In a move sparking significant debate, former President Donald Trump has proposed transferring the whole population of Gaza to other nations as a possible remedy for the persistent issues in the area. This suggestion, put forward during a discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, has been met with strong disapproval from global aid specialists and human rights defenders, who caution that this plan could worsen the already critical humanitarian conditions affecting Palestinians.
Trump’s remarks entailed a concept for creating what he referred to as “different areas” in other nations to accommodate Gaza’s 1.8 million inhabitants. He asserted that this would put a stop to the “death and destruction” in the region, noting that Palestinians would depart from Gaza only if presented with another option. The proposal has ignited extensive discussion, with many critics deeming it unfeasible and contrary to international law.
Trump’s comments included a vision for establishing what he described as “various domains” in other countries to house Gaza’s 1.8 million residents. He claimed this would end the “death and destruction” in the region, adding that Palestinians would only leave Gaza if given an alternative. The suggestion has sparked widespread debate, with many labeling it impractical and in violation of international law.
For many years, Gaza has faced severe humanitarian difficulties, worsened by prolonged conflict, blockades, and the breakdown of infrastructure. The continued hostilities between Israel and Hamas have further ravaged the region, leaving its inhabitants in urgent need of essentials such as food, clean water, and healthcare. Aid workers report widespread devastation and displacement, with countless families residing in temporary shelters amidst the debris of their previous homes.
As stated by global organizations, the situation in Gaza has reached extraordinary levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that of the 36 hospitals and 11 field hospitals in the area, merely seven are fully operational, situated in central or southern Gaza. The others are either partially operating or entirely out of service due to damage and insufficient resources. This breakdown of the healthcare system has left more than 111,000 injured people, in addition to newborns, expectant mothers, cancer patients, and those with chronic illnesses, without sufficient medical care.
Omar Shakir, the Director for Israel and Palestine at Human Rights Watch, highlighted the critical need to tackle these healthcare deficiencies. “Efforts should concentrate on reconstructing Gaza’s health infrastructure and delivering medical assistance locally,” Shakir remarked. He further noted that relocating the population would not resolve the underlying issues of the crisis and might risk essential care for vulnerable populations.
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, emphasized the urgency of addressing these healthcare gaps. “The focus must be on rebuilding Gaza’s health system and providing medical aid on the ground,” Shakir stated. He added that displacing the population would not address the root causes of the crisis and could jeopardize access to essential care for vulnerable groups.
Specialists contend that forcibly moving Gaza’s population would probably intensify the humanitarian crisis instead of solving it. Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, condemned the proposal as an ill-conceived effort to portray displacement as a humanitarian remedy. Sheline emphasized that this plan overlooks the Palestinians’ rights to return to their homes and restore their lives within Gaza.
“La idea de desplazar personas en un momento en que sus necesidades son tan críticas no es una solución,” explicó Sheline. “Es absurdo presentar esto como lo mejor para ellos en lugar de centrarse en proporcionar los recursos que necesitan para recuperarse y reconstruir.”
“The idea of displacing people at a time when their needs are so severe is not a solution,” Sheline explained. “It’s absurd to frame this as being in their best interests rather than focusing on providing the resources they need to recover and rebuild.”
Displacement also raises serious legal and ethical concerns. International law prohibits the permanent forced removal of civilian populations. Additionally, experts warn that relocating Gaza’s residents to unfamiliar environments could lead to long-term instability and further exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, such as malnutrition and lack of access to clean water.
Food insecurity and water shortages
La escasez de agua es otra preocupación crítica. Según el Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja, el 70% de la infraestructura hídrica vital de Gaza ha sido dañada o destruida durante el conflicto. Muchos residentes ahora dependen de suministros de agua limitados e inseguros, lo que agrava aún más los riesgos de salud a los que se enfrentan.
Shakir enfatizó que aumentar la ayuda y reparar la infraestructura de Gaza debe ser la prioridad inmediata. “Reconstruir los sistemas de agua y electricidad es fundamental”, afirmó. “Trasladar a las personas a otro lugar no garantiza mejores condiciones y corre el riesgo de replicar los mismos desafíos en otros sitios”.
Preocupaciones sobre los campamentos de refugiados a largo plazo
Los críticos de la propuesta de reubicación de Trump han expresado su preocupación sobre el posible establecimiento de campamentos de refugiados a largo plazo. Sheline mencionó comentarios de Jared Kushner, yerno de Trump y antiguo asesor principal, que sugieren la posibilidad de trasladar a los habitantes de Gaza al desierto del Néguev en el sur de Israel. Sheline comparó esta visión a la creación de un campamento de refugiados permanente, señalando que tales condiciones probablemente serían mucho peor que las existentes en Gaza antes de la guerra.
“El problema fundamental no es solo la supervivencia”, afirmó Sheline. “Los palestinos tienen derecho a la autodeterminación y a tener un estado propio. El desplazamiento no aborda esta aspiración esencial y, en cambio, corre el riesgo de dejarlos en el limbo, dependientes de la ayuda y sin un futuro claro”.
La necesidad de soluciones sostenibles
The need for sustainable solutions
Experts agree that the only viable path forward involves addressing the root causes of Gaza’s crisis and supporting its population within the territory. This includes providing immediate humanitarian aid, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and ensuring that Palestinians have the resources to recover and rebuild their communities.
Sheline coincidió con este punto de vista, argumentando que el desplazamiento solo trasladaría la crisis a un nuevo lugar sin resolver los problemas subyacentes. “No se trata solo de satisfacer necesidades básicas,” señaló. “Los palestinos merecen la oportunidad de reconstruir sus hogares, sus comunidades y su futuro en su propia tierra.”
Reacción internacional a la propuesta
Las declaraciones de Trump han atraído una condena generalizada de la comunidad internacional. Organizaciones de derechos humanos y expertos en políticas exteriores han calificado el plan de irreal e inhumano, advirtiendo que sienta un precedente peligroso para abordar crisis humanitarias. Muchos han instado al gobierno de EE. UU. a centrarse en apoyar los esfuerzos para estabilizar Gaza y atender las necesidades inmediatas de su población.
Además, la propuesta de Trump ha generado inquietudes sobre las implicaciones más amplias del desplazamiento forzoso. Los críticos sostienen que tal enfoque socava el derecho internacional y podría conducir a una mayor inestabilidad en una región ya volátil.
Additionally, Trump’s proposal has sparked concerns about the broader implications of forced displacement. Critics argue that such an approach undermines international law and could lead to further instability in an already volatile region.
