Trump’s Gaza Plan: Reshaping the Middle East or Sparking Chaos

The fate of millions of Palestinians and the fragile stability of the Middle East hinge on US President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to relocate Gaza’s Palestinian residents to neighboring countries and transform the strip into a luxury tourism hub. Critics warn that this move, which could displace two million people, risks violating international law, escalating conflict and upending decades of efforts toward a two-state solution. With Egypt and Jordan firmly rejecting the plan and international condemnation mounting, Trump’s vision could either mark a radical redefinition of Middle East geopolitics or plunge the region into deeper turmoil.

President Trump’s Proposal
Trump’s plan envisions the United States assuming control over the Gaza Strip, with Israel handling security operations. Approximately two million Palestinians would be relocated primarily to Egypt and Jordan, while the Gaza Strip would be redeveloped into a prosperous tourism and economic hub along the Mediterranean coast. Trump has asserted that no US troops would be deployed for this initiative, framing it as a strategic investment to bring stability to the region. The administration justifies the proposal by arguing it would alleviate tensions and enhance economic prospects for the affected populations. However, the logistics, legality and morality of such a move have been widely questioned.

Reactions from Egypt and Jordan
Both Egypt and Jordan have categorically rejected the plan. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty reaffirmed the collective stance against relocating Palestinians, citing violations of international law and the risk of regional instability. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi stated unequivocally that Egyptians would strongly oppose any attempt to resettle Palestinians within their borders.

Similarly, Jordan has expressed strong opposition. Officials in Amman warned that the plan could exacerbate radicalism and threaten national security. King Abdullah II has reportedly prepared to convey these concerns directly to Trump, emphasizing that such a move could jeopardize Jordan's longstanding peace treaty with Israel and upset the country’s demographic balance. Jordan has consistently opposed any attempt to alter the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without a comprehensive and just resolution.

International Community's Response

The international response to Trump's proposal has been overwhelmingly negative. A coalition of Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, issued a joint statement rejecting any plans to forcibly remove Palestinians. These nations argue that such actions would violate international law and undermine longstanding efforts toward a two-state solution.

Human rights organizations have vehemently condemned the plan. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN warn that forced displacement on such a scale could amount to ethnic cleansing and potentially constitute war crimes. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasized that any forced transfer of populations contravenes the Geneva Conventions. International legal experts suggest the initiative would likely face legal challenges at the International Criminal Court (ICC), complicating its execution.

Feasibility and Implementation Challenges

Despite Trump’s assertion that Egypt and Jordan would eventually support the plan, strong resistance from these key regional players casts significant doubt on its feasibility. The logistical challenges of moving millions of people, along with the high likelihood of mass unrest, make the plan highly impractical.

Key challenges include:
Legal Barriers: Under international law, forced population transfers are explicitly prohibited. The Fourth Geneva Convention strictly forbids the forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons from occupied territories. The Rome Statute of the ICC classifies forced displacement as a war crime. Any attempt to implement such a plan could result in legal challenges at the ICJ or the ICC, with potential consequences for Israeli and allied leaders.

Security Risks: The displacement of millions of Palestinians from Gaza would likely lead to widespread unrest, provoking mass protests, violent clashes and potential uprisings. Such a move could fuel radicalization and increase recruitment for militant groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Countries with significant Palestinian refugee populations, such as Lebanon and Jordan, might also experience social unrest.

Economic Considerations: Relocating millions of Palestinians to neighbouring countries would require the construction of extensive infrastructure, placing a significant burden on host countries. Egypt, for example, faces high inflation, unemployment and a growing debt crisis, while Jordan has long dealt with the economic strain of hosting large refugee populations. International donors, including the UN and Western nations, would likely be reluctant to fund a resettlement programme seen as a violation of human rights.

Political Fallout: Forced displacement would damage Israel’s relations with Arab neighbors and key allies, including the US. Arab countries, particularly those that have recently normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords, would face significant public pressure to condemn and potentially reverse diplomatic engagement. Saudi Arabia, which has been in talks for normalization, would likely abandon such efforts. Furthermore, backing this proposal could undermine US credibility in the region and fuel anti-American sentiment.

Potential Impact on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

If implemented, this plan could drastically alter the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Escalation of Hostilities: The forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza could trigger widespread violence in Gaza, the West Bank and inside Israel. Such an action would likely provoke protests, civil unrest and armed resistance from Palestinian factions. The displacement could radicalize segments of the Palestinian population, leading to increased recruitment by militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, a key backer of these groups, may escalate its support through weapons and funding, increasing the likelihood of direct confrontations with Israel.

Undermining the Two-State Solution: The forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza undermines the viability of the two-state solution, which has been the foundation of most international peace efforts for decades. By removing Palestinians from their land, the move effectively negates any possibility of a contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state. This action would signal that Israel has abandoned any commitment to a negotiated settlement, fueling further resentment and resistance among Palestinians.

Regional Destabilization: The forced displacement of Palestinians would have serious ramifications for the wider Middle East. Egypt and Jordan, two countries that have maintained peace treaties with Israel, strongly oppose mass expulsion, fearing that an influx of refugees would destabilize their societies. Other Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, would likely perceive the move as a betrayal of their diplomatic engagements with Israel. The resulting humanitarian crisis could also trigger broader unrest, increasing anti-Israel sentiment and strengthening extremist narratives.

Impact on US Foreign Policy: The international backlash against such a plan would significantly damage US credibility and influence in the Middle East. Many allies and international organizations would view it as a violation of human rights and international law. The US, which has historically positioned itself as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would face accusations of complicity in ethnic cleansing. This could weaken American diplomatic ties with Arab nations, disrupt economic partnerships and provoke anti-US sentiment. Furthermore, multiple UN resolutions condemning the US and Israel could lead to increased diplomatic isolation.

Conclusion
President Trump’s proposal to take control of Gaza and relocate its Palestinian residents has been met with widespread opposition from key regional players, the international community and human rights organizations. Strong resistance from Egypt and Jordan, coupled with significant legal, ethical and logistical challenges, makes the implementation of this plan highly unlikely. Furthermore, the proposal risks exacerbating tensions within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, igniting violence and destabilizing the broader Middle East. While the initiative may align with Trump’s broader foreign policy approach of unconventional solutions, its potential repercussions suggest it is neither a viable nor a sustainable strategy for achieving peace and stability in the region.

The writer is a journalist and columnist specializing in international affairs, a PR expert, and a journalism lecturer with a PhD in Journalism and expertise in global diplomacy and foreign policy. Contact: [email protected]