President Donald Trump’s latest remarks on Gaza have sparked intense debate, raising urgent questions about whether forced migration is truly a crisis to be solved—or an issue exploited for political and economic gain.
Trump’s proposal? That the U.S. should take over Gaza, displace its 2.2 million residents to Egypt and Jordan, and transform the territory into a so-called “Riviera of the Middle East.” At first glance, he presents this as a humanitarian solution, suggesting that Palestinians should relocate to escape the “constant threat of death.” But beneath the surface, the implications are alarming. This isn’t just a misguided proposal—it’s a blueprint for mass displacement with profound humanitarian, legal, and geopolitical consequences.
What makes this even more jarring is Trump’s well-documented hostility toward refugees which have criminalised migration and sought to limit the entry of displaced individuals into the United States. Yet now, Trump expects Egypt and Jordan to absorb millions of displaced Palestinians—countries already stretched thin by economic challenges and the ongoing refugee crisis. This double standard underscores the political and economic motivations behind the proposal, rather than any genuine concern for human welfare. If the U.S. wouldn’t take in refugees under his leadership, why should these nations be forced to bear the burden?
Trump’s vision of transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” reveals his inclination to approach complex geopolitical issues through the lens of real estate development. Throughout his career, Trump has been known for his grandiose projects, often prioritising profit and prestige over ethical considerations. This proposal seems to follow the same pattern, treating Gaza as a piece of prime real estate to be redeveloped rather than a region inhabited by millions of people with deep historical and cultural ties to the land. The idea of re-purposing Gaza as a luxury destination reflects a blatant disregard for the rights and aspirations of its residents, reducing them to obstacles in the way of a lucrative venture.
If forcibly displacing Gaza’s population sounds illegal, that’s because it is. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, explicitly prohibits the forcible transfer of populations under occupation. The principle of non-refoulement further bars the relocation of individuals to territories where their lives or freedoms could be at risk. Forcing Gaza’s population to relocate without their consent would likely violate these fundamental principles, setting a dangerous precedent for the treatment of displaced populations worldwide. Moreover, the right of return is a core issue for Palestinians, enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. This resolution affirms the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, a principle that has been central to the Palestinian struggle for justice and recognition. Any plan that ignores this right and proposes permanent resettlement elsewhere is bound to face staunch opposition (as it should) from Palestinians and the broader international community. Trump’s proposal not only disregards this right but also undermines decades of diplomatic efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Beyond legal issues, the moral implications are staggering. Palestinians aren’t seeking a real estate deal—they’re fighting for their right to live in peace, with dignity, on their own land. Trump’s plan dismisses that right entirely.
Even if this plan were seriously pursued, Egypt and Jordan would never accept it—and for good reason. The two proposed destinations for Gaza’s displaced population, are already grappling with significant economic and political challenges. Absorbing millions of additional refugees would place an immense strain on their resources and infrastructure, potentially destabilising the region further. Additionally, the plan risks alienating key allies and exacerbating tensions in the Middle East, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a deeply polarising issue.
Trump’s Gaza proposal is not just a flawed policy—it’s a stark reminder of how forced migration is often manipulated for political and economic gain. By treating Gaza as a real estate project and its population as expendable, the plan reveals a profound disregard for human rights and international law. It also underscores the urgent need for a more ethical and principled approach to addressing displacement, one that prioritises the dignity and rights of affected populations over profit and power. As the international community grapples with this proposal, it must confront the deeper reality that forced migration is not merely a crisis to be managed but a humanitarian imperative to be solved.
