Donald Trump's Conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Not long after starting his second term, the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, has drawn attention with his controversial speeches. One of the most recent ones involved the proposal to take control of Gaza.
The proposal would involve the temporary relocation of Gaza's inhabitants to facilitate the reconstruction of the Strip and, in turn, convert it into the "Riviera of the Middle East." This idea, announced during the conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, February 4, took many by surprise, generating abundant backlash and some support from a minority sector.
What do international organizations think about this?
The European Commission has expressed its rejection of any act that involves the forced displacement of the Palestinian population. The UN must be particularly careful when commenting on such a sensitive issue but has highlighted that self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law that must always be protected.
What about the main parties involved?
Hamas expressed its rejection, labeling the proposal as a recipe for chaos. Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior member of the group, condemned Trump's statements and accused him of promoting the "expulsion from their land." Several media outlets have brought the term "ethnic cleansing" into the debate, referring to the possibility of expelling the population to make the region ethnically homogeneous. For his part, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has expressed his disagreement with any plan involving the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, advocating instead for a two-state solution.
On the other hand, the former Israeli security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has shown a supportive stance on the matter. Overall, Donald Trump's project received a higher rate of support among Israeli political sectors, mainly the far right.
Countries in the region like Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have expressed their disapproval of the displacement of Palestinians.
Other nations like Turkey, Russia, Spain, Australia, Italy, and China continue to support the idea of dividing Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with a special international regime for Jerusalem.
Thus, supporters of Trump's idea see it as a necessary and temporary "relocation." Meanwhile, those who reject it advocate for other solutions or accuse him of wanting to carry out ethnic cleansing.
Donald Trump's Message
On February 6, Trump expressed on social media platform X:
The Gaza Strip would be handed over to the United States by Israel at the end of the fighting. Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, would have already been resettled in much safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes in the region. In fact, they would have the opportunity to be happy, secure, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams from around the world, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the largest and most spectacular developments on Earth. No U.S. soldiers would be needed! Stability would reign in the region!!
Trump presents a "revolutionary solution" to all problems, talking about reconstruction in the region and even the creation of hundreds of jobs. However, doubts arise about its viability.
We are talking about the displacement of 2.2 million people, which would entail a colossal effort. Where would all the displaced go? Neighboring countries like Jordan, Syria, and Egypt have expressed their rejection of the displacement of Palestinians and the subsequent hosting of so many displaced persons. They have pointed out that this would represent a threat to the stability of their territories. President Trump also did not elaborate on what reintegration would look like afterward.
The Challenges of the Plan
The interest of the United States in the conflict is extremely notable, which leads us to question, is the country suited to carry out such a proposal? Could it do so while maintaining an impartial attitude? In the hypothetical case that the United States turns this mere idea into reality, it is hard to expect a nation that has explicitly shown its support for Israel to act fairly towards those involved.
Sovereignty over Gaza presents both legal and political challenges, which combined with the rejection of the international community toward forced displacement, make the implementation of this plan unlikely. In addition to the population's reluctance to leave their homes. In fact, carrying out this whole maneuver would constitute a violation of international law.
The United Nations Charter, in Article 2, paragraph 4, states that:
Members of the Organization, in their international relations, shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other form incompatible with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Likewise, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits mass forced relocations.
It is hard to imagine a situation in which Trump manages to reach an agreement with all parties. For its part, Hamas would never accept such a proposal, and the idea of Gaza being under U.S. control has also been rejected by Palestinian authorities in the West Bank. Israel, for its part, does not have the authority to unilaterally cede the territory of Gaza.
Currently, Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, but the UN considers it occupied territory by Israel, and most countries recognize it as part of the State of Palestine. For the United States to legally assume control of Gaza, an international mandate endorsed by organizations like the UN would be necessary. Otherwise, it would be considered an illegal occupation under international law.
An Undercover Strategy?
There is also a possibility that all of this is a strategy by Trump, as analysts have labeled his proposal unfeasible. In his book “The Art of the Deal,” he mentions a very particular strategy. This involves, initially, making an exorbitant offer so that later the involved parties concede on aspects they would not have been willing to before. That is, having made this idea public could have been aimed at raising the starting point for future negotiations and thus incentivize and facilitate them.
Conclusion
Donald Trump's proposal to take control of Gaza and relocate its inhabitants has generated numerous questions and a wide range of reactions. Could this plan be carried out without provoking further conflict? Will it really be a solution for peace in the Middle East, or are there more interests behind it? Only time and international negotiations can provide us with these answers.
Comments