Trump’s ‘eviction notice’ to Gaza

PUBLISHED
February 16, 2025

KARACHI:

Not too long ago, Donald Trump dismissed nation-building as a folly unworthy of American resources. Now, in a typical about-turn, he is floating the idea of a US-led takeover of Gaza—one that would see its Palestinian population displaced and the war-ravaged enclave transformed into a luxury resort – what he calls the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

This shocking proposal, like many before it, came earlier this month as Trump stood beside Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu—the man responsible for the devastation in Gaza and the killing of more than 48,000 Palestinians. Much of this death and destruction, however, would not have been possible without the vast supply of weapons and military support, a significant portion of which was provided by Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden.

Trump’s latest proposal, despite its outlandish nature and the risk of emboldening leaders with territorial ambitions, quickly won the backing of an expected ally—the Israeli prime minister. Netanyahu praised what he called an “out-of-the-box solution,” though experts argue it is so detached from reality that it is unclear whether Trump even recognised the constraints to begin with. But Trump shows no sign of backing down. So much so that his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has declared the president’s plan as “the only plan on the table”, adding that if any regional player has an alternative, “now is the time to bring it forward.”

While the US president has previously toyed with expansionist ideas—buying Greenland, taking control of the Panama Canal, both now seemingly shelved—his push to seize Gaza and forcibly displace its two million residents into Egypt and Jordan appears far more resolute.

For Cairo and Amman, the proposal presents a diplomatic nightmare. With Egypt as the third-largest recipient of US foreign aid and Jordan the fourth, their leaders find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place—under pressure to fall in line with Washington while grappling with the political and humanitarian fallout of mass displacement. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East—particularly Saudi Arabia—appears to be scrambling for an alternative that might placate Trump. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, eager to position himself as the region’s chief dealmaker, is treading carefully, balancing his ambitions for regional influence with the risks of alienating Washington or provoking backlash at home.

Barely a month has passed since the announcement of a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. As Netanyahu’s government and Hamas continue to test the fragile truce, thousands of Palestinians are returning to the ruins of their homes, confronting both devastation and uncertainty.

As Malak A. Tantesh reports from Gaza and Julian Borger from Jerusalem, President Trump’s proposal for the United States to “own” Gaza, expel its 2.2 million residents, and transform the enclave into a “Riviera” has drawn widespread disbelief. Yet for many Palestinians, the idea, however implausible, is not something they can ignore. If months of relentless bombardment failed to drive them from their land, they argue, neither will a billionaire’s real estate scheme. Legal experts warn that Trump’s plan not only disregards international law but also reduces the decades-long conflict to a transactional land deal.

Should the US president proceed with his plan to expel Palestinians, Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said it would constitute a grave war crime. “Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which both Israel and the United States have ratified, prohibits forcing the population of an occupied territory to leave. Indeed, given the magnitude of this plan, it would probably qualify as a crime against humanity,” Roth explained.

Why is the plan so controversial?

Even by Trump’s standards—known for upending US policy in the Middle East, from moving the embassy to Jerusalem to recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights—his latest proposal for Gaza is the most extreme yet. So much so that presidential historians have asserted that none of his predecessors has ever proposed resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by expelling Palestinians and seizing their land.

Executing such a plan involves multiple complications, particularly under international law — an area Trump has often sidestepped, as seen in his sanctions against the International Criminal Court over its investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza and the arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Beyond the legal hurdles, the proposal clashes with the deeply held convictions of many Gazans. Descendants of those who fled or were displaced during the 1948 creation of Israel — an event known as the Nakba, or ‘catastrophe’ — they find the idea of another mass displacement unbearable. For these Palestinians, holding on to their land is not merely an issue of survival, but a matter of preserving their identity.

Commenting on the controversial plan, Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, outlined several potential solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each fraught with challenges. One possibility, he explained, is granting equal rights to all within a “one-state reality” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. However, this idea is firmly rejected by the Israeli government, which fears it would erode the Jewish majority. Another option, Roth noted, is the status quo, which is favored by the Israeli government but increasingly seen by the international community as a form of apartheid. He also pointed to the two-state model, where Israel and Palestine exist side by side, as a third solution, though it has been consistently opposed by Netanyahu.

Roth then turned to Trump’s proposal, calling it a fourth, and far more extreme, option – forcibly removing Palestinians from their land. He described this as a position aligned with the Israeli far-right, but one that the international community widely condemns. “No one should accept that massive war crime, but Trump, being Trump, just did,” Roth remarked, highlighting the chilling implications of the US president’s endorsement of such a plan.

According to Roth, Trump is openly advocating an enormous war crime – mass forced deportation. “We shouldn’t be fooled by Trump’s effort to wrap his war crime in humanitarian language. There are plenty of ways to help Palestinians without forcing them permanently from their homeland,” he concluded.

What if Trump gets his way?

While the US president may lack the legal, military, and diplomatic power, as well as regional backing, to impose his proposal, there are still several ways he could attempt to push his agenda forward. One option would be to pressure Egypt and Jordan, possibly by threatening to cut their aid from Washington. Another route might involve persuading Saudi Arabia to present a version of the plan that, while not fully aligned with Trump’s vision, could fall within a close margin.

Last week, King Abdullah of Jordan, speaking at an impromptu news conference in the Oval Office, announced that Arab countries, including Egypt, would devise an alternative plan to rebuild Gaza without resorting to ethnic cleansing. Shortly after this statement, Egypt issued its own version, confirming it would present a comprehensive vision for rebuilding Gaza while ensuring Palestinians remain on their land. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is also drafting its own proposal. Yet, nearly all regional actors, apart from Israel, seem to have been caught off guard—scrambling to prevent what experts have described as a major catastrophe, a violation of international law, and a blow to Palestinian rights.

Trump’s approach, according to Roth, signals a return to an imperialist world order, where powerful nations simply seize territory. The former executive director of Human Rights Watch argued that this mindset was condemned decades ago, particularly during the era of decolonisation, and is part of why Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is universally regarded as illegal. “Trump’s apparent indifference to this historical consensus is troubling,” Roth said.

Normalising ethnic cleansing

During a press engagement in the Oval Office, the US president stated that the people of Gaza had nothing to return to, and no other option, arguing that the enclave had become uninhabitable due to the intense bombing. While his assessment of the dire living conditions in the war-ravaged area is not entirely unfounded, his proposed plan remains at odds with the will of the Palestinian people and internationally agreed-upon norms.

When asked whether Trump’s plan normalises the discourse around ethnic cleansing, both in Gaza and globally, Roth responded: “Trump is clearly endorsing ethnic cleansing.” He went on to explain that whether this turns into broader legitimisation of what he described as a war crime would depend on the response of other governments and different factions of the US government. Roth expressed hope that most people would reject the proposal, calling it “beyond the pale.” He concluded that if the plan is widely condemned, it should not cause lasting damage.

Echoing Roth’s concerns, Ashok Swain, Professor of Peace and Conflict at Sweden’s Uppsala University, warned that normalising displacement could frame it as an inevitable or even acceptable outcome. This, Swain argued, has the potential to desensitise both public opinion and policy responses. “Peacebuilding must center on justice, inclusion, and the right of return,” he emphasised, adding that it should never be about “the erasure of people from their lands.”

Swain pointed to historical precedents where forced displacement has led to entrenched cycles of violence and instability, citing the Nakba of 1948, the displacement of Kosovars during the Yugoslav Wars, and the expulsion of Rohingya from Myanmar as troubling examples. In these instances, he noted, displacement following conflict has caused long-term harm to both the affected populations and the wider region. By normalising such actions, Swain warned, a dangerous precedent is set, suggesting that territorial acquisition through destruction and coercion could be accepted—an action that contradicts both international law and fundamental human rights.

Regional challenge, America’s prescription

The global response to the US president’s proposal for Gaza has been overwhelmingly negative, drawing condemnation from governments, human rights organisations, and international legal experts alike. In the Middle East, however, the reaction has been more complex. Jordan and Egypt, two regional allies of the United States, are caught in a difficult balancing act. Yet any alignment on this plan has the potential to trigger increasing frustration among their local populations, who have long supported the Palestinian cause for decades. As a result, both governments face growing domestic pressure to reject any plan they view as harmful to Palestinian rights.

On Jordan and Egypt’s response to Trump’s Gaza proposal, Roth stated that the US president is pressuring both countries to accept the forcibly displaced Palestinians, threatening to cut their US aid if they refuse. However, he emphasised that both governments have firmly rejected any involvement in the plan. “They don’t want to be accomplices to war crimes,” Roth remarked, adding that the resistance from both Jordan and Egypt stems from significant legal and ethical concerns. He further emphasised the potential for widespread public opposition, noting, “Their people would clearly rebel were their governments to agree to join this illegal scheme.”

Saudi Arabia, one of the region’s main powers, has taken a more cautious stance in its response. While the kingdom maintains strong ties with the United States, its reaction to Trump’s proposal has been measured. Saudi officials have reiterated their commitment to a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians, but have not publicly endorsed Trump’s plan, which many in the kingdom view as a threat to the Palestinian cause. At home, perhaps to deflect attention from the growing fallout over Trump’s Gaza proposal, the Saudi leadership has turned its ire on Israel, launching a scathing media campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The attack, unusual in its intensity, also signals growing frustration within the Saudi royal court over Netanyahu’s remarks during a recent interview in which he joked about the possibility of creating a Palestinian state within Saudi Arabia’s borders. The comments have been seen as an insult to Saudi Arabia’s leadership, which has long positioned itself as a champion of Palestinian rights in the Arab world. While Riyadh has consistently maintained that any formal relationship with Israel depends on a two-state solution, Netanyahu’s comments, as reported by the Financial Times, seem to have struck a nerve, complicating the delicate diplomatic balancing act Saudi Arabia faces in managing its relationships with both the United States and Israel.

The leadership in Riyadh, according to experts, is acutely aware of the domestic and regional pressures it faces on this issue. Public support for the Palestinian cause remains deeply rooted within the kingdom, and there is growing demand from both grassroots movements and influential religious figures for stronger action on behalf of Palestinian rights. In response, the kingdom appears to be navigating a middle ground, trying to avoid taking a firm stance against Washington while continuing to shape the broader Arab solution to the ongoing crisis.

Speaking on the challenges faced by Middle Eastern leaders, Swain, from Uppsala University, noted that while regional powers such as Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar have expressed concern, their responses remain limited by geopolitical constraints. Swain argued that while viable alternatives for peace exist, the real obstacle is the lack of political will from global powers—particularly the United States—to support them. He warned that framing the conflict in simplistic terms, as some US politicians have done, risks legitimising a unilateral approach that ignores the region’s complexities and historical grievances.

Recasting Gaza’s future through the lens of luxury development, Swain said, erases the trauma and devastation its people have endured. This narrative, he argued, commodifies suffering, reducing a humanitarian crisis to a real estate opportunity. “Such a real estate-driven approach to foreign policy can embolden leaders globally to justify land grabs under the guise of economic development,” he said. “It also risks reducing conflict resolution to a transactional exercise, sidelining justice and reconciliation.”

Trump’s proposal, Swain cautioned, raises profound ethical, legal, and political concerns. “It evokes the specter of displacement under the guise of development, a move that violates international law, including the Geneva Conventions.” The concept of ‘owning’ territory with a history of dispossession and suffering, he said, dismisses the rights of Palestinians to self-determination.

“Such a unilateral move undermines prospects for a just peace and sets a dangerous precedent where economic interests and military superiority override human rights. Rather than promoting peace, this proposal could exacerbate tensions, deepen grievances, and escalate regional instability,” Swain concluded.