On Tuesday evening at the White House, President Donald Trump surprised the world with a proposal that could represent the most significant shift in U.S. policy towards the Middle East in decades.
He stated that the U.S. would assume control of Gaza for the “long term,” with plans to relocate Palestinians while transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Mr. Trump had previously suggested relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries such as Egypt and Jordan, but the suggestion of U.S. ownership over the Palestinian territory caught everyone off guard.
What exactly did Trump propose?
He indicated that the U.S. would take ownership of Gaza and be responsible for clearing unexploded ordnance and rebuilding the area into a center for jobs and tourism.
Donald Trump announced the proposal during his press conference alongside Benjamin Netanyahu.
He noted that he didn’t want to come across as overly confident, yet he approached the initiative as though it were one of his real estate ventures, claiming he would turn Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” a term often associated with the coastal areas of southern France and northern Italy.
While he provided minimal details on the implementation of the plan, he did mention that it would be “a long-term ownership position” and would not be returned to the Palestinian people.
He asserted that Gaza would be accessible “not for a specific group of people but for everyone.”
Does Donald Trump’s plan represent ethnic cleansing?
The announcement was met with immediate backlash.
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib took to X, saying: “This president is openly advocating for ethnic cleansing while sitting next to a genocidal war criminal. He’s perfectly fine cutting off working Americans from federal funds while the Israeli government continues to receive assistance.”
This president is openly calling for ethnic cleansing while sitting next to a genocidal war criminal. He’s perfectly fine cutting off working Americans from federal funds while the funding to the Israeli government continues flowing.
— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) February 4, 2025
U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen referred to the plan as “ethnic cleansing by another name.”
The term “ethnic cleansing” gained prominence in the 1990s to describe the violence inflicted on ethnic groups during the Balkan war following the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.
In particular, the term referred to the massacre of Muslim Bosnians in Srebrenica in July 1995.
In his 1993 article ‘A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing’ published in Foreign Affairs, Andrew Bell-Fialkoff described the Serbian campaign’s purpose as “the expulsion of an ‘undesirable’ population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological motives, or a mix thereof.”
Ethnic cleansing has been characterized as the attempt to eliminate, through forced displacement or even mass murder, members of an unwanted ethnic group to create an ethnically homogeneous geographical area.
If forced, the relocation of the entire Palestinian populace of Gaza could fit this definition.
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserted that the residents of Gaza would gladly accept his plan and relocate willingly.
“I heard that Gaza has been very unfortunate for them. They live under dire conditions. They dwell in what feels like hell. Gaza is not a place where people should reside, and the only reason they wish to return—this I firmly believe—is because they have no alternatives,” he stated.
He later claimed that affluent nations in the region could finance the resettlement and provide Gazans with “a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land.”
“I believe they would be thrilled,” he said.
When pressed if he would compel Palestinians to leave against their will, he replied, “I don’t think they’re going to tell me no.”
A voluntary relocation of Gazans would not equate to ethnic cleansing, yet the U.S. President’s assertions seem overly optimistic.
Thus far, Palestinians have uniformly rejected the relocation plan. During the Bosnian War, those committing acts of ethnic cleansing often framed their actions as voluntary relocations by victims.
Consequently, Mr. Trump’s voluntary justification does not necessarily negate the possibility of ethnic cleansing.
Rana Tomaira, Senior Lecturer in Social Research and Public Policy at NYU in Abu Dhabi, expressed no doubt. “It’s a clear plan and statement of intent, a call to action for ethnic cleansing,” she told RTÉ News.
“It happened in ’48. It happened in ’67, and it has been ongoing, albeit at low intensity. Then Trump comes along, and it’s laid bare. It’s essentially the true face of the colonial endeavor, as well as the real face of U.S. politics towards the Palestinians,” she continued.
She pointed out that whether people would be forcibly removed from their land is irrelevant, as by rendering Gaza uninhabitable, residents are already being pushed out.
How would the plan be implemented?
Hamas has already opposed the proposal. Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri referred to Mr. Trump’s proposed relocation as “a formula for generating chaos and tension in the region.”
The Palestinian ambassador to Ireland, Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid, stated on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland that no one on earth could forcibly remove the Palestinian people from their land.
“We belong there, and we will remain there,” she declared. “This is our land, and we will defend it and our legitimate right to be there,” she emphasized.
In essence, it seems highly unlikely that Palestinians will depart Gaza voluntarily. Should the U.S. indeed “take over” the territory as President Trump mentioned, it would almost certainly require a substantial military presence.
Such a deployment would mark the most significant commitment of U.S. forces in the Middle East since the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq two decades ago.
Furthermore, this would constitute a remarkable reversal for a president who famously opposed the Iraq invasion and pledged that the U.S. would reduce its involvement in global conflicts during his administration.
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all rejected the idea of relocating Palestinians to their territories. In a joint statement, they said that the transfer of Palestinians from their land would jeopardize regional stability and undermine peace.
Mr. Trump addressed this during his press conference. “They say they’re not going to accept it,” he announced. “I say they will.”
How he proposes to enforce his will on the region is yet to be determined.
Rana Tomaira suggested that the notion of U.S. troops in Gaza is not far-fetched. She remarked that the 15-month war was already orchestrated by the United States, asserting that the conflict ceased immediately upon the demand of the U.S. President, highlighting this as evidence of that orchestration.
“By circulating this idea, it invites public speculation and debate, thus normalizing the concept of ethnic cleansing,” she stated.
What implications does this hold for the ceasefire?
One of the key intentions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington was to discuss the second phase of the ceasefire agreement for Gaza.
The arrangement indicated that negotiations for the second phase would commence on the 16th day.
/Today is day 18 of the ceasefire.
The second phase is expected to facilitate the release of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas and oversee a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
If the U.S. plans to occupy Gaza, it would necessitate U.S. troops being on the ground prior to any full withdrawal by Israeli forces. Given the complexities involved in such an operation, this could potentially delay any Israeli withdrawal from the enclave.
In President Joe Biden’s final remarks, he stated that the ceasefire would remain in effect until the specifics of the second phase are finalized, even if that extends beyond the initial six-week truce.
At the very least, the announcement will complicate talks, as Hamas officials are unlikely to make concessions with such a plan on the table.
Rana Tomaira indicated that while it’s unclear how Trump’s plan will affect negotiations, Hamas is eager to release the remaining hostages. However, they will find it tremendously challenging to relinquish their only leverage, which will likely diminish their trust in both Israel and the U.S. even further.
“They don’t trust Israel,” she said. “Who can guarantee that Israel would not resume its hostilities against the people of Gaza upon the last prisoner’s release?” she added.
