In the short term, it might help Netanyahu’s government survive
Donald Trump’s suggestion Tuesday that the US take over Gaza as its population relocates to other countries was a breathtaking and puzzling gift to visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The practical outcome is that it will probably enable Netanyahu’s government to survive even if he ends the Gaza war.
As things stood, the far-right has been threatening to bolt Netanyahu’s coalition in opposition to the current ceasefire – which if implemented fully would win the return of all of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza in exchange for an Israeli military pullout and an end to the war. The implication had been that Hamas, however degraded, would remain in power in the strip and would claim victory despite the cataclysmic ruination left by the war.
Trump’s idea, however fantastical, would reshuffle the deck completely. Puzzlingly, Trump repeated several times that the United States would retake the territory and rebuild it “magnificently” with funding from other countries – presumably the oil-rich Gulf states. For the ultimate benefit of whom, it remained unclear. Would Hamas just let him do it? Does Trump want the Marines fighting jihadists in the shanties of Khan Younis? Perhaps he’s banking on the Arab world to squeeze Hamas. Perhaps it’s not thought-out.
Either way, Trump accurately enough called Gaza “a demolition site,” and offered to build “a beautiful area … with peace and harmony” while the Palestinians relocated to “other countries with humanitarian hearts.” He added: “You have to learn from history. You can’t keep doing the same mistake over and over again. Gaza is a hellhole.”
As popular as such a notion would be among right-wing Israelis – and even some mainstream Israelis looking for game-changing ideas – it has been flatly rejected by official circles in Egypt and Jordan and other Arab nations. “Our homeland is our homeland, if part of it is destroyed, the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian people selected the choice to return to it,” said the Palestinians’ envoy to the UN, Riyad Mansour.
So, is this a clever and practical masterstroke? Netanyahu described it as “out of the box … the kind of thinking that will reshape the Middle East and bring peace.” Or is it a dangerously provocative complication that encourages the fantasies of fanatics about the Palestinians disappearing from the Holy Land?
Let’s examine.
Rage over Palestinian displacement is deeply rooted in their history. During the 1948-49 war, between 600,000 and 700,000 Palestinians left, an event that has shaped the Palestinian identity ever since and is widely referred to as the “Naqba” (catastrophe). Studies indicate that at least half were forcibly removed, creating the foundation for a refugee mentality that persists today.
Over six million Palestinians now consider themselves refugees, including most of Gaza’s population. This has been perpetuated by UNRWA, the United Nations agency dedicated solely to Palestinian refugees, maintaining their dependency rather than resettling them, and by Arab states that have historically refused to grant Palestinians full citizenship, sustaining the conflict.
Trump’s proposal adds a new layer to this volatile reality. The very suggestion of another mass exodus feeds into the long-standing narrative of displacement and statelessness. The idea of forcing Palestinians out — whether directly or through indirect coercion — would be seen as ethnic cleansing, a war crime under international law. No Arab country would cooperate, and the international backlash would be severe. Israel, already facing scrutiny, would find itself in even greater legal and diplomatic peril.
However, Trump is not entirely wrong in saying that Gaza is unlivable. Even before the current war, conditions in Gaza were dire. Under Hamas rule, the population has been impoverished and indoctrinated into jihadism, squeezed into a tiny strip of land (of 141 square miles).
Now, after over a year of Israeli bombardment, the destruction is staggering. By some estimates – not only Trump’s – the majority of Gaza’s buildings have been badly damaged. The idea of rebuilding from scratch, especially with Hamas still in control, seems nearly impossible.
This presents an uncomfortable paradox. Well-intended advocates for the Palestinian cause might find themselves arguing to keep people trapped in a devastated enclave, simply to avoid accusations of ethnic cleansing. Having worked as a journalist in the region and having supervised AP’s Gaza bureau for years, I know firsthand that many Gazans have long wished to leave. Some succeeded to their delight, but for most, the blockade and political barriers made it impossible.
The question, then, is whether any resettlement would be truly voluntary. Even if it were, indirect coercion is a real concern. What if aid is withheld or reconstruction efforts are intentionally slow? Economic hardship and desperation could push people to leave, even without formal expulsion.
Additionally, would those who depart be allowed to return? Without rock-solid guarantees of a right to return, any so-called voluntary relocation could easily become a de facto permanent expulsion. Yet Trump’s Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, told reporters that “it is unfair to explain to Palestinians that they might be back in five years … That’s just preposterous.”
Complicating the picture further is the war itself, which was triggered by the October 7 Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel. The scale and brutality of the attack, in which 1,200 Israelis were murdered and hundreds taken hostage, created an unprecedented level of national trauma. In its aftermath, even many moderate Israelis — those who have historically supported a two-state solution — have a sense that the Palestinians collectively must face consequences. This sentiment has fueled harsher public attitudes and helped solidify right-wing narratives that advocate for a hardline response.
Trump’s proposal, however impractical, will be popular with Israelis who find it intolerable that they should return to the pre-Oct. 7 status quo. Hamas has systematically ensured that generations of Gazans grow up with a deep hostility toward Israel, making the prospect of future peace even more remote. For many Israelis, this continuing is unthinkable, yet removing Hamas entirely has proven to be a near-impossible challenge.
But permanently displacing a significant number of Palestinians from Gaza — or any part of Palestinian territory — would almost certainly create yet more problems. The only way such a plan could work even in part, both morally and practically, is if those who leave are given an ironclad right to return and, critically, if their relocation is within the West Bank rather than to a third country. Without these conditions, the idea is not only unrealistic but dangerously destabilizing.
While Gaza’s current reality is dire, the answer cannot be another forced exodus. If that much is understood, pursuing new ideas is a good idea.
The Palestinian Authority Should Be Restored to Power in Gaza
