Trump’s dangerous proposal to turn Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” represents a troubling call for ethnic cleansing and fundamentally misreads the interests of Arab partnersIn the lead-up to the 2024 elections, then-U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump touted his commitment to bringing “peace” to the Middle East. Earlier this month, in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump presented his real ambition for the territory: the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population to develop Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” He called on Egypt and Jordan, in particular, to absorb the displaced population, while the United States would “own” the seaside territory. In a Fox News interview, Trump further clarified that the relocation of the Palestinians would be permanent, with no right of return.
Unsurprisingly, international partners have firmly denounced the proposal. The Geneva Conventions forbid mass forcible transfers from occupied territories, which can amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. Globally, many of America’s closest allies expressed their complete rejection of the idea, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and many others.
But it was within the Arab world itself that opposition was clearest.
Understanding the history of the region
The people of the region remember the “Nakba,” or catastrophe, of 1948, in which, following the founding of the state of Israel, about half of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were forced to leave their homes and were never allowed to return. Further expulsions by Israeli forces happened at different points over succeeding decades—during the 1949–1956 period outside of war and in the context of the June 1967 war that resulted in Israel’s occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, as well as Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai (which was eventually returned to Egyptian sovereignty).
Millions of Palestinians and their descendants continue to reside outside of historical Palestine as refugees as a result. Hence, the historical track record is clear that when Palestinians have left their homes, they have not been able to return, despite repeated U.N. Security Council and General Assemblyresolutions affirming their right to do so. Indeed, even during the current pause in the war on Gaza, with a small number of Palestinians leaving for medical reasons, Israel made it clear that they would not be allowed to return to Gaza if they left.
Egypt and Joran are unlikely to cooperate with Trump’s “Riviera’’ plan
The Trump administration has persisted in promoting its “Riviera” plan, without, it seems, considering the likely consequences or accounting for the different reasons why it would be difficult to fulfill. Suggesting that Egypt and Jordan, for example, would take in almost 2 million Palestinians ignores that neither country would, or even could, willingly participate in such a scheme. Neither country is interested in being portrayed as complicit in ethnic cleansing; Jordan correctly fears that a displacement of Gaza’s Palestinians would be a prelude to further expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank; Egypt has expressed concerns that Israel would use a pretext to strike Egyptian territory if displaced Palestinians struck Israel from there. The list of objections goes on.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration seems to think that threatening to stop providing military and economic assistance to these two countries will suffice in getting them to agree to such a plan. In response, Egypt’s president canceled a trip to Washington, D.C., with officials briefing that he would not even visit the United States if Gaza displacement was on the agenda. U.S. aid to Egypt is less than 0.5 percent of Egypt’s gross domestic product (GDP), and while 1.7 billion U.S. dollars is significant for Jordan, it’s paltry in comparison to what the Gulf Cooperation Council could, and almost definitely would, provide Jordan if it were cut.
Both countries would prefer to continue receiving U.S. assistance over alternative arrangements, in part because the portion of funding from the foreign military financing account gives Cairo and Amman the ability to purchase superior U.S. defense articles, services, and training. But Egypt and Jordan know that there are strong constituencies in Congress that would support continuing this aid irrespective of their position on Gaza. In any case, Trump pulled back the threats soon after issuing them; but their issuance in the first place reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of these two regional partners.
Arabs oppose the removal of Palestinians from their land
What also seems to have been ignored in the discussion is the very real and deep commitment to the Palestinians that exists across Arab populations, as well as further beyond the Arab world. To Arabs writ large—and this cuts across ethnic and political divisions—Palestinians are the last Arab people yet to gain their freedom in the postcolonial era, and occupied East Jerusalem is of tremendous and deep significance to Arabs everywhere, Muslim and Christian alike. If there is one issue that has united both Arab people and Arab leaders, even on a rhetorical level, it is the issue of Palestine.
The overriding feeling in Arab capitals, as well as elsewhere, is that the Trump administration is operating on ideological lines, as well as opportunistic commercial ones, that do not consider the calculations of American allies, let alone adversaries. In terms of the former, the administration has nominated Mike Huckabee, who insists “There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria,” as U.S. ambassador to Israel and Rep. Elise Stefanik, who saysIsrael has a “biblical right” to the occupied West Bank, as ambassador to the United Nations. On the commercial side, it was Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who first proposed a version of the Riviera plan more than a year ago.
In the Arab world, any designs on removing Palestinians from their land are nonstarters for a whole slew of reasons. Yet the Trump administration appears willing to disregard long-held relationships, leading many partners worldwide to wonder: What next? Will the Trump administration empower the Israelis to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement without the withdrawal of all Israeli military forces on the ground, as stipulated in phase 2? Is a pathway for reconstruction of Gaza, conceived as taking place in phase 3, even realistic, considering that Trump’s Riviera plan has been enthusiastically adopted by Israel’s government, members of which seek the permanent departure of Palestinians from Gaza altogether? Does the Trump administration see the stability of the wider region in the same way at all as its Arab allies?
Compare the position in Gaza to that of Ukraine and Europe, another place where U.S. partners have delivered firm criticism of the Trump administration. Despite Trump’s apparent alignment with Russia over the interests of European allies in negotiations on Ukraine, there hasn’t been any suggestion that the Trump administration would provide arms to Russia, for example; or that the United States would take ownership of eastern Ukraine, which is currently under Russian occupation; or that the United States would arrange for the “transfer” of Ukrainians from eastern Ukraine to, say, Poland and Lithuania.
Conclusion
If American leaders are concerned about this issue—and they should be—then they will need to do more than Senate resolutions and House letters that condemn forcible displacement. Rather, they should start by recognizing that American indifference to how regional actors view crucial developments in their own region chiefly accomplishes one thing: It undermines American interests in the region. Regional actors will correctly assume that American calculations subjugate the long-term stability of the region in favor of short-term American gain. Such an assessment only accelerates regional actors pivoting away from their relationships with the United States—and toward other relationships instead, including with U.S. adversaries.
If the United States wants to affirm itself as a valuable and reliable partner, there is a core need to express robust support for a genuine rights-based approach to Palestine-Israel that puts international law at the heart of any solution. Otherwise, the consequences will go far beyond this particular crisis and strike at the heart of what remains of the rules-based orde