The writer is an economist, anchor, geo-political analyst and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
In the intricate tapestry of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the recent pronouncements by President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza Strip have sent ripples of concern and condemnation across the globe. His proposal to ‘clean out’ Gaza by relocating over a million Palestinians to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt has not only provoked a storm of ethical debate but also threatens to undo decades of diplomatic efforts toward peace in the region. The recent declaration by President Donald Trump to rescind Biden-era sanctions against Israeli settlers implicated in violent clashes in the occupied West Bank has sparked profound consternation. Furthermore, Trump’s proposition to relocate over a million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, such as Jordan and Egypt, has been met with vehement opposition from Palestinian politicians, who condemn it as a blatant attempt at ethnic cleansing. This contentious plan would not only contravene the longstanding US stance that Gaza should remain an integral part of a future Palestinian state but also align the Trump administration with Israel’s radical far-right politicians, who advocate for the displacement of Palestinians to facilitate Jewish settlement. Trump’s comments appear to break with decades of US foreign policy, which has long emphasized a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There has long been a fear in the region that Israel wants to push Palestinians out of Gaza into neighboring countries — a premise Israel rejects but one supported by far-right factions of its governing coalition. The demographic of Gaza is predominantly Palestinian, many of whom are descendants of those displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known to Palestinians as the “Nakba” or catastrophe. The narrative of Gaza is one of conflict, displacement, and resilience. There are some 5.9 million Palestinian refugees worldwide, most of them descendants of people who fled with the creation of Israel in 1948. They are descendants of some of the approximately 750,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes in the conflicts surrounding the formation of Israel in 1948. Thousands of Palestinians have fled to Egypt since the war with Israel began, but they are not recognised there as refugees. As of January 2025, there were 877,000 refugees and asylum-seekers registered in Egypt, according to the UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. In May, the Palestinian ambassador in Cairo, Diab al-Louh, has said as many as 100,000 Gazans had crossed into Egypt since the war began, according to Reuters. In Jordan, more than 2.39 million Palestine refugees are registered with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Gaza has been under various degrees of Israeli control, though Israel officially withdrew in 2005. However, Israel maintains control over Gaza’s borders, sea, and air, effectively turning it into what many describe as an open-air prison. This history of displacement is pivotal when discussing Trump’s recent suggestions. His plan echoes the fears of another mass exodus akin to the Nakba, which saw approximately 700,000 Palestinians either flee or be forcibly expelled from their homes in what became Israel. Some on Israel’s far-right want to return to Gaza and establish settlements there. Israel ordered a unilateral pull out in 2005, with 21 settlements dismantled and about 9,000 settlers evacuated by the army. In October 2023, protests erupted in both countries in support of Palestinians in Gaza, with many showing disgruntlement with their governments’ cooperation with Israel given the high human toll Israel’s war had taken. Accepting a Palestinian population transfer would be more costly for the two countries than losing the American aid both countries rely on. Such actions threaten stability, risk extending the conflict further in the region, and undermine opportunities for peace and coexistence. The international community to support reaching a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump’s move was not a slip of the tongue but part of a much broader move than it seems, coordinated with Israel. Trump’s comments come 15 months into the war between Israel and Hamas, which has reduced much of Gaza to rubble. Israeli airstrikes have damaged or destroyed around 80% of buildings, including schools and hospitals, and around 92% of homes, according to the UN. Approximately 90% of Gaza residents have been displaced, and many have been forced to move repeatedly, some more than 10 times, according to the UN. The United Nations has previously estimated that 60% of structures across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, and it could take decades to rebuild. Most of Gaza’s two million residents have been displaced in the past 15 months of the war, which has flattened much of Gaza’s infrastructure. More than 57,200 Palestinians, the majority civilians, have been killed in Israel’s offensive, Gaza’s health ministry says.
Trump’s plan for Gaza Strip to ‘clean out the whole thing’ indeed a perilous path of Trump’s Gaza strategy for reflection and action. No doubt, there is nothing there – there is no life, everything is demolished. But still to return to your land, to your home is a big joy.
A ceasefire is being observed in Gaza after a deal between Israel and Hamas to halt the war which began 15-month back when Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023. Trump’s vision, as articulated, involves a significant shift from the traditional U.S. stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His proposal to move Palestinians out of Gaza to ‘clean out the whole thing’ not only defies the long-established two-state solution but also aligns with the most radical elements within Israel’s political spectrum, who advocate for territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinian rights. Beyond the moral and legal concerns, an influx of refugees into neighboring Arab countries could destabilize them and pose an existential threat. Agreeing to Trump’s proposal, would provoke widespread public anger – an untenable risk for those governments. Accept being participants in and hosting Palestinians in an ethnic cleansing, that would undoubtedly be infuriating and genuinely destabilizing for both countries. Palestinian leaders and international human rights organizations have labeled this plan as ethnic cleansing, drawing parallels with historical attempts to erase Palestinian presence from their homeland. The sheer scale of moving around 1.5 million people would be catastrophic, leading to humanitarian, legal, and moral crises. For Jordan and Egypt, accepting such a refugee influx would be politically, economically, and socially destabilizing. Jordan, already home to over 2.39 million Palestinian refugees, risks further demographic shifts that could threaten its internal stability and the Hashemite monarchy’s grip on power. Egypt, similarly, has been vocal about rejecting any forced displacement, fearing it could jeopardize its peace treaty with Israel and lead to significant internal unrest. The forced displacement of an entire population contravenes international law, which supports the right of return for refugees. Trump’s suggestion undermines the fundamental human rights of Palestinians to live in peace and dignity in their homeland. The situation in Gaza today is dire. According to recent UN assessments, the 15-month war between Israel and Hamas has left about 80% of Gaza’s structures damaged or destroyed, displacing approximately 90% of its residents. The human cost has been staggering, with over 57,200 deaths reported by Gaza’s health ministry, the majority being civilians. This backdrop of devastation makes any talk of relocation not just impractical but inhumane. Both Jordan and Egypt have firmly rejected Trump’s proposal. Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi has been particularly vocal, emphasizing a steadfast rejection of the displacement of Palestinians. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry has echoed these sentiments, rejecting any plan that involves the uprooting of Palestinians from their land, whether temporarily or permanently. This proposal might be seen by some as part of Trump’s broader policy of supporting Israel’s right-wing factions, particularly evident in his recent reversal of Biden-era sanctions on Israeli settlers. It’s a move that seems to favor Israel’s expansionist policies over the internationally recognized rights of Palestinians. Trump’s approach could dismantle years of peace negotiations by endorsing policies that favor one side over the other, potentially making a peaceful resolution even more elusive. This stance is a stark departure from the bipartisan U.S. policy that has historically supported a two-state solution. It raises questions about the U.S.’s role as an impartial broker in peace talks. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza requires not relocation but reconstruction and aid. The international community, including the U.S., should focus on aiding recovery, ensuring the safe return of displaced persons, and supporting the infrastructure needed for a viable Palestinian state.
Trump’s Gaza strategy, if implemented, would not only be a departure from ethical considerations but could also ignite a broader regional conflict, destabilize allies, and further entrench the suffering of the Palestinian people. The world must recognize this moment as a critical juncture where the path chosen could either lead towards another era of displacement or towards genuine peace and self-determination for Palestinians. The international community, especially those nations advocating for human rights and peace, must act with urgency to ensure that the narrative of Gaza moves towards one of rebuilding, reconciliation, and a hopeful, if not immediate, resolution to this long-standing conflict. The voices of the Palestinian people, their right to their land, and the sanctity of international norms must guide the future actions of all involved parties, including the United States. In the annals of history, the Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and Palestine has long been a crucible of international diplomacy and humanitarian concern, with the United States often playing the pivotal role of mediator. However, recent statements by President Donald Trump have starkly contradicted over six decades of established U.S. policy, which has traditionally advocated for a “two-state solution” as the pathway to peace. This policy, rooted in the acknowledgment of both Israeli and Palestinian rights to sovereignty, has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy, aimed at ensuring a peaceful coexistence. Trump’s suggestion to “clean out” Gaza by encouraging the displacement of its Palestinian population to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt directly opposes the U.S. stance against the forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza or the occupied West Bank. This proposition not only undermines the sanctity of Palestinian identity and their ancestral connection to the land but also threatens to undo years of diplomatic efforts towards a just resolution. The demographic reality in the region further complicates this scenario; Jordan already hosts over two million Palestinian refugees, most of whom have been granted citizenship, illustrating the significant burden and the historical context of displacement that Palestinians have endured since the formation of Israel in 1948. The United States, having been a major supplier of arms to Israel, has inadvertently contributed to the destruction witnessed in Gaza, where the landscape is now a testament to devastation, with virtually no standing structure left to speak of. The joy of returning to one’s land and home, despite the ruin, speaks volumes of the deep-seated attachment Palestinians have to their territory, an attachment that transcends the physical destruction. The moral and ethical implications of continuing to supply arms to Israel amid such destruction have sparked a renewed discourse on the responsibilities of the U.S. as a global power. Advocates for peace and justice argue for a cessation or significant reduction of arms shipments, highlighting the urgent need for a shift in policy that prioritizes human life and dignity over military might. The call for such a policy change is not merely a reaction to immediate devastation but a plea for a reconsideration of long-term peace strategies that respect international law and human rights. Therefore, the path forward must be one of introspection and reevaluation for the U.S. It is critical now more than ever to foster a dialogue that leads not to further displacement but to genuine peace, where Palestinians can return to and rebuild their lives in Gaza and the West Bank. The legacy of American involvement in this conflict should not be one of aiding in the erasure of a people from their land but rather one of facilitating a durable, equitable solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in security, dignity, and mutual recognition. The challenge lies in navigating away from past failures towards a future where such a vision could be realized, ensuring that the principles of justice and peace are not just rhetoric but the foundation of action. Trump’s plan for Gaza Strip to ‘clean out the whole thing’ indeed a perilous path of Trump’s Gaza strategy for reflection and action. No doubt, there is nothing there – there is no life, everything is demolished. But still to return to your land, to your home is a big joy.