Trump‐Netanyahu Gaza Relocation Plan

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics.

---

Image Source: Elizabeth Frantz

1. A White House Gambit on July 7, 2025

On July 7, 2025, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a joint initiative at the White House to relocate thousands of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to third countries, framing it as a voluntary “humanitarian choice.” Netanyahu praised the plan as “free choice,” while Trump touted “great cooperation” from surrounding nations. The announcement shocked diplomats, rights groups, and Palestinians alike, triggering global debates over legality, feasibility, and ethics.

2. Anatomy of the Relocation Proposal

2.1 Core Components

·      Humanitarian Zones in Rafah: Construction of a “transition city” on Gaza’s southern border to process up to 600,000 displaced Palestinians.

·      Third‐Country Resettlement: Identifying willing host states—names floated include Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Morocco, and Somali semi-autonomous regions.

·      Screening Mechanisms: Pre-departure security vetting to exclude Hamas operatives from relocation.

·      Permanent Displacement Clause: Barred return of relocated Palestinians to northern Gaza sectors, even post-reconstruction.

·      U.S. Logistical Support: American funding, airlift capacity, and oversight of reconstruction in both Gaza and host nations.

2.2 Trump’s “Riviera of the Middle East” Vision

In February 2025, Trump first proposed taking administrative control of Gaza, clearing 50 million tonnes of war-torn debris, and redeveloping it into a “Riviera,” while relocating Palestinians to “beautiful areas” elsewhere. His aides later softened the language to “temporary relocation,” but by July the firm stance on permanent displacement had re-emerged.

3. Evolution of the Plan: Chronology of Key Milestones

·      Jan 25, 2025: Trump suggests Egypt and Jordan “take people” from Gaza “for a long-term plan”.

·      Feb 4: At the White House, Trump calls for U.S. takeover of Gaza and permanent Palestinian resettlement; Netanyahu publicly endorses “free choice” for Gazans.

·      Feb 5–6: White House spokespeople walk back “permanent” rhetoric, describing relocation as “temporary” for rebuilding.

·      Mar 12: Trump insists “nobody is expelling any Palestinians,” reflecting internal policy confusion.

·      May: Reports surface of $30 billion in frozen Libyan assets offered to host a million Gazans—an idea rejected by Tripoli’s government.

·      July 7: Trump and Netanyahu recommit to relocation plan at updated White House summit, claiming progress with “several countries”.

4. Historical Roots: Precedents for Gaza Resettlement

4.1 Early Arab League Era (1948–1960s)

Since the 1948 Nakba, Arab states (except Jordan) refused citizenship to Palestinian refugees, deeming resettlement a betrayal of their “right of return.” Proposals by the U.S. and U.K. in 1949 to relocate 500,000 refugees to Syria were quashed by Damascus coups and Arab League policy to preserve refugee status as a political lever.

4.2 Israeli‐Proposed Exchanges (1950s–1960s)

In 1960, Israel’s President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi drafted a “population exchange” plan: Arab refugees in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to swap for Jews expelled from Muslim countries. Arab rejection stymied the proposal, viewing it as contradicting UN Resolution 194 on return and compensation.

4.3 U.S. Diplomatic Initiatives

• 1955 Dulles Plan: John Foster Dulles offered economic incentives to Arab hosts for refugee absorption, tied to water-management projects—ultimately rebuffed for political reasons.

• 1956 Eisenhower Plan: Post-Sinai campaign, Eisenhower encouraged Arab states to integrate refugees with U.S. economic aid; Arab leaders resisted to maintain the refugee cause.

4.4 Post‐Oslo and Peace to Prosperity Efforts

• 1993 Oslo Accords envisioned a Palestinian Authority administering Gaza, not relocating its population.

• 2019 Peace to Prosperity: Trump’s administration proposed a $50 billion investment in West Bank and Gaza but reaffirmed Palestinians’ stay in their lands, contrasting sharply with 2025’s displacement vision.

5. Comparison with Past Israeli-Arab Solutions

To understand how the 2025 relocation plan departs from earlier peace efforts, it helps to contrast it with previous proposals for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian question. Below is an outline of five landmark initiatives, showing how each approached population movement, sovereignty arrangements, and the status of Gaza’s inhabitants.

5.1 UN Partition Plan (1947)

• Population Movement: No population transfers were included; the plan assigned territory without displacing residents.

• Sovereignty Model: Proposed two independent states (one Jewish, one Arab) based on delineated borders.

• Gaza’s Status: Designated as part of the Arab state; no provision for forced or voluntary relocation.

5.2 Camp David II (2000)

• Population Movement: Envisioned only small, mutually agreed “land swaps” rather than large-scale movements.

• Sovereignty Model: Called for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with minor territory adjustments to accommodate major settlement blocs.

• Gaza’s Status: Gaza Strip remained under full Palestinian sovereignty, with no displacement beyond local boundary modifications.

5.3 Arab Peace Initiative (2002)

• Population Movement: Did not propose moving populations; focused on ending the refugee problem through a negotiated solution.

• Sovereignty Model: Suggested a two-state solution on pre-1967 lines, with land swaps acceptable by mutual consent.

• Gaza’s Status: Gaza and West Bank reunited under a Palestinian state; the right of return recognized without forced transfers.

5.4 Peace to Prosperity Plan (2019)

• Population Movement: Offered no relocation mechanism, instead promising economic investment to improve living standards in place.

• Sovereignty Model: Called for a demilitarized Palestinian entity enjoying limited autonomy, pending final status talks.

• Gaza’s Status: Remained under Palestinian civil control; reconstruction aid aimed at restoring infrastructure without uprooting residents.

5.5 Trump-Netanyahu Relocation Proposal (2025)

• Population Movement: Advocates resettling up to 600,000 Gazans in third-country host zones, emphasizing permanent transfer.

• Sovereignty Model: Does not envision Gaza as a sovereign Palestinian state; instead, it becomes a “humanitarian zone” administered jointly by Israel and external agencies.

• Gaza’s Status: Seeks to depopulate northern Gaza for redevelopment; relocated Palestinians barred from returning to their original neighborhoods.

By placing the 2025 plan alongside these prior frameworks, its novelty—and its sharp break with established norms—is clear. Unlike every major peace initiative since 1947, it shifts from negotiated land swaps or economic incentives to outright population removal, raising profound legal, ethical, and diplomatic questions.

6. Legal and Ethical Implications

6.1 International Law Violations

• Fourth Geneva Convention (Art. 49) forbids forcible transfers of protected persons from occupied territories, even for purportedly “humane” reasons.

• Rome Statute classifies forced displacement as a crime against humanity when executed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.

6.2 Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide Concerns

Experts warn that presenting military-induced relocation as “voluntary” equates to ethnic cleansing. Legal scholar Ralph Wilde argues the plan may constitute genocide by creating “conditions of life calculated to destroy a group in whole or in part” through deprivation and displacement.

6.3 Humanitarian Realities

With Gaza’s infrastructure reduced to rubble and 80 percent of its population displaced internally, “choice” is illusory. Surveys show nearly half of Gazans would leave if safe relocation existed—yet reject coerced exile as repeating the 1948 Nakba trauma.

7. Reactions: Domestic, Regional, and Global

7.1 Palestinian Outrage

Gazans view their homeland—even in ruins—as inseparable from their identity. Technician Mansour Abu Al-Khaier declared, “Our martyrs are buried here. We will not leave our land”.

7.2 Arab States’ Rejection

Egypt and Jordan immediately dismissed relocation as a breach of Arab League consensus. A joint Arab League statement on February 1, 2025, reaffirmed Palestinian rights to land and sovereignty, condemning any eviction under any guise.

7.3 International Organizations

• United Nations: UNRWA and human rights spokespeople label the plan “questionable” regarding voluntariness and warn of legal breaches.

• Human Rights NGOs: Oxfam, Amnesty International, and MSF condemn the initiative as unethical and logistically impossible under siege conditions.

7.4 Western Allies and U.S. Politics

European capitals voiced alarms over regional destabilization. Within the U.S., bipartisan Congressional calls emerged for independent legal review and oversight, highlighting a rare split between White House policy and legislative sentiment.

8. Timeline of Landmark Events

• 1948: Nakba—approx. 750,000 Palestinians displaced; Arab states refuse citizenship offers.

• 1955–56: U.S. Dulles/Eisenhower plans for refugee absorption; Arab refusal.

• 1960: Ben-Zvi’s population exchange proposal; Arab League blocks.

• 1991: Oslo negotiations initiate Palestinian civil rule in Gaza.

• 2019: Trump unveils economic Peace to Prosperity plan—no displacement.

• Jan 25, 2025: Trump first suggests relocation to Egypt and Jordan.

• Feb 4: Joint Trump-Netanyahu announcement on U.S. Gaza takeover and displacement.

• Mar–May 2025: Mixed messaging from White House and hints at Libyan and Sudanese resettlement.

• July 7, 2025: Renewed White House summit recommits to permanent Palestinian relocation.

9. Strategic Analysis and Future Outlook

9.1 Diplomatic Consequences

Abandoning the two-state paradigm risks isolating the U.S. from traditional peacemaking partners and undermining its credibility in future negotiations.

9.2 Regional Stability Risks

Large-scale refugee influx into Jordan or Egypt threatens domestic unrest, potentially destabilizing monarchies already under economic strain.

9.3 Geopolitical Precedent

If enacted, the relocation plan could embolden other states to pursue population engineering in conflict zones, eroding international legal norms.

9.4 Pathways Forward

• Multilateral Arbiters: Engaging the UN, EU, and Arab League in an inclusive peace framework remains essential.

• Ceasefire and Reconstruction: Prioritizing humanitarian access and rebuilding Gaza in situ—under PA or international trusteeship—could offer a less coercive alternative.

• Reinvigorated Two-State Talks: Reviving credible negotiations with clear security arrangements, municipal autonomy, and phased sovereignty transfers might reconcile Israeli and Palestinian aspirations without displacement.

10. A Defining Diplomatic Crisis

The Trump-Netanyahu Gaza relocation proposal constitutes a historic rupture from established peace efforts by advocating permanent population transfer. Standing at the crossroads of legality, ethics, and realpolitik, the plan has unleashed fierce opposition at every level—from Gazan families to Arab capitals and international courts. Its future hinges on diplomatic pushback, legal challenges, and the resilience of Palestinians determined to remain on their land. As ceasefire talks proceed in Doha and global scrutiny intensifies, the ultimate question persists: can any solution imposed from outside secure the lasting peace that generations have sought, or will Gaza’s destiny be shaped irrevocably by this bold gamble?