News Desk
Confusion, opportunism, and a dangerous disregard for international law—such is the essence of Broker Trump’s latest vision for Gaza. With the flair of a real estate mogul peddling distressed properties, Donald Trump has floated a plan to “buy and own” Gaza, as if the war-torn enclave were a foreclosed asset waiting for the highest bidder.
His comments have been met with a mix of elation and bewilderment in Israel, particularly among the extreme right, which has long harbored aspirations of displacing Palestinians and colonizing the land. But beneath the rhetoric lies a troubling reality: this is not just another Trumpian fantasy. It is an explicit endorsement of ethnic cleansing, a strategy long rejected by international law but now dangerously close to being normalized.
At the center of this dystopian real estate scheme stands Contractor Netanyahu, the embattled Israeli prime minister whose political survival depends on keeping the war machine running. The proposed three-stage ceasefire between Hamas and Israel has already exposed deep rifts in Netanyahu’s fragile coalition, with far-right figures like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and former National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir threatening to derail any effort that does not end with Israel’s total annexation of Gaza. Smotrich, a self-proclaimed fascist, has made no secret of his vision: Gaza must be cleansed, its Palestinian inhabitants expelled, and Israeli settlers installed in their place.
Trump’s remarks have thrown fuel onto this fire, providing an ideological blueprint for Israeli ultranationalists who see Washington’s backing as a green light for their most extreme ambitions.
According to a poll by Israel’s Channel 13, 72 percent of Israelis support the idea of U.S. control over Gaza, though only 35 percent believe it will happen. The proposal, vague and hastily concocted, raises more questions than answers. Would Trump seek to override decades of U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution? Would Washington deploy troops to enforce its new territorial claim? And crucially, where exactly does he propose to relocate 2.3 million Palestinians who have already been bombed into displacement?
Broker Trump is not the first to entertain fantasies of selling off Gaza as if it were an inconvenient property deal. In 1967, then-Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol toyed with similar notions following Israel’s capture of Gaza during the Six-Day War. Eshkol’s plan to displace the Palestinian population and annex the territory failed, primarily due to logistical challenges and international resistance.
Today, Netanyahu finds himself in a similar position: buoyed by ideological fervor but constrained by geopolitical realities. Unlike Eshkol, however, Netanyahu’s hands are already stained with war crimes, his government overseeing a military campaign that has reduced Gaza to rubble and claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives.
The International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel must take measures to prevent genocide. Netanyahu, however, appears to be doing the opposite.
Trump’s land grab rhetoric has been met with global condemnation, though the response from key geopolitical players has been uneven. In the Global South, opposition has been resolute.
Brazil, under President Lula da Silva, has condemned the plan as a violation of international law and an assault on Palestinian sovereignty.
India, despite its growing alignment with Israel, has remained conspicuously silent on this grave situation, undermining its proclaimed role as the voice of the Global South. While discussions in Tel Aviv have floated the idea of relocating Palestinians to Saudi Arabia, New Delhi has maintained a muted response, likely balancing its deepening ties with Israel against its entrenched interests in Israel and occupied territories.
European powers, including France and Germany, have issued sharp rebukes against Trump’s remarks, denouncing the move as a violation of international law. Meanwhile, U.S.’s closest allies in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, and Jordan, have all condemned the plan, rejecting any forced displacement of Palestinians.
China, reinforcing its stance on sovereignty and territorial integrity, dismissed the proposal, asserting that Gaza belongs to the Palestinians, not to the law of the jungle, and urged adherence to international law for a just resolution.
Russia, while navigating its own geopolitical tensions, has outright rejected Trump’s plan.
For Netanyahu, Trump’s intervention is both a lifeline and a liability. On one hand, it consolidates the support of his far-right allies, making it harder for them to abandon his government. Ben-Gvir, who had threatened to resign over the ceasefire deal, now sees an opportunity to push his agenda even further. Smotrich, initially skeptical of Netanyahu’s concessions, has been reassured that the war will resume once the first phase of the ceasefire is complete.
But Trump’s plan also undermines Netanyahu’s own balancing act. If the war escalates and the ceasefire collapses—an increasingly likely scenario—it will not be Netanyahu calling the shots but the war-hungry extremists in his coalition. And with Trump in The White House, Netanyahu risks becoming an expendable contractor in Trump’s transactional worldview, one who may be discarded if he ceases to serve American strategic interests.
The most chilling aspect of this entire episode is that it treats Palestinian lives as a bargaining chip. The talk of “temporary relocation” is nothing more than a euphemism for forced displacement—an explicit war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Trump’s rhetoric, even if unserious or ill-conceived, emboldens those who seek to erase Palestinians from their homeland. Netanyahu, ever the political survivor, will exploit this moment for his own ends, whether that means prolonging the war, stalling international diplomatic efforts, or further entrenching apartheid policies in the West Bank.
But there are no buyers for this deal—at least not among those who still believe in international law, human dignity, or the basic principles of justice.
Gaza is not for sale, and its people are not pawns in a game played by war criminals and demagogues. If history has shown anything, it is that colonial fantasies of land theft and ethnic cleansing do not lead to peace, only to further resistance, instability, and ultimately, accountability for those who perpetuate such crimes. Just as India’s struggle against British colonial rule endured for 300 years, sustained by the unwavering belief in self-determination, so too will the Palestinian resistance persist—because history does not remember the oppressor’s proclamations, only the resilience of those who refuse to be erased.
