The proposal put forward by US President Donald Trump recently to take control of Gaza and relocate its Palestinian residents was met with widespread condemnation from both American allies and adversaries. The plan, which suggested forcibly moving Palestinians to other countries while Gaza was rebuilt under US oversight, was criticised as a potential violation of international law, specifically concerning forced displacement. Trump’s comments, implied that all Palestinians in Gaza should leave for a “better” place, and that the United States would assume long-term control of the territory, developing it into a prosperous region. The statements marked a drastic shift from traditional US policy, which has historically avoided direct intervention in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict and supported a two-state solution. The statements have increasingly appeared to be clear support for the vision of the far-right Israeli factions and international reaction was overwhelmingly rejected. Key Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, strongly rejected the plan reaffirming their stance that diplomatic relations with Israel would not precede without the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Western allies such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, as well as global powers like China and Russia, condemned the idea of mass displacement, warning that it would violate international law. Many pointed to historical parallels with the 1948 Nakba, which saw the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homeland. The controversy unfolded as negotiations over a Gaza ceasefire and broader peace efforts were underway. Hamas and Israel had reached an initial truce, but Trump’s proposal introduced new uncertainty into the diplomatic process. President Trump and his negotiating team played a positive role in reaching a ceasefire agreement in Gaza which is facilitating the exchange of prisoners and detainees. However, the negative repercussions of the recent statements have become evident in hindering the humanitarian aspect of the agreement, as Israel continues to obstruct the entry of essential supplies for Palestinians in Gaza. Additionally, these statements are impeding progress towards phase two of the agreement. Many saw the proposal as a destabilising move that ignored the deep historical, legal, and humanitarian complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plan could amount to ethnic cleansing, with forced displacement being considered a crime under international law. So, instead, achieving lasting peace and stability should be the top priority by ending the Israeli occupation.
