In recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has surprised allies, adversaries, and apparently his own staff by repeatedly calling for a plan to resettle the entire Palestinian population of Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. It is difficult to discern what this plan actually entails, as Trump announced it in his characteristically off-the-cuff, scattershot manner. This much is certain: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeking to appease his extreme right coalition members, seized on the idea. Beyond complicating the chances of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the idea undermines core principles of the international legal order and threatens U.S. interests.
Coercion is Not Consent
The aggregation of Trump’s remarks and social media posts suggest that the plan involves somehow pushing Palestinians in Gaza to “beautiful sites” in Egypt and Jordan. Then – though it is unclear how – the United States would establish ownership of the Strip. Next, the United States will “develop” Gaza and turn it into a “riviera.” As Trump made clear, Gazans who leave would not be allowed to return, and “the world’s people” will live in the new riviera. Beyond the glaring immorality and illegality that inheres in the plan, it is absurd on many levels. Egypt and Jordan have made it clear that they will not agree to this plan freely. After his meeting with Trump, King Abdullah II of Jordan reiterated “Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank,” adding that “[t]his is the unified Arab position.” If these States are indeed coerced by aid deprivation, as Trump has threatened, they might turn to Russia and China to fill this gap, thus resulting in the loss of key U.S. allies in the region. If they are successfully coerced to cooperate, they might suffer extreme instability due to strong local political objection and potential entrenchment of militant groups in their territories, leading to even worse security problems in the region, including for Israel and U.S. interests.
Blatant Illegality
The above is secondary, though, to the plan’s blatant illegality under international law. Netanyahu attempts to skirt the legal barriers to this plan by claiming that leaving Gaza would be “optional,” but at the end of the day, such semantics are irrelevant.
Deportation of civilians is both a war crime and, under some conditions, a crime against humanity. In very limited circumstances relating to military necessity or the security of civilians, an occupying power is permitted to evacuate the civilian population. But, building a resort for other “the world’s people” is hardly a valid cause for such actions. In any case, evacuees must be allowed to return once the lawful cause of evacuation ceases to exist, something that Trump flatly rejects.
Trump and Netanyahu deflect accusations of deportation or ethnic cleansing claiming that Palestinians would want to leave. But, according to well-established international law, when there is a coercive environment, there is no consent. The International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes are clear: deportation can be carried out when “taking advantage of a coercive environment.” Palestinians in Gaza, like any other people, should be able to leave a place they no longer want to be in. But conditioning reconstruction on the permanent mass exodus of Gazans is something entirely different. When an area is so utterly destroyed – as Trump now says is the situation in Gaza – and leaders open the gate, so to speak, without acting in parallel and good faith to alleviate the situation within the area, they are precisely taking advantage of a coercive environment.
Occupation is Not Ownership
Another legally dubious aspect of this plan is the purported U.S. ownership of Gaza – an idea with mechanics so vague, it is difficult to seriously engage with. Presumably, Israel would occupy the territory and “give” it to the United States. But Israel, in this case, would only be an occupier, and occupation does not grant title. Israel would therefore not be in a position to transfer any “ownership” to the United States. Furthermore, the United States could not “take” the territory unilaterally without violating the basic rule against annexation, which the International Court of Justice recently held is applicable to the Palestinian territories. So, at most, the United States could be an occupier in Gaza. An occupier, however, is obligated to administer the territory in favor of the local population, which not only requires allowing Gazans to return to the territory, but also excludes the power to turn their homes into resorts for others, and generally requires respect of property rights. The laws of occupation, as well as the prohibition on annexation, fundamentally protect the local population’s right to self-determination. The Trump plan violates this right both in its approach to “ownership” of the territory, and its view of the scope of authority of an occupying power.
The odds of this “plan” materializing are admittedly low – if only because of the opposition from Arab States, and the sheer impracticability of many of its aspects. In Trump’s transactional world, it could also be a negotiating tactic. However, the damage inflicted on the most basic tenets of the international order by the casual normalization of the unthinkable is here to stay. Eventually, it would not only embolden the extreme right in Israel that seeks to continue the war in Gaza for the purpose of Jewish settlement, but will harm U.S. interests. It would both embolden its adversaries to advance their own extreme policies of annexation and deportation and destroy U.S. credibility in objecting to such policies.