As Donald Trump toys with the audacious idea of relocating Gaza’s population – whether to neighbouring Jordan and Egypt, or even as far afield as Albania and Canada – he touches on one of history’s most contentious and emotionally charged issues: the relocation of peoples.
Resettling large populations is never easy. History is full of cautionary tales
The concept carries the heavy weight of historical precedent, fraught with both tragedy and necessity. Refugees, displaced by war or persecution, have long been subject to the capricious winds of political interest and international indifference. The Jewish people, exiled and scattered for centuries, endured persecution before reclaiming sovereignty in Israel. Refugee crises in post-war Europe, or more recently in Syria, have prompted waves of international aid and efforts at resettlement. Yet Trump’s proposal – positioned as a bold solution to the seemingly eternal Gaza problem – has provoked deafening outrage. Why? Because Trump is doing what the West fears most: speaking the unspeakable and, in doing so, laying bare the hypocrisy of those who profess to champion humanitarian ideals while rejecting practical solutions.
Trump’s idea, which Israel’s Channel 12 suggests includes proposals to resettle Gazans in countries like Albania, Indonesia, or Canada, may seem audacious. Yet it is also rooted in pragmatism. For decades, Gaza has been a geopolitical powder keg, maintained in a perpetual state of crisis not by accident, but by design. Hamas’s rule has transformed Gaza into a launching pad for terrorism backed by the Islamic regime in Iran, while the international community wrings its hands about the suffering of “ordinary Palestinians”. If the status quo is untenable, why not explore creative solutions like relocation? Those Palestinians who murdered, raped and tortured their way through Israeli people’s homes and a music festival in late 2023, and have since repeatedly declared their desire to do so again, certainly demonstrated very clearly the impossibility of their peaceful presence on Israel’s southern border.
Trump’s plan isn’t just bold; it’s an acknowledgment of what many quietly believe but dare not say: that a lasting resolution will require dismantling the structures that perpetuate this endless animosity and threat to the Jewish state.
Contrast this with the reaction of Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who recently suggested – in an interview as surreal as it was sinister – that Palestinians should drive Israelis out of their homeland and relocate them to Greenland. Such rhetoric from the anxious and uncomfortable looking tyrant was delivered with the same tone one might use to suggest moving furniture, and was met with a feeble response from Sky News journalist Dominic Waghorn. Rather than robustly challenging this grotesque proposal with the incredulity it deserved, Waghorn pivoted to asking a perfunctory question about Israeli “claims” to their homeland, as if this were a reasonable debate to entertain.
This moment encapsulates the West’s broader hypocrisy when it comes to the Middle East. Sky News, like much of the Western media, routinely portrays Israel’s attempts to defend itself as questionable or cruel, whilst giving platforms to Iranian officials to spew totally unveiled threats of genocide without serious challenge. Trump’s relocation plan is dismissed as absurd, while Iran’s suggestion to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews is met with polite indifference. The West, it seems, is determined to misunderstand both the Middle East and Donald Trump.
Trump’s plan highlights an uncomfortable truth: the so-called Palestinian refugee crisis has been deliberately prolonged. Unlike other refugee populations, who are typically resettled in host countries and integrated into new communities, Palestinians have been kept in limbo for decades, their refugee status inherited through generations. This unique designation serves a political purpose: to keep the Palestinian issue alive as a cudgel against Israel. Yet when Trump suggests resettling Arabs from Gaza in nations that could provide them with opportunities for a better life, critics recoil in horror. Where are the chants of “refugees welcome” now?
The hypocrisy extends beyond the media to Western policymakers and activists. Europe and the UK have absorbed millions of refugees in recent years, often proclaiming their moral superiority in doing so. Yet when it comes to Palestinians, the idea of relocation is suddenly unthinkable. Why? Part of the answer lies in the reality that Palestinian refugees bring with them not just humanitarian needs but often political and security challenges. Countries like Egypt and Jordan are understandably wary. Jordan’s fragile demographic balance and existing persecution of Palestinians, and Egypt’s hostility to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, make them deeply reluctant to accept more Palestinians. Even Albania, reportedly floated as an option, has publicly denied any discussions about hosting refugees.
Trump’s plan, whatever its flaws, represents an attempt to break this cycle
But Trump is known as a deal maker. The president understands that to overcome such resistance he would need to employ the same mix of pressure and incentives he recently demonstrated in his dealings with Colombia. When Colombian president Gustavo Petro refused to accept deported migrants on U.S. military aircraft, Trump imposed immediate tariffs and threatened harsher measures. Within days, Petro capitulated, offering Colombia’s presidential plane to facilitate the returns. This incident underscores Trump’s willingness to think laterally and act decisively. It’s a stark contrast to the endless dithering that has characterised Western responses to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Resettling large populations is never easy, and history is full of cautionary tales. Post-war population transfers in Europe were often brutal, and the resettlement of Jewish refugees after World War II faced immense resistance. Yet when done thoughtfully, relocation can offer displaced people a chance at stability and dignity if they assimilate and contribute to their host nation’s society. Palestinian refugees could potentially build new lives free from the grip and corruption of Hamas, Fatah and the PLO, and attempt to break free from their eternal cycle of violence.
Trump’s plan, whatever its flaws, represents an attempt to break this cycle. It acknowledges that rebuilding the Gaza Strip alone will not solve the problem, because the problem is not merely infrastructure, but ideology. Without the iron grip of the existing Palestinian political leadership and its perpetual weaponisation of victimhood, Palestinians might finally have a chance to thrive.
The West must decide whether it truly believes in solutions or whether it is content to perpetuate the crisis for the sake of moral posturing. Trump, as always, forces the question. Whether his plan succeeds or fails, it’s time to stop clutching pearls and start confronting reality.
Comments