In my earlier article titled “Calling out for Egypt: Why is Global Pressure Intensifying for Evacuating Gaza?“ published shortly after the events of October 7, I discussed the escalating Gaza conflict and the unfolding narrative. In the initial days of the conflict, many advocated for Egypt to temporarily shelter Gaza’s population until Israel could eliminate any potential threats from the territory. Despite Egypt’s firm rejection of this displacement policy—viewed as a violation of fundamental international law—the topic resurfaced after several remarks from US President Donald Trump; the US President proposed a resolution grounded in the complete evacuation of Gaza and resettling its population in neighboring Arab countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, with the US overseeing reconstruction efforts. Here’s why this approach is flawed.
Firstly, historical examples of nations that have faced destruction—like Europe after World War II—did not involve coerced relocation of populations, such as Germans, to other countries. Rather, devastated cities were rebuilt through initiatives like the Marshall Plan. History demonstrates that cooperative reconstruction and the protection of population rights result in more stable outcomes than enforced displacements, which frequently give rise to enduring instability.
Secondly, the concept of forced displacement contravenes the legal and ethical standards upheld by the free world. The United States, established on principles of human rights, the rule of law, and minority protections, should remain committed to these values in its approach to international disputes. Therefore, endorsing the displacement of Gaza’s population contradicts earlier positions taken during crises, such as opposing the forced relocation of Bosnians in the Balkan War, condemning the coerced displacement of Yazidis in Iraq, and denouncing displacement efforts in Ukraine.
If the international community has rejected forced displacement in other contexts, how can it be justified in Gaza today? Embracing this rationale undermines the credibility of a global system that claims to be built on justice and human rights, revealing double standards that make international law seem applicable only when it aligns with select interests.
European leaders have been swift in condemning Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza and forcibly relocate its population. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock emphasized that such a move would be a blatant violation of international law, leading to further conflict. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares was clear in his stance, stating that “Palestinian Gazans must stay in Gaza.” Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon condemned Trump’s remarks as a sign of “deep ignorance of Palestinian history.” Scottish First Minister John Swinney also deemed any displacement plan “unacceptable and dangerous.”. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed this sentiment, stressing that Palestinians must be allowed to rebuild their homeland as part of a two-state solution. Other European countries, including Spain, Poland, and Slovenia, have also rejected Trump’s plan.
Human rights organizations have joined the chorus of condemnation, with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign labeling Trump’s proposal a “blueprint for mass ethnic cleansing” and Amnesty Denmark likening it to an invasion. Even in Israel, the liberal daily Haaretz highlighted in an editorial published earlier this month that “even if Trump disregards international law, it’s crucial to remind Israelis that the forced expulsion or transfer of civilians violates international humanitarian law, constitutes a war crime, and amounts to a crime against humanity.”. The international community’s strong opposition to Trump’s plan highlights the need for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach to resolving the Gaza conflict.
Furthermore, advocates of displacement overlook a critical reality: relocating a population will not address fundamental issues but will instead complicate them, heightening tensions in the Middle East rather than confining the conflict to Gaza. A mass exodus of Palestinian refugees could once again destabilize the region, as occurred in the decades following 1948, during which it played a significant role in Lebanon’s civil war and Israel’s two invasions of the nation. The idea of “displacement” as a security measure completely disregards those historical lessons, as there has never been a true “temporary displacement” for Palestinians. Such policies tend to evolve into permanent arrangements over time; the current call for a “Permanent Displacement” escalates the issue to unprecedented levels.
The plan also risks extending the tension beyond the region; what is portrayed as a solution may, in fact, serve as an invitation to exacerbate the crisis and prolong the conflict. This escalated frustration could incite new waves of extremism and violence, transforming the situation into a continuous source of tension that jeopardizes security in both the East and the West.
A more straightforward solution could accommodate the needs of all parties involved: ensuring Israel’s security while safeguarding the land and safety of Palestinians. The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict has demonstrated numerous opportunities for resolution, such as the Camp David Accords during U.S. President Carter’s tenure, as well as a second Camp David attempt during Clinton’s administration. Both instances represented efforts to establish a successful U.S. negotiating strategy. According to Aaron David Miller, “Carter succeeded for three reasons: he had strong leaders who were in a hurry, a feasible agreement, and, as a strong mediator, he facilitated the summit.”
Similarly, Arab nations are more than capable of addressing both the reconstruction and administrative challenges. The current endeavor could be pursued through a five-party initiative involving Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan, considering their historical and geographical connections to the crisis. The United States should assume the role of mediator in this scenario, rather than the real estate developer role suggested by President Trump.
Thomas Friedman described the current United States proposal as “the single most idiotic and dangerous Middle East ‘peace” initiative ever put out by an American president.” While the United States seeks a radical resolution or possibly a negotiation tactic, the strategy resembles a commercial exchange rather than a nation-building endeavor, as the destiny of nations cannot be simplified to a transactional agreement. There exists a significant distinction between constructing a nation’s future and merely establishing tourist destinations.
In conclusion, Trump’s gambling proposal is destined to fail. Imposing a reality that does not represent the collective will of the populace will inevitably result in a bleak outcome, particularly in light of regional tensions that may escalate if unilateral solutions are enforced, overlooking the historical and humanitarian dimensions of the matter. The return to the two-state solution must be prioritized in any earnest resolution initiative; any alternate approach will ultimately prove detrimental in the long term and will simply result in wasted time and aggravated feelings.
