” price

Trump's call calling for the United States to undertake Gaza's control has been one of the most fundamental expansion of US military involvement in the Middle East in decades. Potential results include:

Long -term military occupation: Securing and reconstruction of Gaza requires a wide range of US and must last long.

Financial burden: The assumption of Gaza in Trump's “Liviera in the Middle East” may be costly $ 10 billion.

Diplomatic fallout: This plan will be alienated in Europe and the United States of the United States in the Arab world. They are more and more criticized for the unwavering support for Israel's military operations.

Legal violation: Palestinians forced evacuation, the United States is a direct violation of the international law, especially the Geneva Treaty Article 49 (ratified by the U.S. Senate). It will lead to diplomatic isolation and legal tasks.

Risk of increasing terrorism: Gaza's occupation in the United States can cause retaliation attacks from local extremist groups. It will increase the threats to American staff around the world and profits.

The idea that the United States “owns” is not just reckless, but a geopolitical catastrophe in production. Perhaps it plunges the United States into another bog, reflecting the worst failure of the past intervention, but is even larger. The financial, military, and moral cost of such efforts is amazing. Beyond that, it will eroded most of the most reliability that the United States still has in this area.

Do you follow the money?

One name continues to emerge as Analyst is in a hurry to understand the sudden impulses of “owning” Gaza and wants to expel them. The powerful parent Israeli lobby has long formed our foreign policy. This latest movement is wondering how much influence the money is.

Since 2020, parent Israel's profit organization has poured more than $ 230 million into Trump's political machinery. The billionaire's Million Father's Protection of Meliam Adelson's protected $ 115 million poured $ 215 million, lacking the $ 14 million of the AIPAC Allies Jewish.

Of course, there is no “direct” evidence that AIPAC's deep pockets are related to Trump's Gaza Plan. It is only a mysterious consistency of the policy with the largest donor priority.

Business chance

But the economic interest on Trump's proposal does not end. In January, Trump describes Gaza as “interesting” and calls “the best weather” in “the best weather”. “You should be rebuilt in another way,” he added, “You can do some great things in Gaza.”

Trump's remarks reflected the remarks of his son -in -law and former senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who described Gaza as a “valuable waterfront property” in February 2024. Kushner suggested that in the right situation, it could be an economic hub. “From Israel's perspective, we will do our best to move people and clean it,” he said.

Since Trump and Kushner are both deeply linked to real estate development, the so -called rebuilding initiatives skewer whether it is a business opportunity that is disguised as a foreign policy.

Interestingly, this rapid proposal was noticeable from the rhetoric of Trump's campaign. Perhaps this was a strategic decision to avoid alienating voters who might not be dissatisfied with such thoughts.