TEL AVIV, Israel — President Trump’s proposal for U.S. acquisition of the Gaza Strip, coupled with the relocation of its inhabitants, has incited significant outrage throughout the Arab world and left American allies and global powers in disbelief. Even members of Trump’s own political faction have expressed confusion. However, the response within Israel has markedly differed.
The notion of resettling a large number of Palestinians from Gaza, once considered extreme, has garnered support among an Israeli populace shaken by the horrific Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. These attacks marked the deadliest event in Israeli history, leading many citizens to seek ways to restore their sense of security.
Israeli politicians from various parties have either fully embraced the concept or displayed a willingness to consider it. Opinion pieces in local newspapers have applauded the boldness of the proposal, while television commentators have actively debated its feasibilities. The Israeli defense minister has even tasked military officials with strategizing how to execute this controversial plan.
While the prospect of this proposal being realized faces numerous hurdles—both moral and practical—its introduction by a prominent world leader has invigorated discussions surrounding an idea previously deemed unacceptable in mainstream Israeli thought. Historian Tom Segev remarked that the plan’s surfacing legitimizes what could be perceived as a severe violation of rights.
Many who entertain the proposal caution that it might be impractical due to a variety of legal and operational challenges, stressing that any population movement should occur voluntarily. They acknowledge concerns raised by critics, including the U.N. secretary-general, regarding the potential for forced relocation to be construed as “ethnic cleansing.”
Opposition to the plan came from multiple quarters, including progressive Israeli citizens and Palestinian individuals living in Israel. The liberal newspaper Haaretz published an editorial urging opposition to this idea, emphasizing that any forced displacement of civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law, equating it to a war crime and a crime against humanity.
During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump outlined his vision for the United States to oversee the Gaza Strip, facilitating the relocation of its people, and transforming the war-torn area into a luxurious destination he dubbed the “Riviera of the Middle East.” This announcement provoked strong backlash across the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Jordan—two U.S. allies that have peace treaties with Israel, whom Trump suggested could absorb the displaced Palestinians.
Netanyahu welcomed Trump’s proposal, describing it as “remarkable” and possibly the best idea he had encountered. “The notion of allowing Gazans who wish to leave to actually do so—what’s wrong with that?” he questioned in a Fox News interview. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has called on military officials to devise a plan for the potential relocation, though he has provided few specifics about its implementation.
Even within the opposition, there appears to be a degree of openness to the idea. Former defense minister Benny Gantz and opposition leader Yair Lapid characterized Trump’s suggestion as “creative” and “intriguing,” respectively. However, both figures insisted that the details need careful examination, emphasizing the necessity of prioritizing efforts to release hostages still held in Gaza.
To Palestinians, Trump’s remarks evoke painful memories of their displacement during the 1948 war, which coincided with the establishment of Israel, as well as the subsequent dislocation caused by the 1967 Middle East war, which saw Israel gain control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The connection to their land is a vital element of Palestinian identity, and many refugees continue to harbor dreams of returning to their ancestral homes, a prospect that Israeli leadership views as a threat to maintaining a Jewish majority.
Segev noted that the idea of forcibly removing people from their land has historical roots in Israeli ideology dating back to its founding. Historically, these sentiments have mostly belonged to fringe elements within Israeli politics, the most noteworthy being the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose extremist views led to his political exclusion and the banning of his group in the U.S.
However, what was once deemed outrageously radical is now largely embraced by far-right parties in Israel, some of which are instrumental in supporting Netanyahu’s government. Their label for this idea as “voluntary emigration” is dismissed by many Palestinians as a euphemism for coercion. The endorsement from a figure like Trump is anticipated to embolden these hardline elements.
The devastating impact of the Hamas attack on October 7 has contributed to a shift in Israeli public opinion regarding the Palestinian issue. Many have increasingly rejected the concept of a two-state solution and adopted a view, heavily promoted by Netanyahu, that ongoing conflict is unavoidable and can only be managed intermittently through military means.
The shock and trauma stemming from the assault—where militants killed over a thousand Israelis and took numerous others as hostages—have revived a willingness among the Israeli public to consider more extreme solutions to regain security. On Israeli radio, broadcaster Sefi Ovadia expressed that after the attack, he felt gentler about discussing these once-controversial ideas. Columnist Ben Caspit remarked that virtually every Israeli should find value in such an initiative, save for those on the extreme left.
The psychological aftermath of the Hamas attack has led many Israelis to believe that the key to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might involve excluding Gaza altogether from the equation. Shmuel Rosner, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, reflected on how something once dismissed as fringe now appears plausible following the upheaval of October 7, affirming that this incident has transformed previous perceptions fundamentally.
