The Long-Term Consequences of U.S. Control Over Gaza: A Multigenerational Perspective

Introduction

The prospect of the United States assuming long-term control of Gaza—as proposed by President Donald Trump in February 2025—carries ramifications that extend far beyond immediate geopolitical shifts.

While the plan’s feasibility remains dubious, its hypothetical implementation would redefine international legal norms, destabilize regional alliances, and catalyze humanitarian crises with intergenerational consequences.

This analysis examines the enduring impacts of such a policy, drawing on legal precedents, geopolitical dynamics, and historical patterns of displacement and occupation.

Erosion of International Legal Norms and Precedents

Normalization of Territorial Aggression

A U.S.-led annexation of Gaza would undermine the foundational principle of the UN Charter prohibiting territorial conquest (Article 2(4)), a norm upheld since 1945 to prevent conflicts like World War II.

By legitimizing the seizure of land through military force, the U.S. would set a precedent for adversarial states to justify expansionist agendas.

For instance, China could intensify claims over Taiwan, citing U.S. actions in Gaza as justification, while Russia might further entrench its occupation of Ukrainian territories.

Legal scholars like Marko Milanovic argue that such a move would “return the world to the dark days of colonial conquest,” eroding the postwar rules-based order.

Institutional Paralysis and Legitimacy Crises

The U.S.’s disregard for ICC jurisdiction over war crimes in Gaza—despite Palestine’s status as an ICC member—would weaken multilateral institutions tasked with upholding international law.

Over time, this could paralyze responses to atrocities elsewhere, as states lose faith in mechanisms like the UN Security Council.

The UN Human Rights Council’s condemnation of the proposal as “ethnic cleansing” highlights existing fractures, but long-term U.S. intransigence could render such bodies obsolete.

Weaponization of Humanitarian Rhetoric

Trump’s framing of displacement as a humanitarian gesture (“providing better housing”) risks normalizing the manipulation of aid frameworks to justify population transfers.

This echoes historical abuses, such as colonial powers invoking “civilizing missions” to subjugate indigenous populations.

Legal expert Janina Dill warns that such rhetoric “normalizes breaching core principles of international law,” enabling future actors to cloak territorial ambitions in humanitarian language.

Destabilization of Regional Alliances and Security Architectures

Collapse of Egyptian and Jordanian Stability

Forced resettlement of Gazans into Egypt and Jordan—countries already grappling with economic fragility and political unrest—could trigger state collapse.

In Egypt, where 95% of the population lives on 5% of the land, an influx of refugees would strain resources and empower anti-government factions like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Jordan, where Palestinians constitute over half the population, risks demographic upheaval that could destabilize the monarchy.

Both nations have warned that such a scenario would nullify their peace treaties with Israel, unraveling a cornerstone of regional stability since 1979.

Resurgence of Militant Networks

The displacement of Gaza’s population would not eliminate Hamas but could radicalize a new generation of Palestinians.

Historical parallels, such as the 1948 Nakba, demonstrate that mass displacement fuels enduring resistance movements.

Hamas’ recruitment of over 10,000 new members during the 2023–2024 conflict suggests an insurgency could persist, targeting U.S. personnel involved in Gaza’s “reconstruction”.

This would entangle the U.S. in a protracted counterinsurgency, akin to Iraq and Afghanistan, with no clear exit strategy.

Shifts in Gulf State Alignments

Saudi Arabia and the UAE, once cautiously aligned with U.S. interests, have condemned Trump’s plan as a threat to Arab unity.

Long-term, this could accelerate their pivot toward China and Russia, who have positioned themselves as defenders of sovereignty in contrast to U.S. unilateralism.

The Gulf’s reliance on U.S. security guarantees would diminish, potentially leading to nuclear proliferation as states seek autonomous deterrents against Iran.

Humanitarian and Demographic Time Bombs

Permanent Refugee Crises

Most Gazans are descendants of refugees from the 1948 Nakba, and their forced relocation would mark a second mass displacement.

Under international law, refugees retain the right of return, but Trump’s insistence on barring repatriation would create a stateless population in Egypt, Jordan, and beyond.

Host nations, lacking resources to integrate millions, might establish permanent refugee camps, mirroring the decades-long limbo of Syrian refugees in Lebanon.

Such camps could become hotbeds of radicalization, perpetuating cycles of violence.

Cultural Erasure and Identity Fragmentation

Gaza’s transformation into a “Riviera” would necessitate erasing Palestinian heritage, including archaeological sites, neighborhoods, and cultural landmarks.

This cultural genocide—defined by the UN as “destroying the foundations of a group’s existence”—would sever generational ties to the land, accelerating assimilation pressures in host countries.

Over time, Gaza’s identity as a Palestinian territory could fade, complicating future claims for self-determination.

Health and Environmental Catastrophes

Decades of conflict have left Gaza littered with unexploded ordnance (UXO) and toxic debris.

A U.S.-led cleanup, as Trump proposes, would require hazardous waste management on a scale unseen since the Iraq War’s depleted uranium contamination.

Without local expertise, U.S. contractors might cut corners, leading to long-term environmental degradation and public health crises, including cancer clusters and birth defects.

Economic and Security Burdens on the United States

Fiscal Black Holes

Rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure—90% of which is destroyed—could cost upwards of $50 billion, equivalent to 10% of the U.S. defense budget.

Trump’s vague assurances about “jobs and housing” ignore the lack of Arab or international funding commitments, leaving U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill.

Over 15 years, this could divert funds from domestic priorities like healthcare and education, fueling bipartisan backlash.

Military Quagmire

Stationing U.S. troops or contractors in Gaza would expose them to attacks from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and splinter groups.

The Pentagon’s experience in Iraq shows that even limited deployments can escalate into costly occupations.

A Gaza mission could require 20,000–50,000 personnel, straining military readiness and sapping public support as casualties mount.

Domestic Political Polarization

The plan’s association with Trump’s “America First” ideology would deepen partisan divides over foreign policy.

Progressives would frame it as a colonial enterprise, while conservatives might defend it as counterterrorism.

This polarization could paralyze future administrations, preventing coherent Middle East strategies and emboldening isolationist movements.

Global Power Realignments and the New Cold War

Authoritarian Entrenchment

Russia and China have already cited Trump’s proposal to justify their own territorial ambitions.

At the 2025 Munich Security Conference, Chinese diplomats warned that U.S. actions in Gaza “validate Beijing’s approach to Taiwan,” while Russian state media framed the Ukraine invasion as a “denazification” akin to Gaza’s “reconstruction”.

This rhetoric could coalesce into an authoritarian bloc challenging Western hegemony.

Erosion of Soft Power

The U.S.’s reputation as a champion of human rights would suffer irreparable damage, particularly in the Global South.

Nations in Africa and Asia, many of which endured colonial rule, would view the Gaza takeover as proof of Western hypocrisy.

This could diminish U.S. influence in multilateral forums like the UN General Assembly, where resolutions condemning the policy would likely pass by wide margins.

Rise of Non-Western Mediators

As U.S. credibility wanes, emerging powers like Turkey, India, and Brazil could assume larger roles in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Turkey’s President Erdogan, for instance, has positioned himself as a defender of Palestinian rights, offering to broker talks between Hamas and regional actors.

This shift would marginalize the U.S. in a region it has dominated since the 1991 Gulf War.

Legacy of Colonialism and Resistance

Revival of Anti-Colonial Movements

The imagery of U.S. contractors “developing” Gaza’s coastline while excluding Palestinians echoes Europe’s 19th-century “Scramble for Africa.”

This could galvanize global solidarity movements, akin to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Universities, pension funds, and corporations might face pressure to divest from U.S. firms involved in Gaza, straining economic ties with allies.

Legal Accountability and Universal Jurisdiction

Despite U.S. immunity at the ICC, allies like Belgium and South Africa could prosecute American officials under universal jurisdiction laws.

Spanish courts, for example, have previously investigated U.S. personnel for torture in Guantánamo.

Similar cases targeting architects of the Gaza policy would embroil the U.S. in legal battles for decades, complicating diplomatic relations.

Environmental and Reconstruction Challenges

Unsustainable Development Models

Trump’s vision of a Gaza “Riviera” prioritizes luxury resorts over affordable housing, replicating Dubai’s inequality-driven growth.

Without local ownership, profits would flow to foreign investors, exacerbating poverty among displaced Gazans.

Over time, this could create a dual economy: a glitzy enclave for elites surrounded by slums in Egypt’s Sinai or Jordan’s deserts.

Climate Vulnerability

Gaza’s Mediterranean location makes it susceptible to rising sea levels, with 40% of its coastline at risk of erosion by 2100.

U.S.-led construction projects might ignore climate resilience to cut costs, leading to flooded developments and saltwater intrusion into aquifers.

This would render Gaza uninhabitable within decades, undermining the very “revitalization” Trump touts.

Conclusion

A Crossroads for Global Governance

The long-term consequences of U.S. control over Gaza transcend the Middle East, threatening the pillars of postwar international order.

By normalizing conquest, displacing populations, and hollowing out multilateralism, the policy would embolden authoritarian regimes, ignite refugee crises, and entangle the U.S. in unwinnable conflicts.

While the immediate focus rests on Gaza’s rubble, the true stakes involve preserving a system designed to prevent the world from relapsing into an era where “might makes right.”

For the U.S., the choice is stark: uphold the principles it helped enshrine in 1945 or become an architect of their demise.