Trump Proposes Gaza Displacement and US ‘Takeover’ Plan, Drawing Condemnation

During a visit to the White House by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss future plans for Gaza following Israel’s 15-month war on the territory, former U.S. President Donald Trump put forth a controversial proposal calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza’s more than 2 million Palestinians and their permanent displacement to Jordan, Egypt, or other countries. The proposal has sparked widespread condemnation from regional leaders and human rights organizations.

International law experts have described the extensive conflict in Gaza as amounting to genocide, adding a somber backdrop to the discussions around the territory’s future.

Details of the Controversial Proposal

Beyond advocating for mass displacement, Trump also proposed a significant and unprecedented role for the United States in governing the area. He stated, “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the…” This statement, delivered during discussions centered on post-conflict governance, outlined a vision of direct U.S. administration and reconstruction for the devastated enclave.

Context of the Visit and Related Meetings

The meeting between the former President and Prime Minister Netanyahu occurred as international focus intensified on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and potential pathways for its reconstruction and governance. Ahead of his White House meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu also met with U.S. evangelical leaders, including Mike Huckabee, who is Trump’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Israel. This meeting underscored the deep ties between the former President’s political base and certain religious groups with strong stances on Israeli policy and regional issues.

Reactions Across the Political Spectrum and Region

Trump’s proposal elicited swift and strong reactions. While the plan faced broad opposition, Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, voiced support for a potential U.S. occupation of the Gaza Strip, offering a rare point of agreement across partisan lines on the concept of a direct U.S. role, though the specifics differed.

Conversely, human rights groups condemned Trump’s proposal vehemently, citing its potential violation of international humanitarian law and principles regarding the protection of civilian populations and the prohibition of forced displacement.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the idea, describing it as a “serious violation of international law, and peace and stability in the region.” His condemnation highlighted the Palestinian leadership’s firm stance against any plan that involves the expulsion or forced relocation of their population.

Hamas, the group governing Gaza, also condemned the ideas, labeling them a “recipe for creating chaos and tension.” This rejection underscored the lack of internal Palestinian support for any plan involving displacement or foreign occupation.

Significantly, the leaders of neighboring and influential regional states, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, also rejected the proposal, signaling a unified regional front against any plan involving the mass displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

Broader Regional and Legal Context

The controversial proposal comes amid increased international scrutiny on actions related to the conflict. The ICC (International Criminal Court) recently issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his actions towards Palestinians in Gaza after the Hamas attack in October 2023. This legal development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussions about accountability and future arrangements for the Gaza Strip.

Trump’s proposal for displacement and a direct U.S. role in Gaza represents a significant departure from traditional diplomatic approaches and existing international frameworks for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its widespread rejection from regional powers and international bodies highlights the considerable obstacles such a plan would face in gaining legitimacy or practical implementation.