On Wednesday, United States President Donald Trump made a controversial statement during a news conference in Washington, expressing his desire to demolish existing structures in Gaza and transfer the territory under US 'ownership'.

'The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too,' Trump told reporters, suggesting a plan to redevelop the area into the 'Riviera of the Middle East' and proposing the resettlement of Palestinians into neighboring Egypt and Jordan.

Following this declaration, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, stating that Israel would turn over the Gaza Strip to the US at the conclusion of ongoing fighting and maintaining that 'no soldiers by the US would be needed'.

The remarks have prompted immediate and widespread condemnation from around the world, with experts analyzing the implications of Trump's proposal.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar acknowledged that specific details of Trump’s plan remain undisclosed.

Observers are divided over whether the proposal represents a serious policy initiative or a negotiating tactic aimed at influencing Hamas's willingness to accept potential ceasefire conditions.

Some analysts, including Imogen Saunders from the Australian National University, expressed skepticism regarding the feasibility of the plan, given its dramatic departure from established US foreign policy in the region.

'This was not something that was expected to be announced.

So it certainly wasn't anything that made sense in the context of prior US foreign policy over Israel and Gaza,' Saunders stated.

Concerns about the legality of the plan are profound.

Legal experts argue that forcibly relocating civilian populations constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law, which categorizes such actions as a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which the US does not recognize.

Saunders noted that any attempt to deport Palestinians from Gaza would represent a clear breach of critical international norms.

In response to the proposal, world leaders, including officials from Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, swiftly rejected the idea.

The United Nations and human rights groups labeled the potential for displacement of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing.

In stark contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his support for allowing Gazans who wish to leave the area to do so, framing it as a means to facilitate the rebuilding of Gaza.

Trump's statements have sparked debate about their potential role as a negotiation strategy.

Some analysts speculate that the proposal could serve as a bargaining chip, a tactic previously employed by Trump in different contexts, intended to extract concessions from Hamas while allowing him to appear conciliatory if such demands were subsequently withdrawn.

However, critics argue that given the vagueness and impracticality of the proposal, it lacks genuine negotiating power.

David Smith from the University of Sydney's US Studies Centre explained that because regional actors immediately rejected the concept, it is difficult to ascertain any potential leverage resulting from Trump's remarks.

Administration officials have begun to distance themselves from Trump's statements.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to the Gaza proposal as 'historic' but clarified that it does not entail military intervention.

Leavitt's comments mark a significant shift from Trump's assertions about permanent resettlement, instead suggesting 'temporary relocation' for Gazans during recovery efforts.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed these sentiments, citing the dangers present in Gaza which render the area 'not habitable' for current residents.

As this situation unfolds, the international community continues to monitor the implications of Trump's proposals and their potential ramifications on US credibility and longstanding geopolitical alliances.