A top Israeli official is pushing a bold new vision for the future of Gaza, one that could reshape the region and draw the United States deeper into Middle East affairs. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister and a key figure in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, recently said Gaza could become a “real estate bonanza.” He confirmed that a formal development plan for the war-torn strip has been delivered to President Donald Trump’s desk.
This is more than just talk. According to Smotrich, Israel has already completed what he called the “demolition phase” of Gaza, referring to the vast destruction carried out since the war with Hamas reignited in late 2023. United Nations data backs this up, estimating that 92 percent of all residential buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The idea now, as Smotrich puts it, is to start rebuilding—not for the displaced Palestinian population, but to create a brand-new, Israeli-controlled urban center, one that could serve both economic and security goals.
The implications for the United States are serious. President Trump has expressed interest in Gaza’s future, even suggesting earlier this year that the U.S. could “take over” the area and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Some in the media mocked this vision, but others see strategic value. A stable, Western-aligned Gaza could act as a buffer between Israel and radical groups like Hamas, which has controlled the strip since 2007. It could also provide the U.S. with a forward base in the eastern Mediterranean, useful for both counterterrorism and economic influence.
A plan now circulating within the Trump administration reportedly calls for American oversight of Gaza’s redevelopment for at least ten years. The goal would be to transform the coastal enclave into a tourist destination and tech hub. That would be a dramatic shift from its current condition—a densely populated war zone with few functioning services and millions of displaced people.
But the road to that vision is filled with legal, moral, and geopolitical landmines. International law prohibits the destruction of civilian property unless it is absolutely necessary for military operations. Reports from CNN and other outlets suggest that much of Gaza’s destruction was carried out deliberately by Israeli bulldozers and not as a direct result of combat. That has led to criticism from human rights groups and foreign governments. The United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have sanctioned Smotrich for what they describe as incitement and abuse of Palestinian communities.
Still, from a national security standpoint, the U.S. must weigh these concerns against the strategic benefits. A Gaza aligned with the West could reduce Iran’s influence in the region. It could also limit the reach of terrorist groups that have used the strip as a launching pad for attacks on Israel. Moreover, American involvement in rebuilding Gaza could provide leverage over future peace talks, giving Washington a stronger hand in shaping the outcome.
There are economic incentives as well. Should the area become a business-friendly zone, American companies could be tapped to build infrastructure, develop technology parks, and open tourism ventures. That’s not just good for regional stability; it’s good for American jobs and investment.
However, the U.S. must also be cautious. Any perception that America is helping Israel displace Palestinians could spark backlash across the Muslim world. It could reignite terrorism threats and complicate relations with Arab allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. These countries have already voiced opposition to forced displacement of Gaza’s population.
As President Trump considers the plan on his desk, he will have to balance American values with American interests. That means asking hard questions: Can Gaza be rebuilt in a way that respects international law while also serving U.S. security needs? Can the U.S. prevent another failed state from forming on the shores of the Mediterranean? And can American leadership in Gaza be seen not as occupation, but as partnership?
The answers will shape the Middle East for decades—and determine whether America leads, or lets others fill the void.