
As the January 15, 2025 ceasefire agreement that had brought limited calm to Gaza fell apart in early March when Israel resumed its air and land military onslaught on the Strip, with Washington’s approval, the fate of the civilian population of the territory remains desperately trapped in President Donald Trump’s policy maelstrom.
President Trump’s ill-conceived proposal, announced on February 4, 2025, to take ownership of the Gaza Strip and permanently relocate its 2.1 million residents to other lands while the United States transforms the war-torn territory into a “Riviera of the Middle East” was widely perceived, except by extremist Israeli officials, as politically absurd. UN officials and mainstream legal experts deemed it tantamount to a war crime under international law.
The adverse reaction to the plan extended far beyond the countries arbitrarily picked by Washington as potential hosts for the forcibly relocated Gazans, such as Albania, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia and its breakaway federal republic Somaliland, Sudan, and Syria. Immediate neighbors like Jordan and Egypt viewed the American proposal as a direct threat to their national security, while others questioned the long-term feasibility of the mass depopulation of Gaza and their involvement in it.
In response to criticism, senior Trump administration officials immediately began a public relations cleanup campaign by attempting to walk back some of the President’s crude and damaging terminology. They downplayed Trump’s comments about “taking over” or “owning Gaza,” clearing the territory of its population, displacing Gazans “temporarily” or “permanently,” and denied any plans for the direct use of US troops in implementing the preposterous scheme.
Unfortunately, the diplomatic shenanigans and semantic acrobatics employed by the Trump administration did convince several parties, including key Arab parties, that the American president has actually retreated from his proposal or, at the very least, had toned down some of its central elements.
Indeed, the president’s offhand remark on March 12 while hosting Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin at the White House that “nobody’s expelling any Palestinians” did receive significant media coverage at home and abroad. It surprisingly resonated with some in the region, particularly those compelled to find a diplomatic alternative to the American proposal.
Consequently, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry welcomed what it characterized as Washington’s “change in tone” and expressed appreciation for Trump’s softer choice of words. Other Arab parties, including Hamas, welcomed the amended American statements to the extent, according to them, that they “represent a retreat from the idea of Palestinian displacement.” But did Trump indeed retreat from his earlier commitment to cleanse Gaza by relocating its entire population without granting them any option of returning?
Believing so is tantamount to a hearing-impaired person attending an uproarious wedding procession. You do see the commotion, but you tend to miss the music! To put it bluntly, there is no evidence that President Trump has changed his mind about depopulating or ethnically cleansing Gaza. To the contrary, there are many indications that he still seeks to achieve it.
First, the most unequivocal, de facto answer to the question came from the 47th President himself. After all, this is a ‘one-man administration’ in which Mr. Trump’s pronouncements count more than any staff members’ and aides’ damage-control attempts. When asked in multiple media interviews about his intentions toward the fate of Gaza’s inhabitants, President Trump doubled down on his February 4 plan to displace Palestinians from their land. There is no convincing evidence otherwise!
Second, in his official rejection of the March 4 Cairo Arab Summit counterproposal, White House National Security Spokesman Brian Hughes indicated that the Arab Summit-endorsed Egyptian plan in question failed to address the reality that “Gaza is currently uninhabitable.” Subsequently, Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce described the Arab counterproposal as “inadequate.” Although one is tempted to appreciate Hughes’s personal concern that Gaza “residents cannot humanely live in a territory covered in debris and unexploded ordnance,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term “uninhabitable” means unfit for habitation, “not inhabitable,” i.e., without population, as an uninhabitable wilderness.
Third, on March 16, White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff attempted to clarify this confusion by stating that the administration is “exploring alternatives for Gaza relocation.” A careful reading of his remarks indicates that he was referring to alternative ideas to resume ceasefire talks and not dislocate Gaza’s population. His interviewer Margaret Brennan correctly concluded that “Trump has doubled down on his proposal for the US to take responsibility for the Gaza Strip” after relocating its population.
Fourth, if President Trump has indeed changed his mind and retreated from his call for depopulating the Gaza Strip, then why are his aides and diplomatic envoys reportedly proceeding with recruiting willing Arab and non-Arab culprits to accept the relocated Palestinian population? Why has the US administration been pressuring Sudan, Somaliland, and Syria, for example, to do its bidding if President Trump meant what he said on March 12 that “nobody’s expelling any Palestinians.”
Indeed, the time has come for President Trump to clarify once and for all his administration’s position on the US-led ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.
Featured image credit: Shutterstock/Noam Galai