Whether during the 1948 creation of Israel or in the 1967 Six-Day War, Palestinians have had a history of forcible, permanent displacement. As of the most recent Gaza War, otherwise known as the Iron Sword War, in 2023, two plans have been proposed for the reconstruction of Gaza: one suggested by the U.S. President Donald Trump and another by the Arab states. President Trump’s overall plan seeks to rebuild Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East”, which would force millions of Palestinians into mandatory removal from their homes. The Arab states have put forth an alternative plan, calling for a creation of a Palestinian governing committee for Gaza. When the Gaza War concludes, we must ask: which plan has more bargaining power, and how will that ultimately shape how Gaza will emerge postwar?
Trump’s Riviera Plan
In February 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a Gaza Strip proposal to restore peace, coining to rebuild Gaza as the “Riviera of the Middle East”. Trump’s plan calls for a permanent removal of nearly 2 million Palestinians, where Trump frames it as for the Palestinians benefit, as much of Gaza is unlivable. However, Trump has been ambiguous as to how he would conduct a mass exodus of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians themselves have not expressed agreement with this plan. In his statements, Trump has expressed interest in having Egypt and Jordan take in the displaced Palestinian refugees and offer them a new, permanent home. In his plan, the United States would send troops to the Strip, taking ownership over the territory to rebuild the riviera. The new construction would include housing, mimicking a town and making a geopolitical transformation of the Middle East.
One of the primary goals in this project is to turn it into a job-creating urban regeneration project, with Trump stating: “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a great job with it too”. Trump further outlines the plan, detailing how the US would dismantle any unexploded bombs and weapons on site, level the site, remove wrecked buildings, and create an “economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area”. Before construction can even begin, mountains of debris must be cleared, water and powerlines must be fixed, and critical institutions like schools, hospitals and shops must be restored.
Arab States
As an alternative to Trump’s Riviera plan, the Arab states have constructed a different plan, issuing a joint statement in early March 2025 at an emergency Arab League summit: “We, the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom welcome the Arab initiative of a Recovery and Reconstruction Plan for Gaza”. Their proposal is rooted in establishing political and security frameworks that are agreed upon by both Israelis and Palestinians, which they believe can help restore long-term peace for both. Furthermore, their statement included the promise of a sustainable improvement of “catastrophic living conditions” for the people residing in Gaza.
Drafted by Egypt and endorsed by Arab leaders, this plan has suggested for Gaza to be temporarily governed by a committee of independent experts and technocrats where Hamas members can not be a part of the governing body. Egyptian and Jordanian security agencies would be asked to train Palestinian government troops who would patrol the Gaza territory. The committee’s primary role is to oversee humanitarian aid and provide guidance for Gaza’s affairs under the Palestinian Authority's supervision. In addition to this committee, the Arab initiative has asked the United Nation to invite international peacekeepers to be deployed within the territory, enforcing peace and safety. Overall, the cost for this five-year reconstruction plan falls around $53 billion and will not displace any Palestinians from the territory, an aspect opposite to Trump’s plan.
Beyond suggesting this initiative, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates outright rejected Trump’s Riviera plan at the emergency summit. They believe that their plan can offer an alternative and satisfy the conditions desired by each Arab state: avoiding the displacement of Palestinians, securing the Strip by consolidating the ceasefire agreement, and expelling Hamas from Gaza’s governing body. Despite Trump’s proposal, the Arab states asked the US to partner with them in their efforts to restore peace, to which the US and Israeli government rejected the declaration. The first reconstruction efforts would begin by removing debris and immediately constructing mobile housing and healthcare units for the Palestinians. Allowing the Palestinians to remain in Gaza, the territory would be divided into seven zones for the population to be temporarily transferred to allow for the rebuilding of homes, infrastructure, and facilities.
Which Plan has more Bargaining Power?
With two contrasting plans proposed, one holds more bargaining power than the other. Many Arabs believe that Trump is seeking more opportunistic commercial gains rather than considering the Palestinians. Trump’s Riviera plan calls for a forced, mass removal of Palestinians, but the Geneva Convention has forbidden such transfers from occupied territories, signifying that Trump’s idea would conflict with international law. Another critical component to Trump’s plan to remove the Palestinians is hindered by the fact that Egypt and Jordan are not onboard with housing the potential, future refugees. Jordan has expressed concern that the Hashemite Kingdom could be destabilized, and Egypt fears that the influx of refugees could bring in Hamas sympathizers of the Sunni Islamist Muslim brotherhood. Additionally, the US president’s plan has been rejected by several US allies like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Arab states, to name a few. In terms of practicality, the plan’s rejection by Arab states threatens the plan’s feasibility, as the Arab countries’ money and land are critical for the plan to succeed.
Contrarily, the Arab initiative of a Recovery and Reconstruction Plan for Gaza has been rejected by the US President Trump and Israel, but endorsed by Arab leaders. Moreover, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and Britain have all approved the plan and deemed it as realistic in its goals. However, one caveat in ensuring this initiative will succeed is that Israel would need to allow humanitarian aid into the strip, including equipment and materials for reconstruction. Additionally, Israel would need to work with the Arab partners to deliver basic services to the Palestinians.
Based on the acceptance and feasibility of each plan, it appears that the Arab states’ proposal holds more bargaining power over the future of Gaza. As such, what does it hold for the future of Gaza? Assuming the plan can obtain all the necessary resources to ensure its success, the Arab states’ proposal can offer a way out of displacement proposals and restore peace in the Middle East.