President Donald Trump said the US would take over the war-torn Gaza Strip and develop it economically after Palestinians are resettled elsewhere, actions that would upend decades of US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Trump unveiled his surprise plan, without providing specifics, at a joint press conference on Tuesday with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The announcement followed Trump‘s shock proposal earlier on Tuesday for the permanent resettlement of the more than two million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, calling the enclave — where the first phase of a fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage release deal is in effect — a “demolition site.”

Trump can expect allies and foes alike to strongly oppose any US takeover of Gaza, and his proposal raises questions whether Middle East power Saudi Arabia would be willing to join a renewed US-brokered push for a historic normalization of relations with US ally Israel.

The US taking a direct stake in Gaza would run counter to longtime policy in Washington and for much of the international community, which has held that Gaza would be part of a future Palestinian state that includes the West Bank.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Trump told reporters. “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.”

“We’re going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it’ll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of,” Trump said. “I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East.”

Asked who would live there, Trump said it could become a home to “the world’s people.” Trump touted the narrow strip — where, until the recently implemented ceasefire went into effect, Israel had been waging a military campaign in response to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, cross-border invasion and massacre across southern Israeli communities — as having the potential to be “The Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump did not directly respond to a question of how and under what authority the US can take over and occupy Gaza, a coastal strip 25 miles (45 km) long and at most 6 miles (10 km) wide, with a violent history. Successive US administrations, including Trump in his first term, had avoided deploying US troops there.

Several Democratic lawmakers quickly condemned the Republican president’s Gaza proposals.

Netanyahu, referred to a few times by Trump by his nickname, “Bibi,” would not be drawn into discussing the proposal in depth other than to praise Trump for trying a new approach.

The Israeli leader, whose military had engaged in more than a year of fierce fighting with Hamas terrorists in Gaza, said Trump was “thinking outside the box with fresh ideas” and was “showing willingness to puncture conventional thinking.”

Netanyahu may have been relieved that Trump, who forged close ties with the Israeli leader during his first term in the White House, did not pressure him publicly to maintain the ceasefire. He faces threats from far-right members of his coalition to topple his government unless he restarts the fighting in Gaza to destroy Iran-backed Hamas.

Some experts have suggested Trump sometimes takes an extreme position internationally to set the parameters for future negotiations. In his first term, Trump at times issued what were seen as over-the-top foreign policy pronouncements, many of which he never implemented.

A UN damage assessment released in January showed that clearing over 50 million tonnes of rubble left in Gaza in the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war could take 21 years and cost up to $1.2 billion.

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump repeated his call for Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab states to take in Gazans, saying Palestinians there had no alternative but to abandon the coastal strip, which must be rebuilt after nearly 16 months of a devastating war between Israel and Hamas terrorists.

But this time Trump said he would support resettling Palestinians “permanently,” going beyond his previous suggestions that Arab leaders had already steadfastly rejected.

Trump offered no specifics on how a resettlement process could be implemented but his proposal echoed the wishes of Israel’s far right and contradicted Democratic former President Joe Biden’s commitment against mass displacement of Palestinians.

The Saudi government, in a statement, stressed its rejection of any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land and said it would not establish relations with Israel without establishment of a Palestinian state.

Just two weeks into his second term, Trump was hosting Netanyahu at the White House to discuss the future of the Gaza ceasefire, strategies to counter Iran, and hopes for a renewed push for an Israeli-Saudi normalization deal.

Trump described the Gaza Strip as a longtime “symbol of death and destruction” and said Palestinians there should be housed in “various domains” in other countries. He said the US will take over the Gaza Strip, “level the site,” and create economic development but did not say how.

Trump, who had a career of developing real estate before getting into politics, cast a broad-brush, optimistic vision of a US takeover of Gaza while skirting details on how the United States would go about possessing the enclave and securing it.

He was also vague on where the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza would go, saying he was confident Egypt and Jordan would take many of them, despite those governments already rejecting the idea.

What impact Trump‘s proposals have on negotiations over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal was unclear, as Hamas has adamantly insisted it wants to remain in Gaza while Netanyahu has vowed to destroy the group and never allow it to again rule the territory.

Trump‘s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, played a key role in helping the Biden administration secure the long-sought Gaza deal before the Jan. 20 transfer of power in the US. The first phase has led to Hamas’s release of 18 hostages and Israel’s release of hundreds of jailed Palestinians.

“We’re in Phase 2 now,” Witkoff told reporters earlier. He said he met Netanyahu on Monday to discuss parameters for the policy negotiations and would meet the prime minister of Qatar, a mediator in the negotiations, in the US on Thursday.

The post ‘We’ll Own It’: Trump Says US Wants to Take Over Gaza Strip first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Canada, once a symbol of justice and democracy, has lost its moral standing. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the nation has not only distanced itself from Israel, but also compromised its own integrity. This is more than a mere policy shift — it is a fundamental collapse of democratic values, leaving Canada’s global reputation in question.

Canada’s support for Israel has always been inconsistent. Unlike other Western nations that swiftly recognized Israel in 1948, Canada abstained from the first attempt at Israel’s admission into the United Nations, contributing to its denial. Canada only granted full recognition after Israel successfully joined in 1949. This pattern of uncertainty continued over the decades, with frequent mixed signals and wavering commitments.

During critical moments, such as the First Intifada, Canada remained indecisive. While then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney defended Israel, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark condemned its actions, accusing Israel of using excessive force. This back-and-forth approach became a trademark of Canadian foreign policy: some support, lots of criticism, little consistency.

Some former Canadian leaders, like Stephen Harper, broke the cycle and demonstrated strong support for Israel. These instances, however, were rare. Under Trudeau, the relationship deteriorated further, shifting from lukewarm support to outright antagonism.

The Canada-Israel relationship arguably hit its lowest point following the horrific Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. 

Instead of offering unwavering support for Israel, Trudeau’s government condemned Hamas’ attacks but also urged Israel to exercise restraint. While recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, his administration expressed concern over civilian casualties and questioned aspects of its military response. 

To make matters worse, Canada supported a United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire without explicitly condemning Hamas.

For Israelis, this was more than a diplomatic failure — it was a betrayal. Trudeau’s response sent a clear message: Israel, as well as Jewish lives, were secondary to political expediency and the benefit of others.

Trudeau’s approach was not accidental; it reflected a strategic effort to balance competing political pressures in Canada and abroad. 

Internationally, he sought to position Canada as a mediator in the Middle East, even at the risk of straining its relationship with Israel. Domestically, his stance aimed to increase Canadian support, particularly of those Canadians critical of Israel’s actions. 

This approach has consequences. Canada-Israel trade, while still significant, has shown little growth in recent years. Security and defense cooperation have not advanced as they once did, while Israel has increasingly prioritized strategic partnerships with nations like India. 

In Canada, antisemitism has surged, and Trudeau’s government has done little to counter it. Since October 7th, hate crimes against Jews have skyrocketed by 670%. Synagogues, schools, and community centers have been targeted. Though Jews make up just 1.4% of Canada’s population, they are the targets of 70% of religious hate crimes.

The ultimate insult came when Canada signaled support for the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) move to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC selectively prosecutes Israel — but disregards human rights abuses in totalitarian regions like Iran and North Korea. The ICC’s actions reveal a blatant double standard, and by aligning with this hypocrisy, Trudeau positioned Canada on the wrong side of history.

Trudeau’s abandonment of Israel is part of a broader global shift, prioritizing political convenience over long-term alliances, a trend seen by leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron. This dangerous trend weakens the West at a time when authoritarian powers like China and Russia are expanding their influence in the Middle East.

Rebuilding trust will not be easy. Canada requires more than a policy adjustment; it needs a fundamental shift in leadership. The next prime minister must prioritize genuine partnerships based on shared values rather than political gain. Until then, the damage to Canada’s reputation remains.

With Trudeau stepping down, Canada has a rare opportunity to reset its foreign policy. The question now is whether the next leader will seize this chance, or allow the damage to deepen. Time will tell, but the stakes could not be higher.

The writer is a high school student from Great Neck, New York, passionate about advocacy and government. Through his writing and activism, he engages others in meaningful conversations about US politics, international relations, and Israel’s significance as both a homeland for the Jewish people and a key ally of the United States.

The post Is Justin Trudeau’s Resignation Good News for Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The main lesson of the surprise attack on the Assad regime by the rebels in Syria begins with an overall view of the strategic logic that drives the Middle East region. The lesson that many in the West refuse to accept is that the region is a perpetually unstable ecosystem.

An ecosystem is sensitive to any small change. The conceptual opposite of an ecosystem is a sophisticated railway system. In the railways, operational stability is planned and managed according to a linear engineering design. In an ecosystem, conversely, stability is the result of systemic equilibrium and is always both temporary and sensitive to changes.

Western culture, which aspires to establish a reality of sustainable stability in the region, finds it difficult to accept that the Middle East — which contains clans, tribes, and radical terrorist organizations — is a system that operates according to the dynamics of an ecological system.

The achievements of the Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in the Gaza Strip created new conditions that marked an opportunity for the Sunni rebels in Syria. They took their chance and attacked the Assad army and the Iranian Shiite militias, toppling the Assad regime in less than two weeks.

The constant search by many Middle East actors for new fighting opportunities lies in their fundamental perception of all situations of calm, even prolonged periods of apparent peace, as temporary.

The Turks dream of returning to the expanses of the Ottoman Empire. Aleppo once played a central economic and symbolic role in connection with the cities of the Harran Valley in Turkey, including the city of Shelly-Orfa. After Napoleon’s retreat from Egypt and the Land of Israel, Muhammad Ali, the ruler of Egypt, sought to extend his control from Israel to Aleppo. In the years 1839-1841, the Second Egyptian-Ottoman War took place in the region. With the help of a British expeditionary force, the Ottomans defeated the Egyptian army and pushed it from the Aleppo region to the outskirts of Sinai. Greater Syria, which extended to the Land of Israel, returned to Ottoman control. Turkey aspires to restore this regional order. From their perspective, the struggle began in Aleppo with the pursuit of Damascus, which contains important Sunni mosques.

There is much more involved here than a longing for the past. The past in this region drives religious and national struggles. I learned this during a visit to the Iranian pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. Opposite the visitors’ entrance, a map of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius was displayed across the entire wall. This was a kind of declaration that Iran aspires to return to that glorious past.

This kind of thinking is the driving force in the region — even for borders that have gained international validity, such as the Sykes-Picot borders. In the Middle East, nothing outweighs religious and national dreams. Those dreams never fade; they rather await the right opportunity.

For Americans who continue to seek a stable and sustainable regional order, it is worth suggesting that they treat the Middle East as if it were prone to hurricanes that erupt from the oceans and strike the region from a system of forces beyond human control.

This is not to say that no capabilities exist with which to restrain and delay conflicts in the regional chaos that characterizes the Middle East. But even arrangements that seem to promise a degree of stability and calm must be sensitive to the possibility of unexpected factors arising within the system.

Tactical note

The rebel offensive in Syria also teaches an important tactical lesson about the characteristics of the new war. As on October 7, we saw the outbreak of rapid battle movement involving civilian vehicles, including motorcycles, SUVs and vans, in mobile and agile groups.

No one who promises a demilitarized Palestinian state will be able to stop the Palestinians from purchasing motorcycles and SUVs. Israelis should give thought to the image of a raiding party on motorcycles and jeeps breaking into Israel by surprise from Tulkarem-Qalqilya to cut through the coastal strip. They must understand that the IDF, with all its strength, cannot guarantee overwhelming superiority in any possible context.

The IDF’s operations in Syria

Even the best intelligence experts had difficulty predicting the tsunami of the rebel assault that so swiftly toppled the Syrian government and its army.

There is a great lesson here in recognizing the limitations of human knowledge. We cannot pretend to know or be able to control events that occur suddenly and unpredictably. Precisely for this reason, the speedy organization by the Israeli leadership and the IDF of a proper response to the Syrian rebel surprise deserves special appreciation.

The IDF’s rapid operational response to developments in Syria was guided by three objectives:

• To strengthen the defense effort on the Golan Heights. It is worth noting that preparations for strengthening and expanding Israel’s defense systems in the Golan — through proactive operations east of the border fence — began in the Golan Division, with the support of the Northern Command, several months ago. These preparations enabled a rapid response to expand Israel’s defensive hold on vital areas in the buffer zone defined in the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement between Israel and Syria. The IDF also took control of the peaks of the Hermon Range in a location that allows for influence deep inside Syria and southern Lebanon.
• To destroy the numerous weapons left behind by the Syrian army in Syria. In an unprecedented attack by the Israeli Air Force and Navy, weapons systems were destroyed that, had they remained operational, could have been used against the State of Israel. This effort was carried out with rapid momentum and precise management.
• To project power in the face of the chaos and make clear that the State of Israel has a security-strategic interest in the developing trends in Syria and will not be content to passively look on. Prime Minister Netanyahu wisely emphasized that Israel will try not to interfere in the institutionalization of the new order being organized in Syria. However, Israel has an interest in influencing developments in southern Syria in the Yarmouk Basin, where, until recently, Shiite militias took part in efforts to smuggle weapons to the Palestinian Authority and towards the Kingdom of Jordan. Looking north from the Hermon area, Israel has a primary interest in preserving Hezbollah’s isolation in Lebanon and preventing any possibility of reinforcements or new weapons arriving via Syria.

The first two objectives have been achieved in an astonishing manner. The third is complex and will require dynamic monitoring combined with an international effort emphasizing Israeli interests.

The situation in Syria continues to be unprecedented in its uncertainty.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for 42 years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post The Future of Syria Is Uncertain; Here’s What Israel Should Be Doing (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.