French President Emmanuel Macron has strongly criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to take control of Gaza and relocate its residents, calling it disrespectful and politically unfeasible. In a recent interview with CNN, Macron expressed deep concerns over Trump’s vision for the war-torn region, particularly his suggestion that Palestinians could be moved to Jordan or Egypt while he rebuilds Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Trump’s Controversial Gaza Proposal
Trump’s proposal, announced during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has drawn widespread criticism. He envisions transforming Gaza into a prosperous economic hub, yet his approach to relocation and reconstruction has raised ethical and legal questions.
“You cannot say to 2 million people, ‘okay, now guess what? You will move,’” Macron stated, underlining the impracticality of forcibly relocating millions of Palestinians.
Macron’s frustration was evident when he dismissed the idea that Gaza’s future could be treated like a business deal. “The right answer is not a real estate operation; this is a political operation,” he stressed, emphasizing that the region’s challenges cannot be solved by commercial redevelopment alone.
Trump’s Justification: Economic Growth and Stability?
Despite backlash, Trump has remained steadfast in his vision, arguing that Gaza could become a thriving economic center. He maintains that residents of the enclave are “living in hell” and suggests that rebuilding it would be beneficial for both regional peace and prosperity.
“Nobody wants to stay there,” Trump declared during his press conference, implying that Palestinians would be eager to leave if given the opportunity. He also referenced his experience in real estate, hinting at a grand-scale redevelopment that would align with his previous business ventures. However, he clarified that he would not personally develop properties in Gaza, portraying his involvement as purely strategic rather than financial.
The former president further suggested that Jordan and Egypt should take in Palestinian refugees as part of his vision for stability. When Jordanian King Abdullah II hesitated to embrace the plan, Trump initially threatened to cut off U.S. aid but later softened his stance. In contrast, Abdullah announced a humanitarian initiative to provide medical aid to 2,000 sick Palestinian children, underscoring his commitment to assisting Gaza in ways that respect its people’s rights and dignity.
Emmanuel Macron’s Strong Stance Against Forced Displacement
Macron’s condemnation of Trump’s proposal is not surprising, given France’s long-standing commitment to diplomatic solutions in the Middle East. His remarks came just before the artificial intelligence summit held in Paris, where he highlighted France’s support for a peaceful resolution in Gaza.
“I don’t believe that such a massive operation targeting civilian people is the right answer,” Macron stated, taking a clear stand against Trump’s vision. He also voiced concerns over Netanyahu’s handling of the ongoing war in Gaza following the Hamas-orchestrated attack on Israel more than a year ago.
While Macron did not dismiss the idea of rebuilding Gaza, he emphasized that reconstruction efforts must be rooted in respect for the Palestinian people and international law. “Rebuilding doesn’t mean automatically that you should lack respect for people or countries,” he pointed out, pushing back against the notion that economic redevelopment can justify forced displacement.
Global Reaction to Trump’s Gaza Plan
Macron is not alone in his criticism of Trump’s Gaza proposal. Other world leaders have also spoken out against the plan, arguing that it disregards the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer underscored the importance of Palestinian self-determination, stating: “They must be allowed home, they must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution.”
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock echoed similar concerns, warning that removing Palestinians from Gaza would violate international law. “The Gaza Strip belongs to Palestinians,” she asserted in an interview with Reuters, stressing that any effort to push them out would be unacceptable under international legal frameworks.
Even within the U.S., Trump’s proposal has been met with skepticism. Many policymakers and analysts argue that his approach oversimplifies a deeply complex and historically fraught issue. While economic redevelopment is a valid goal, critics point out that peace in Gaza requires far more than infrastructure projects and foreign investment—it demands a comprehensive political solution that addresses both Israeli and Palestinian concerns.
The Broader Implications of Trump’s Plan
Trump’s proposal highlights a broader debate about the future of Gaza and the Middle East peace process. His real estate-driven approach may resonate with some who see economic prosperity as a pathway to stability. However, history has shown that economic development alone cannot resolve deep-seated geopolitical conflicts.
For many Palestinians, forced displacement is a painful reminder of their long history of exile and dispossession. The idea of being relocated to Jordan or Egypt contradicts their aspirations for self-determination and statehood. Critics argue that Trump’s proposal fails to acknowledge the historical and emotional significance of Gaza to its people, reducing the issue to a transactional negotiation.
At the same time, Trump’s focus on real estate and economic potential raises questions about his motivations. Is his interest in Gaza genuinely about regional peace, or is it another example of his preference for deal-making over diplomacy? His assertion that he “would not personally develop properties” in Gaza suggests an attempt to distance himself from potential conflicts of interest, yet his framing of the issue through a business lens continues to fuel speculation about his true intentions.
What’s Next for Gaza?
As global leaders continue to debate the future of Gaza, it is clear that Trump’s proposal will face significant resistance. Macron’s remarks reflect a broader sentiment among European and Middle Eastern leaders who favor a political rather than a commercial solution to the crisis.
The next steps will likely involve further discussions among Arab leaders, Israel, and international stakeholders. While Jordan and Egypt have expressed reservations about taking in Palestinian refugees, diplomatic negotiations may shape a more viable approach to Gaza’s future.
For now, Macron’s condemnation of Trump’s plan underscores a fundamental disagreement about how to address the crisis. While Trump sees Gaza as an opportunity for economic reinvention, Macron and other world leaders emphasize the need for political solutions rooted in respect, human rights, and international law.
Conclusion
The fate of Gaza remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: any attempt to reshape its future must consider the voices and rights of its people. Macron’s strong opposition to Trump’s plan serves as a reminder that international diplomacy cannot be reduced to real estate deals. True peace and stability in the region will require thoughtful, inclusive, and legally sound approaches—ones that respect the history, identity, and aspirations of those who call Gaza home.
