Photo: US President Donald Trump along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint press conference In Washington on February 04, 2025.

Introduction: To Name is to Dominate

In the annals of colonial history, the act of naming has been a potent form of power. To name a people or a place is to shape its identity, to control its boundaries, and often to erase its agency. This is a theme that echoes through the work of Edward Said, whose Orientalism dissects the West’s long history of creating and defining the “Orient” as an exotic, backward, and passive entity. The geopolitical world, through this lens, becomes a stage where external powers act on subjugated regions and populations, defining their futures with little regard for their autonomy.

This same logic pervades the United States’ recent proposal for the forced relocation of Gaza’s two million Palestinian residents [1]. In this vision, Gaza is transformed from a self-defined territory into a pawn—an expendable object to be moved around, displaced, and reconfigured according to the dictates of foreign powers. With the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump suggested that Gaza’s population be resettled in neighboring countries, namely Jordan or Egypt, framing this as a solution to the “humanitarian crisis” and arguing that Palestinians would have a “better quality of life” outside their homeland [2]. This proposal, cloaked in the language of pragmatism and humanitarianism, is nothing more than the latest chapter in a long history of dispossession—a history that erases Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty.

The implications of this plan extend far beyond the immediate Palestinian community in Gaza. They touch on fundamental issues of international law, human rights, and the broader geopolitical order. If accepted, Trump’s Gaza relocation proposal would serve as a grave violation of international norms, undermining the rights of Palestinians to self-governance and sovereignty. It would also have devastating consequences for regional stability, making the Middle East even more volatile, while further eroding the United States’ moral standing on the global stage. This is not just an isolated policy proposal; it is a strategic maneuver that carries deep consequences for the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader international order.

A Sovereign State as a Pawn: The Assault on Palestinian Self-Determination

At its core, Trump’s Gaza relocation proposal represents a direct challenge to Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty. The history of Gaza cannot be reduced to a mere pawn in the geopolitical game, nor should its people be treated as dispensable commodities. Gaza is not a failed state nor a non-sovereign entity; it is a territory with a rich history, a resilient population, and an indomitable will to preserve its identity. The notion that Gaza’s residents should be forcibly relocated to neighboring countries—countries which themselves face enormous political, economic, and social challenges—betrays a complete disregard for the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations.

The Palestinian struggle for self-determination is enshrined in international law, beginning with the right to freely choose their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This right is protected by the United Nations Charter [3], the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [4], and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [5]. Trump’s proposal seeks to strip Palestinians of this fundamental right by offering them an option to abandon their homeland, disregarding their attachment to the land of their ancestors and their right to live in it with dignity.

The concept of “relocation” evokes disturbing parallels with other moments in history when entire populations were displaced for political and strategic reasons. The forced removal of Native American tribes from their lands in the 19^th-century United States by the federal government [6], the brutal expulsion of Palestinians during the Nakba of 1948 [7], and the mass population transfers during the partition of India in 1947 [8], all represent dark chapters in colonial and post-colonial history, marked by displacement, violence, and enduring socio-political consequences. In each of these instances, the populations in question were framed as obstacles to national or imperial ambitions, to be relocated or eradicated in the pursuit of strategic objectives. By proposing that Gaza’s two million inhabitants be relocated to neighboring countries, Trump’s policy aligns with this troubling historical precedent, once again placing the fate of an entire people in the hands of external powers.

This disregard for Palestinian self-determination is compounded by the claim that their quality of life would improve if relocated. Such rhetoric ignores the historical, emotional, and cultural ties Palestinians have to Gaza. The very fabric of Palestinian identity is intertwined with the land, and the notion that they could simply be resettled elsewhere reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of their struggle. Gaza is not a “demolition site,” as Trump characterized it; their long history of struggle represents resilience, resistance, and identity [9]. Palestinians have lived there for generations, and to uproot them is to undermine their very right to exist on their own terms.

Moreover, Trump’s proposal implies that Palestinians are simply a problem to be solved rather than a people with legitimate political and human rights. This perspective—treating the Palestinian cause as an external issue rather than an internal struggle for justice—underpins much of U.S. policy in the region, particularly under Trump’s administration. By reducing Palestinians to an “issue” rather than recognizing them as active agents of their own destiny, the United States perpetuates the very colonial logic that Said deconstructed in Orientalism—the idea that external powers have the right to define and control the lives of others.

Regional Reverberations: Destabilizing the Middle East

The geopolitical ramifications of Trump’s Gaza relocation plan are vast and far-reaching. The very fabric of Middle Eastern politics is fragile, held together by a delicate balance of alliances, rivalries, and historical grievances. The displacement of Gaza’s population would not only exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian people but would also reverberate across the entire region, further destabilizing a part of the world already plagued by conflict and unrest.

One of the immediate consequences of this proposal would be the profound destabilization of Jordan and Egypt, two key U.S. allies in the region [10]. Jordan, in particular, hosts a large Palestinian population—estimated at over two million—and has long been the recipient of Palestinian refugees who fled the violence and displacements of previous decades [11]. The prospect of further resettling Gaza’s population within its borders would strain Jordan’s political, economic, and social fabric, triggering a potential backlash from both its Palestinian citizens and its indigenous population. Jordanian officials, already grappling with internal political challenges and the impact of regional conflicts, would view such a proposal as an existential threat to their nation’s stability. The country could face significant social unrest, jeopardizing U.S. interests in the region and exacerbating the already fragile security situation.

Egypt, as well, would be forced to confront the implications of the proposal. The Rafah border crossing, which links Gaza to Egypt, is one of the few entry and exit points for the Gaza Strip. Any attempt to resettle Palestinians in Egypt would place a tremendous burden on Cairo, which has already borne the weight of political and economic crises in recent years. More importantly, it would put its peace deal with Israel at risk [12]. The displacement of Gaza’s population would add another layer of pressure to Egypt’s already overstretched resources, particularly in its Sinai Peninsula, where insurgencies and terrorist groups have long posed a challenge to government control.

Furthermore, Trump’s Gaza relocation plan would likely provoke intense resistance from Palestinian factions, particularly Hamas, which controls Gaza. Hamas has long rejected any compromise on Palestinian sovereignty and would view the proposal as a direct assault on their legitimacy and the rights of their people. In such a context, armed resistance would probably escalate, further undermining the prospects for peace and reconciliation.

The broader regional consequences are equally concerning. The proposal would fuel tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors, undoing the fragile diplomacy that has been achieved through initiatives like the Abraham Accords. These accords, which saw several Arab nations normalize relations with Israel, have been touted as a historic achievement in Middle Eastern diplomacy. However, by forcibly relocating Palestinians, the United States would risk alienating Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, which have already expressed concerns about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such a move would reverse any goodwill generated by the Abraham Accords and risk reigniting long-standing grievances over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The final and perhaps most dangerous consequence of Trump’s Gaza proposal is the erosion of U.S. credibility on the world stage. For decades, the United States has positioned itself as a champion of human rights, democracy, and international norms. Its actions in the Middle East, however, have often betrayed these ideals. The invasion of Iraq, the support for authoritarian regimes, and the abandonment of Palestinian rights all serve as examples of how U.S. policy has at times conflicted with its professed values [13].

If Trump’s Gaza relocation proposal were to be enacted, it would send a clear signal that the U.S. no longer adheres to the principles of international law and human rights that have underpinned its foreign policy since the end of World War II. The forced displacement of Gaza’s population would be a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 194, which affirms the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes [14]. By endorsing such a policy, the U.S. would abandon its role as a moral leader on the global stage, undermining its ability to advocate for human rights and justice in other parts of the world.

This shift in U.S. foreign policy would not go unnoticed by America’s adversaries. China, Russia, and Iran have all sought to challenge U.S. hegemony in recent years, positioning themselves as alternative models for the developing world [15]. In the Middle East, both China and Russia have been expanding their influence through economic partnerships and military alliances. If the U.S. were to endorse the forced relocation of Palestinians, it would provide a powerful tool for these adversarial powers, who could position themselves as defenders of international law and Palestinian rights, further weakening the U.S. position in the region.

Conclusion

Trump’s Gaza relocation proposal is not just a tactical move in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it’s a reflection of a deeper erosion of global norms and the principles that have governed international relations since World War II. The forced displacement of Gaza’s two million residents is a direct assault on Palestinian sovereignty and a violation of their fundamental right to self-determination. Nonetheless beyond the immediate impact on Gaza, this proposal signals a wider disregard for the international legal framework that has historically protected human rights and global peace.

By advocating for the relocation of an entire population to neighboring countries, Trump’s plan risks destabilizing the entire Middle East, further escalating tensions between Israel, Palestine, and regional powers like Jordan and Egypt. This strategy mirrors the United States’ broader retreat from key United Nations bodies, signaling a shift toward unilateralism—especially when it comes to advancing Israeli interests [16]. This withdrawal from international institutions leaves the U.S. free to act without accountability, but at what cost? While it may safeguard Israeli interests, it undermines U.S. credibility and moral leadership, not just in the Middle East, but globally. The withdrawal weakens the very mechanisms that allow for diplomatic negotiation and international cooperation, making it harder for the U.S. to advocate for peace and justice on the world stage.

In the face of such a challenge, the United States must rethink its approach to foreign policy and reaffirm its commitment to the foundational values of justice, human rights, and international cooperation. The path forward cannot be one of forced displacement or geopolitical maneuvering—it must respect the rights of Palestinians and uphold the global framework that ensures the dignity and autonomy of all peoples. Only by embracing this path can the U.S. restore its standing as a global leader and contribute meaningfully to a more just and stable international order.

Finally, a nation must not prioritize the interests of a single ally to such an extent that it compromises its own reputation, credibility, and role as a moral authority on the global stage. Excessive support for one country—such as the United States’ unwavering backing of Israel—risks alienating the international community and eroding the foundational values that have historically defined American leadership. These values are not only integral to global stability, but also crucial for maintaining the United States’ influence in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Displacement is not a solution. Justice is.

References:

1. Jacob Magid, L.B., Hosting PM, Trump urges permanent relocation of all Gazans: ‘That place has been hell.’ in Times of Israel. 2025. Available from: https://www.timesofisrael.com/meeting-pm-trump-urges-permanent-relocation-of-all-gazans-that-place-has-been-hell/
2. Betsy Klein, a.L.H., Trump suggests his plan for Gaza Strip is to ‘clean out the whole thing’, in CNN. 2025. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/25/politics/trump-gaza-strip-jordan-egypt/index.html
3. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations. 1945 2/5/2025]; Available from: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
4. United National General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171. . 1966 2/7/2025]; Available from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html.
5. United National General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948 2/7/2025]; Available from: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
6. Congress, L.o. Removing Native Americans from their Land. n.d 2/7/2025]; Available from: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/native-american/removing-native-americans-from-their-land/.
7. MEE, Nakba: The Palestinian catastrophe, explained, in Middle East Eye. 2024: Avilable from: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nakba-palestine-catastrophe-explained
8. Brahmananda, P.R., The Impact on India of Population Transfers in 1947 and After, in Economics of International Migration: Proceedings of a Conference held by the International Economic Association, B. Thomas, Editor. 1958, Palgrave Macmillan UK: London. p. 283-294.
9. Harvey, S., What Donald Trump said on Gaza — his statement in full. 2025, Independent; Available from, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-gaza-statement-full-b2692486.html
10. Keinon, H., Trump drops Gaza bombshell, shattering diplomatic orthodoxy – analysis, in he Jerusalem Post. 2025. Available from: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-840029
11. UNRWA. Refugee Camps in Jordan. n.d 2/8/2025]; Available from: https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan.
12. Magdy, S., Egypt lobbies against Trump plan to empty Gaza of Palestinians as Israel prepares for it, in AP News. 2025. Available from: https://apnews.com/article/trump-un-human-rights-palestinian-refugees-israel-05e1d57bbb41df38771d1ab69adb21a3
13. Ullah, A. and L. Xinlei, Navigating the Persian Gulf Security Complex: Saudi-Iran Rapprochement in an Era of Great Power Competition. East Asia, 2024. 41(3): p. 273-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-024-09430-2
14. Department, U.S.S., UN General Assembly Resolution 194, U.S.S. Department, Editor. 2009. Available from: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22566.htm
15. Ullah, A., China’s Middle East Moment: Will Beijing Seize the Opportunity in Syria? , in The Diplomat. 2025. Available from: https://thediplomat.com/2025/01/chinas-middle-east-moment-will-beijing-seize-the-opportunity-in-syria/
16. Lederer, E.M., Trump announces withdrawal from UN human rights body and halt to funding for Palestinian refugees, in AP News. 2025. Available from: https://apnews.com/article/trump-un-human-rights-palestinian-refugees-israel-05e1d57bbb41df38771d1ab69adb21a3

Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of MEPEI. Any content provided by our author is of his opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.