Explainer: Can The U.S. Redevelop Gaza?

Representatives from Arab countries are set to meet in Cairo Tuesday to discuss proposals for a political, humanitarian and economic solution to the aftermath of war in Gaza. 

The meeting of Arab League nations comes after a month in which President Donald Trump proposed that the U.S “take over” Gaza, “own” it and rebuild the war-torn territory as a resort, with the current population leaving the area.

The proposals have been put forward, rowed back and accompanied by artificial intelligence-generated videos that were shared and mistaken for U.S. government policy.

Whether or not Trump intends to seriously pursue the project, it is by no means a done deal. Some U.S. administration officials are on the record as uncomfortable with the idea, and international law is pointing away from its feasibility. But here is what we know, what’s at stake and why the CRE world is talking about it.

Where Is Gaza And What Is Its Status?

The Gaza Strip is a territory 25 miles long and 7.5 miles across at its widest point, located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Israel to its east and north and Egypt to its south and west. 

It is the smaller of two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank. Palestine is recognized by a majority of UN member states as a country, but not by the U.S. 

With a population of 2.1 million people in an area of about 141 square miles, it is one of the most densely populated regions of the planet.

Gaza’s history is long, complex and contentious. Palestine has existed in nearly constant conflict with the state of Israel for the past 75 years and with the British and Ottoman empires before that. 

Gaza is considered occupied by Israel under international law, which Israel disputes. Israel controls six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its sea borders and airspace, and the movement of people and goods. The other land crossing is controlled by Egypt. 

The latest conflict between Gaza and Israel started in October 2023, resulting in the displacement of 1.9 million people within its border. There is currently a fragile ceasefire. 

Why Is The Redevelopment Of Gaza Being Discussed?

At a Feb. 4 press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the U.S. planned to “take over” and “own” Gaza, remove the more than 50 million tons of debris that have been created by the war, clear unexploded munitions and rebuild the area as a Riviera-style resort. 

Asked whether that would involve the U.S. occupying Gaza, Trump replied that the U.S. would take “an ownership position.” 

The plan would involve removing the entire population of Gaza and housing them in neighboring Egypt and Jordan, with no right to return. The U.S. said five or six settlements would be built for the people who would leave the area. 

The plan would take decades and cost tens of billions of dollars. 

What Was The International Reaction To The Proposal?

At the press conference, Netanyahu was highly supportive.

“He has a different idea, and I think it’s worth paying attention to this,” he said. 

But Arab leaders immediately rejected the plan, calling it a threat to stability in the region. In particular, the prospect of millions of people being relocated to Jordan and Egypt is seen as having the potential to severely destabilize those countries.

The proposal sparked the Tuesday meeting about alternatives.

In Europe, the plans were opposed by Germany and Russia. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that any solution to the situation in Gaza must avoid “ethnic cleansing.”

One U.S. poll found that less than 25% of Americans supported the plan.

Is The Idea Still On The Table?

The day after the announcement, U.S. officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked back the idea that Palestinians would have no right of return, saying that displacement of the population would be temporary.

Officials added that the proposal was part of a process to get governments in the region to “step up” and come up with their own proposal for a solution in Gaza. 

Since then, however, Trump has affirmed his original position, saying that those displaced wouldn’t want to go back to Palestine because the new homes built for them would be “beautiful.”

Can The U.S. 'Own' Gaza?

Gaza doesn't have control of its own borders, but it remains part of an internationally recognized state. Therefore, the only mechanism for the U.S. to take over the area would be via force and the deployment of troops, according to experts on international law and global security.

Trump disputed that on Truth Social.

“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting,” he wrote. “The Palestinians ... would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.

“No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed,” he added.

There is no peace deal between Palestine and Israel, and Trump's post presupposes a situation where a peace deal involves Palestinian leadership giving Gaza to Israel. That situation seems unlikely given the decades of conflict between the two sides. 

Has This Ever Been Done Before?

It isn't unprecedented for the U.S. to invest heavily in a region to fund postwar reconstruction. That was the case with the Marshall Plan, where the U.S. played a huge part in rebuilding Europe after World War II. And while the Allies divided up Germany in the immediate years after the war, the plan didn't envisage long-term U.S. occupation of other countries or the displacement of populations. 

What About That AI-Generated Development Pitch Video?

On Wednesday, Trump posted an AI-generated video on social media showing a vision of a redeveloped Gaza, which included a huge golden statue of himself, people in bikinis dancing and an AI Elon Musk walking around as cash falls from the sky.

The video was created by two tech entrepreneurs who have said that it was meant as satire and a way of testing their AI video creation software.

But because it was posted by Trump, with no context, commentary or attribution, it was mistaken by many for something created by the U.S. government. In the UK, for instance, it appeared on the front pages of several newspapers and was erroneously presented as an indication of U.S. government policy.