President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to relocate numerous Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and transform the area into a tourist hub encounters significant hurdles.
Many Palestinians, along with international observers, perceive this initiative as a strategy aimed at displacing them from their ancestral land, especially after Israel’s extensive military actions against Hamas have rendered substantial parts of Gaza uninhabitable. This proposal is widely interpreted as an effort to undermine the long-standing quest for Palestinian statehood, which enjoys considerable global backing.
Key Arab nations, including Egypt and Jordan—both strategic allies of the U.S. that maintain peace with Israel—have strongly criticized Trump’s suggestion, as have others who oppose the resettlement of more Palestinian refugees within their borders. Saudi Arabia, in a rare move, swiftly rejected the idea of transferring Palestinians and reiterated its stance that it will not pursue normalization with Israel unless a Palestinian state, inclusive of Gaza, is established.
Trump’s proposal poses threats not only to Gaza’s fragile ceasefire but also to the ongoing negotiations for the release of hostages taken during Hamas’ assault on October 7, 2023, which incited the current conflict. While Trump has claimed responsibility for reducing hostilities, the future of this truce now appears precarious.
For Palestinians, Gaza holds immense significance as a vital part of their homeland, with aspirations for an independent state encompassing Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—areas captured by Israel during the 1967 conflict.
The majority of Gaza’s residents trace their roots back to those displaced during the 1948 conflict surrounding Israel’s formation; many were denied the opportunity to return due to fears that their presence would dilute the Jewish demographic.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian representative to the U.N., remarked that if Trump’s intent is to find a “happy, nice place” for Palestinians, then returning to their historic lands in Israel is the answer.
The principle of remaining on their land amid possible expulsion resonates deeply within the Palestinian identity and struggle, which was vividly illustrated as hundreds of thousands returned to northern Gaza despite its extensive devastation.
Both Hamas and the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority, which engages in security cooperation with Israel, have vehemently denounced Trump’s relocation proposal.
For their part, Egypt and Jordan—which normalized relations with Israel decades ago—have consistently rejected prior schemes aimed at resettling Palestinians in their countries. They share concerns about Israel’s intentions following a potential mass exodus, fearing it could destabilize the region once more, as witnessed following the 1948 conflict, which contributed to Lebanon’s civil strife and Israel’s invasions of that nation. Additionally, with struggling economies, these countries would struggle to accommodate a large influx of refugees.
Trump suggested that affluent Gulf nations could finance the resettlement, but this appears improbable. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have joined Egypt and Jordan in opposing such transfer plans, with Saudi Arabia swiftly dismissing the proposal.
The position articulated by Saudi Arabia mirrors earlier comments made by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, emphasizing that normalization with Israel is contingent upon the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, stating that their position is “non-negotiable.”
Though Trump has various leverage points, including the ability to apply economic pressure on nations reliant on U.S. aid like Egypt and Jordan, those countries possess their own influences, particularly as wealthy Gulf states may assist in mitigating any financial ramifications.
Egypt has cautioned that any large-scale transfer of Palestinians into the Sinai Peninsula could jeopardize its peace agreement with Israel, a crucial element for regional stability and U.S. influence for nearly half a century.
Furthermore, Egypt and Qatar have acted as vital mediators with Hamas in negotiations that resulted in the current ceasefire, and they are collaborating with Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, to extend it further.
While the notion of massive relocation has historically resided with Israel’s far-right factions, mainstream Israeli leaders have begun to consider Trump’s proposition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged at a conference with Trump that while the president’s suggestions may seem shocking, they could warrant consideration.
Benny Gantz, viewed as a centrist and moderate alternative to Netanyahu, indicated he finds the proposal “creative, original, and worth evaluating,” particularly concerning the objective of ensuring that all hostages return. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, while critical of Netanyahu’s administration, did not outright oppose Trump’s proposal but emphasized that the priority should be the return of hostages and that it was premature to give it a definitive judgment without further details.
The current phase of the Gaza ceasefire involves Hamas releasing 33 hostages in exchange for the freedom of several hundred Palestinian prisoners, which concludes in early March. A subsequent phase involving the release of approximately 60 additional hostages for more Palestinian prisoners remains under negotiation. Hamas has maintained that it will not release the remaining hostages without a ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal, making forcible transfer unlikely.
Israel’s far-right Finance Minister has expressed support for Trump’s plan, advocating for what he terms “voluntary emigration” for numerous Palestinians and the reinstatement of Jewish settlements in Gaza. He has threatened to exit Netanyahu’s coalition if the war does not resume after the first phase, which would likely lead to early elections, increasing the risk for hostages still in captivity.
Resuming the war could jeopardize the remaining hostages’ safety and may not necessarily eliminate Hamas’s influence, as the group continues to control most of Gaza. Such a course of action would also undermine what Trump positions as a significant accomplishment and further postpone any normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia.
Another interpretation of Trump’s approach may be that it serves as a negotiating starting point aimed at achieving a broader Middle East peace agreement.
In a recent scenario, Trump threatened substantial tariffs against Canada and Mexico before pausing those threats following their leaders’ actions to address his security concerns.
During his first term, Trump considered the annexation of sections of the occupied West Bank until it was set aside in favor of creating a normalization agreement with the UAE.
Ultimately, Trump may choose to revise or defer his relocation idea in return for concessions from Arab leadership regarding Gaza reconstruction or establishing ties with Israel, although the Saudi announcement seems to eliminate that possibility.
Further clarity may emerge as the situation unfolds, particularly with an impending meeting between Trump and Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the White House next week.
