The United States, often regarded as the world’s most powerful nation, has historically engaged in military interventions with significant global consequences. From dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II to its extensive involvement in the Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and other conflicts, the U.S. has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to act unilaterally, often disregarding international laws and norms. Today, its unwavering support for Israel raises critical concerns, particularly following former President Donald Trump’s recent announcement regarding Gaza City in Palestine.
Throughout history, the U.S. has exercised its military might with devastating consequences. During World War II, it became the only country to use nuclear weapons, obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects of the atomic bombings remain visible today. The Vietnam War in the 1960s led to the deaths of approximately two million Vietnamese civilians, with extensive bombing campaigns causing destruction to infrastructure and the environment. Similarly, the 2003 invasion of Iraq resulted in between 150,000 and over a million deaths, including more than 100,000 civilians. The conflict also fuelled the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State (ISIS), leaving a long-lasting geopolitical impact.
These examples highlight a recurring theme: the U.S. justifies military interventions under various pretexts, often disregarding international law. Whether it is enforcing trade bans, imposing sanctions, or engaging in outright military conflicts, the U.S. has positioned itself as a global enforcer, acting in its own interests.
Israel, often regarded as a "U.S. ally," was established by the United Kingdom in 1948 on Palestinian land. Since then, the U.S. has unconditionally backed Israel, regardless of human rights violations, land occupation, and breaches of international and United Nations (UN) laws. Successive U.S. administrations have consistently supported Israel’s actions, whether they involve military aggression, settlement expansion, or violations of Palestinian sovereignty.
The recent press conference featuring Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed this alliance. Standing beside Netanyahu—who has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC)—Trump announced that the U.S. would "take over" Gaza, a statement that sparked outrage globally. This move appears to ignore international law, which prohibits military intervention in another country without UN approval.
In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Défense Minister Yoav Gallant. This marked the first time an Israeli leader had been indicted for war crimes related to the ongoing war on Gaza. Under Netanyahu’s command, Israeli forces carried out relentless attacks on Gaza, killing nearly 50,000 Palestinian civilians and destroying critical infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, and schools. Food supplies were cut off, and borders were sealed, turning Gaza into a humanitarian catastrophe.
Trump’s approach also highlights hypocrisy in U.S. immigration policies. On one hand, he champions mass deportations of undocumented immigrants from the U.S., yet he suggests forcing Palestinians to relocate to neighbouring countries
Despite clear evidence of these atrocities, Israel, backed by the U.S., dismisses the ICC’s jurisdiction. Israel is not a member of the ICC and argues that Palestine is not a sovereign state capable of being a party to the Rome Statute. Similarly, the U.S. withdrew from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986 and is also not a member of the ICC. This deliberate disengagement from international legal institutions allows both nations to act with impunity.
During a press conference on February 4, 2025, Trump proposed sending U.S. forces to Gaza under the pretext of rebuilding the war-torn region. This announcement raises several alarming questions: Can the U.S. unilaterally deploy forces in Gaza? Is this truly about reconstruction, or does it serve a broader geopolitical agenda?
Trump also suggested that Egypt and Jordan should accept displaced Palestinians, a proposal immediately rejected by both countries. Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations condemned the idea, viewing it as an attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. The international community, including non-Muslim nations such as South Africa and several European countries, quickly opposed Trump’s plan. Though silent for now, major global powers like Russia and China are expected to reject any such U.S. intervention.
Trump, known more for his business acumen than political expertise, seems to be approaching the issue from a transactional perspective. Some analysts suspect secret discussions between Trump and Netanyahu before the press conference, hinting at a larger plan. The so-called “Greater Israel” agenda—an expansionist vision seeking Israeli control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea—may be in play.
However, implementing this plan would face immense resistance. The Middle East is not the same as it was in previous decades. Powerful nations, including Russia and China, will not remain passive spectators if such an agenda is pursued. The geopolitical balance has shifted, and Trump's proposal may trigger severe consequences.
Furthermore, during his election campaign, Trump promised the U.S. Islamic community that he would stop the war in Gaza and find a peaceful solution.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, without commenting much on the Trump-Netanyahu press conference, reaffirmed Australia’s commitment to a two-state solution.
A striking aspect of Trump's briefing was his acknowledgment of the destruction in Gaza and the staggering loss of Palestinian lives. However, he failed—or purposely avoided—mentioning who was responsible, despite Netanyahu, the man behind the war, standing right beside him. This omission reflects the deep-rooted bias in the U.S.-Israel relationship. While the U.S. imposes sanctions on nations for alleged human rights abuses, it turns a blind eye to Israel’s actions.
Trump’s approach also highlights hypocrisy in U.S. immigration policies. On one hand, he champions mass deportations of undocumented immigrants from the U.S., yet he suggests forcing Palestinians to relocate to neighbouring countries. This contradiction exposes the underlying political motivations rather than genuine humanitarian concerns.
Trump’s announcement has faced widespread rejection. Arab nations, Turkey, and other Islamic countries have strongly opposed the plan, calling it a violation of Palestinian sovereignty. Even non-Muslim nations recognise the dangers of U.S. military intervention in the region under the guise of rebuilding Gaza.
The future of Gaza cannot be dictated by external powers with vested interests. The international community must demand accountability for Israel’s actions and ensure that Gaza’s reconstruction is led by Palestinians, not foreign occupiers. The key to lasting peace lies in justice, not in imposed solutions that disregard the will of the Palestinian people.
Trump’s plan to deploy U.S. forces in Gaza sets a dangerous precedent, further eroding international legal frameworks. If the U.S. can justify such actions in Gaza today, what prevents similar interventions elsewhere tomorrow? The blatant disregard for international institutions raises concerns about the future of global governance.
While Trump and Netanyahu may believe they can reshape the region to their advantage, they underestimate the resilience of the Palestinian people and the growing resistance to unilateral actions. The world is watching, and history will judge those who attempt to rewrite the rules of sovereignty and justice for their own gains.