CONTENT
Trump’s Controversial Gaza Proposal
US President Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a plan to buy the Gaza Strip and displace its residents has triggered strong reactions worldwide. While Turkey and Hamas have outright rejected the proposal, Moscow has taken a more measured stance, indicating that it is waiting for further details before making a final judgment.
The proposal, revealed during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, envisions Gaza as a new US-controlled territory. Trump described the plan as a solution to the ongoing conflict while aiming to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”
However, the idea of removing Gaza’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents has sparked outrage among Middle Eastern leaders, international organizations, and human rights groups.
Russia’s Cautious Approach
The Kremlin, through spokesman Dmitry Peskov, reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution but refrained from outright rejecting Trump’s plan. Speaking to the media, Peskov stated, “It’s worth waiting for some details here if we’re talking about a coherent plan of action.” He emphasized that the main issue in the proposal remains the forced displacement of the Palestinian population.
Peskov also neither confirmed nor denied that Russian President Vladimir Putin had spoken directly with Trump regarding the plan. However, Trump claimed on Sunday that he had discussed broader regional issues, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, with Putin.
Russia has maintained diplomatic ties with Hamas, despite the group being designated a terrorist organization by most Western nations. Throughout the conflict, Russia has hosted Hamas delegations multiple times, a move that aligns with its broader strategy in the Middle East.
Turkey and Hamas: Strong Opposition
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been vocal in his rejection of Trump’s proposal. While speaking in Malaysia, Erdogan stated, “We do not consider the proposal to exile the Palestinians from the lands they have lived in for thousands of years as something to be taken seriously.”
Erdogan, a longtime critic of Israeli policies, has insisted that instead of discussing forced displacement, Israel should be held accountable for the destruction caused in Gaza. He estimated the damage at over $100 billion and demanded compensation for the affected Palestinian population.
Meanwhile, Hamas, which governs Gaza, has declared Trump’s plan “doomed.” Khalil al-Hayya, a senior Hamas leader, made this statement during the 46th anniversary of the Iranian revolution in Tehran. He vowed resistance, stating, “We will bring them down as we brought down the projects before them.” Hamas has also warned that the plan could jeopardize ongoing ceasefire negotiations and hostage release agreements with Israel.
The Global Reaction
International reaction to Trump’s Gaza proposal has been largely negative.
- The United Nations has strongly criticized the idea, emphasizing the need for a two-state solution rather than forced displacement.
- European Union officials have condemned the plan, arguing that it violates international law and fundamental human rights.
- Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, have also rejected the proposal, warning that it could further destabilize the region.
Despite the backlash, Trump has remained firm in his stance, arguing that the proposal offers a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Future of Gaza and US Foreign Policy
While Trump continues to push his vision for Gaza, questions remain about its feasibility and international legitimacy. Analysts argue that the plan faces legal, diplomatic, and logistical challenges that could make its implementation nearly impossible.
The issue of Palestinian displacement remains one of the most contentious aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The global community continues to advocate for peaceful resolutions, while Trump’s proposal appears to further complicate an already volatile situation.
The coming weeks will be critical in determining how world leaders respond and whether diplomatic efforts can prevent further escalation.
