The lasting impact of the astonishing suggestion to “take over” the Gaza Strip and “permanently” relocate its roughly 2 million Palestinian inhabitants might be its legitimization of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict previously deemed unthinkable.
Trump’s plan would “resolve” the Palestinian issue by physically removing Palestinians. This highlights the devastation Israel has inflicted on Gaza—aimed at compelling Palestinians to leave, as Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich stated. However, it would also constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity, likely triggering International Criminal Court action and global condemnation. Just a week prior, this idea was considered abhorrent.
Trump’s intervention at his February 4th press conference alongside Netanyahu brought this into sharp focus. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later attempted to clarify Trump’s remarks, suggesting the displacement would be temporary, coinciding with Gaza’s reconstruction. However, this contradicts Trump’s actual statement, prompting Netanyahu’s approving comment, “it’s worth paying attention to.” Since its inception in 1948, Israel has viewed the forced expulsion of Palestinians as permanent—hence their term for their displacement from what became the Jewish state: the Nakba, or “catastrophe.”
While Trump appeared indifferent to the implications of his plan, the world reacted with widespread outrage. The two governments Trump envisioned accepting Palestinian refugees, Egypt and Jordan, expressed reluctance. It became clear Trump’s statement was impromptu. Nevertheless, the damage was done; Trump appeared to endorse a blatantly illegal scheme.
He could, however, atone for this by urging the Israeli government toward a fairer, sustainable peace. Palestinians can only hope Trump will change course.
Historically, four options existed for resolving this century-old conflict. The first acknowledges the current reality of extensive Jewish settlements in both territories. The transfer of an occupying power’s population to occupied territory is a war crime, violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; however, successive Israeli governments have disregarded this, and the U.S. has continued its aid. The settlement project effectively renders a Palestinian state impossible.
The West Bank landscape illustrates this. The proliferation of Israeli settlements, outposts, and bypass roads has fragmented the West Bank into disconnected Palestinian enclaves. In 2017, B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, counted over 100 disconnected “islands,” eliminating any possibility of a viable contiguous state.
A single-state solution acknowledges this reality. It abandons the goal of a Palestinian state but ensures equal rights for all residents between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. However, Israeli governments have consistently opposed this, citing the roughly equal number of Jews and Palestinians, and the desire to maintain a Jewish majority.
Netanyahu favors the status quo, the second option. Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, Israeli governments have claimed openness to negotiations for a Palestinian state. This is a deceptive tactic to stall, while settlements continue to expand. After five decades of occupation and three of a supposed “peace process,” considering Israel’s occupation temporary is untenable. The “peace process” is defunct.
Every serious human rights organization studying the occupation has concluded it constitutes apartheid—a system designed to dominate and repress the Palestinian population. This might have been defensible briefly while awaiting a Palestinian state, but with no such state on the horizon, the status quo’s intolerability is increasingly apparent.
Forced mass expulsion is the third option, favored by the Israeli far-right. This avoids the obligation of granting equal rights in a single state and the stigma of apartheid. Trump shamefully embraced this at the press conference, but he could redeem himself by pursuing the fourth option—a two-state solution, with separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Netanyahu has consistently avoided this option. Backed by the Republican Party, he felt secure in his intransigence. However, Trump’s endorsement would isolate him.
Why would Trump do this? He views himself as a dealmaker, aiming to broker a separate agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, forging a regional alliance against Iran. The Saudi government has explicitly stated that a Palestinian state is a prerequisite for normalizing relations with Israel.
Trump sees himself as a disruptor, rejecting established norms. Instead of advocating a reprehensible war crime to solve the Gaza conflict, he could disrupt constructively by endorsing—despite Netanyahu’s objections—a Palestinian state.
Trump’s ability to pressure Netanyahu is evident; he played a significant role in the current Gaza ceasefire. More intense pressure is needed to secure a Palestinian state, but the rewards would be far greater, solidifying Trump’s legacy as a dealmaker.
