Will Gaza Be the Location of the Next Trump Tower?

Will Gaza Be the Location of the Next Trump Tower?

Gaza has 25 miles of coastline along the Mediterranean Sea, which make it prime real estate and a great location for a future Trump Tower. There is only one problem, 1.8 million Palestinians.

Former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner reportedly played a key role in President Donald Trump’s idea for the U.S. to take over Gaza, remove the Palestinian population, and transform it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In a speech at Harvard, Kushner hinted at the concept, stating:

“Gaza’s waterfront property—it could be very valuable if people would focus on building up livelihoods.”

He added:

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but I think from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.”

David Friedman, Trump’s former U.S. ambassador to Israel, has expressed similar ideas. While unconventional, proposals like purchasing Greenland or expanding U.S. territories have been discussed in the past. Some argue that Gaza could become a U.S. territory, similar to Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Case for the U.S. Taking Over Gaza

Strategic Control in the Middle East

• The U.S. gains a key military and geopolitical foothold in a volatile region.
• A U.S.-controlled Gaza would weaken Iran and extremist groups, denying them a staging ground for attacks on Israel.
• It would strengthen U.S. influence over Egypt and Israel, securing trade routes and regional stability.

Preventing Future Wars

• A U.S.-administered Gaza could serve as a buffer zone between Israel and hostile actors.
• U.S. governance would permanently dismantle Hamas, reducing the threat of rocket attacks and militant uprisings.
• An American-led reconstruction effort could improve living conditions, reducing desperation and radicalization.

Humanitarian Justification

• After years of war and destruction, Gaza needs stability—the U.S. could provide that.
• Some argue the U.S. could offer Palestinians citizenship or special status, allowing them access to better economic opportunities (though in reality, this is unlikely).

Economic Development – The Most Compelling Argument

• Gaza’s 25 miles of coastline along the Mediterranean Sea, is prime real estate—under U.S. investment, President Trump believes it could become “the Dubai of the Mediterranean.” The U.S. could build a major port and naval base, boosting regional trade.
• American companies could develop offshore gas fields, making Gaza self-sustaining.

A U.S.-Led Peace Plan

• The U.S. could create a neutral, demilitarized Gaza, allowing for Palestinian self-governance under American and United Arab Emirates oversight. This could lay the foundation for a broader Israel-Palestine peace deal.

How Would This Actually Happen?

The biggest challenge is removing the existing Palestinian population. Gaza currently has 1.8 million people, most of whom live in extreme poverty. President Trump’s plan calls for relocating them to other countries.

Step-by-Step Process:

1. The U.S. leads a NATO-backed military intervention under the pretext of peacekeeping and counterterrorism.
2. Hamas is dismantled, and a transitional U.S./UAE administration is established (similar to post-WWII Japan/Germany).
3. Gaza’s land is valued at approximately $182 billion based on real estate prices. This asset could be leveraged to finance the plan through the World Bank or other lenders. [Gaza is about 365 square kilometers (141 square miles). Land prices vary significantly, but urban land in prime areas can range from $200 to $1,000+ per square meter. If we take an average of $500 per square meter, the land value alone would be around $182 billion.
4. The U.S. “funds” a massive reconstruction effort, by mortgaging Gaza with the World Bank, IMF, other possible lenders. Current reconstruction estimates put the cost at $90-$100 billion over 10 years. The US integrates Gaza into global trade.
5. Land is leased to developers for investment (e.g., real estate, oil, and gas leases). As an incentive, over time, Gaza could be granted special status (like Puerto Rico), with eventual self-rule under U.S. protection.
6. Each Palestinian family would be offered $100,000 USD, (This sum is roughly equivalent to 100 years’ worth of the current average annual income in Gaza), to relocate to Egypt, Jordan, or another Arab state willing to accept them. Under this plan, with each Palestinian family receiving $100,000 USD to relocate; instead of being an economic burden, they become a $180 billion economic stimulus for their host countries.
7. The U.S. could pressure countries to accept Palestinian refugees by threatening to cut foreign aid if they refuse. This creates both an incentive ($100,000 per refugee) and a stick,  loss of US Aid).
8. Neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority would govern Gaza. Instead, it would be administered through a UAE/U.S. partnership, which already exists to govern Gaza after Israel withdraws.
9. The U.S. would argue to the UN and international community that Hamas’s military defeat should result in territorial and governance consequences, similar to historical precedents. Rebuilding Gaza in its previous form, they would argue, would only perpetuate conflict. They would argue it is time to do something different.
10. Palestinians would be given several choices. First, stay and hope for the best with no guarantees, perhaps remaining as refugees. Take potential jobs rebuilding Gaza if possible. Eventually there would be higher paying jobs in Gaza. That would improve the standard of living in the country. Second, accept $100,000 and relocate. Even use part of $100,000 to invest in the new Gaza. Because a choice was given, the U.S. and Israel could not be accused of creating a Nakba (catastrophe) or ethnic cleansing.
11. International Backlash and U.S. Veto Power:
    • The UN and other parties would condemn the U.S. actions (similar to Russia’s annexation of Crimea), but with veto power in the UN Security Council, the U.S. could block any major actions.

The Counterargument: Why This Idea Won’t Work

Despite potential strategic and economic benefits, major political, military, economic, and ethical barriers make this plan highly problematic.

1. Legal and Ethical Challenges

• Forcibly removing Palestinians—even with financial incentives—would still be considered ethnic cleansing. Any “choice” to leave would be seen as forced displacement rather than voluntary relocation.
• No Arab country would cooperate in accepting Palestinian refugees or investing in the project, fearing accusations of being complicit in such actions.
• The international community would strongly oppose the plan, leading to diplomatic isolation for the U.S. and Israel.
• The UN and EU would likely condemn it, though U.S. veto power could prevent formal action.

1. Military and Security Risks

• Gaza’s dense population and history of resistance would make U.S. control highly challenging.
• Hamas, with existing weapon stockpiles and potential external support, would shift its attacks from Israel to U.S. forces in Gaza.
• The U.S. underestimates the emotional and historical connection Palestinians have to the land—many would resist relocation, regardless of financial incentives.  Palestinians  who remember the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948 would not want to participate in a modern version of it.
• A U.S. occupation would face constant armed resistance, similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Hamas and other militant groups would not simply disappear—they would regroup and gain further support, possibly with backing from Iran or other U.S. adversaries.
• Instead of preventing terrorism, a U.S. occupation of Gaza could unify extremists globally against American interests, increasing terrorist threats.

1. The Failure of U.S. Nation-Building Elsewhere

• The U.S. has already failed to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, despite spending trillions of dollars  and suffered significant American casualties in terms of deaths and disabilities.
• Military intervention has historically worsened insurgencies rather than stabilizing regions.

1. Economic and Logistical Barriers

• For large-scale private investment to materialize, long-term political stability is required—something that remains highly uncertain in Gaza.
• The idea that Gaza could become “the next Dubai” ignores that Dubai was built on political stability and oil wealth, neither of which exist in Gaza.
• No investor would risk money in Gaza until terrorism and resistance were fully eliminated.
• U.S. companies would hesitate to invest in a conflict zone with ongoing security risks.
• Luxury condos and resorts don’t attract investors in active war zones.

1. The Cost to the U.S. Would Be Enormous

• U.S. citizens/taxpayers would not support another Middle East occupation, particularly after the costly, long-term military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• It goes against President Trump’s America first agenda.

1. International and Regional Backlash (Though Trump Might Not Care)

• Arab nations, even those that normalized ties with Israel, would strongly oppose a U.S. takeover of Gaza.
• The UN and EU would condemn it, further isolating the U.S. diplomatically.
• China, Russia, and Iran would exploit the situation, China would feel justified in taking Taiwan, and Russia taking Ukraine.

Final Assessment

While some may see turning Gaza into a U.S.-controlled, Dubai-style economic hub as strategic and profitable, the reality is far more complex. The legal, military, and humanitarian challenges make this plan extremely challenging.

Rather than the possibility of another failed U.S. military intervention, a viable solution would require regional diplomacy, economic development with local leadership, and a long-term peace strategy that respects Palestinian sovereignty.