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.
Gaza’s ongoing humanitarian crisis
International organizations indicate that the crisis in Gaza has reached unparalleled levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that of the 36 hospitals and 11 field hospitals in the area, merely seven are fully functioning, all situated in central or southern Gaza. The others are either partly operational or entirely nonfunctional due to damage and resource shortages. This breakdown of the healthcare system has left more than 111,000 injured people, along with newborns, pregnant women, cancer patients, and those with chronic conditions, without sufficient medical care access.
According to international organizations, Gaza’s crisis has reached unprecedented levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that out of 36 hospitals and 11 field hospitals in the region, only seven remain fully operational, all located in central or southern Gaza. The rest are either partially functioning or completely out of service due to damage and a lack of resources. This collapse of the healthcare system has left over 111,000 injured individuals, along with newborns, pregnant women, cancer patients, and those with chronic illnesses, without access to adequate medical care.
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 present displacement as a humanitarian remedy. Sheline highlighted that this plan overlooks the rights of Palestinians to return to their homes and reconstruct their lives within Gaza.
“La idea de trasladar a las personas en un momento en que sus necesidades son tan graves no es una solución”, explicó Sheline. “Es absurdo presentar esto como si fuera por su bien en lugar de centrarse en proporcionar los recursos que necesitan para recuperarse y reconstruir”.
El desplazamiento también plantea serias preocupaciones legales y éticas. El derecho internacional prohíbe la remoción forzada permanente de poblaciones civiles. Además, los expertos advierten que trasladar a los residentes de Gaza a entornos desconocidos podría causar inestabilidad a largo plazo y agravar aún más las vulnerabilidades existentes, como la desnutrición y la falta de acceso a agua potable.
Escasez de alimentos y agua
La inseguridad alimentaria sigue siendo uno de los problemas más urgentes de Gaza. Un informe de la Iniciativa de Clasificación Integrada de Fases de Seguridad Alimentaria, respaldada por las Naciones Unidas, subrayó el continuo riesgo de hambruna en la región. El informe clasificó los niveles de inseguridad alimentaria de Gaza como una “emergencia” y pronosticó que los casos de malnutrición aguda podrían superar los 60,000 para abril de 2025. Aunque Israel se ha comprometido a aumentar el número de camiones de ayuda que entran en Gaza bajo un acuerdo de alto el fuego, las organizaciones humanitarias señalan que entregar ayuda es complicado debido a carreteras dañadas y artefactos explosivos sin detonar.
Food insecurity remains one of Gaza’s most pressing issues. A report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative, backed by the United Nations, highlighted the ongoing risk of famine in the territory. The report classified Gaza’s food insecurity levels as an “emergency” and predicted that acute malnutrition cases could exceed 60,000 by April 2025. Although Israel has pledged to increase the number of aid trucks entering Gaza under a ceasefire agreement, humanitarian organizations note that delivering aid is complicated by damaged roads and unexploded ordnance.
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”.
Shakir stressed that scaling up aid and repairing Gaza’s infrastructure must be the immediate priority. “Rebuilding water and electricity systems is essential,” he said. “Displacing people to another location doesn’t guarantee better conditions and risks replicating the same challenges elsewhere.”
Concerns over long-term refugee camps
Critics of Trump’s relocation proposal have raised alarms about the potential establishment of long-term refugee camps. Sheline pointed to comments from Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former senior advisor, suggesting the possibility of relocating Gazans to the Negev desert in southern Israel. Sheline likened this vision to creating a permanent refugee camp, noting that such conditions would likely be far worse than those that existed in Gaza before the war.
“The fundamental issue isn’t just about survival,” Sheline said. “Palestinians have the right to self-determination and a state of their own. Displacement fails to address this fundamental aspiration and instead risks leaving them in limbo, dependent on aid and without a clear future.”
The need for sustainable solutions
“El verdadero enfoque debe ser salvar vidas y ofrecer soluciones a largo plazo dentro de Gaza,” subrayó Shakir. “Esto implica permitir la entrada de profesionales médicos y trabajadores humanitarios en la zona, aumentar las entregas de ayuda e invertir en proyectos que restauren servicios esenciales como salud, agua y electricidad.”
“The real focus has to be on saving lives and providing long-term solutions within Gaza,” Shakir emphasized. “This means allowing medical professionals and humanitarian workers into the area, scaling up aid deliveries, and investing in projects that restore essential services like healthcare, water, and electricity.”
Reacción internacional a la propuesta
International response to the proposal
Además, la propuesta de Trump ha generado inquietudes sobre las implicaciones más amplias del desplazamiento forzado. Los críticos sostienen que este enfoque subestima el derecho internacional y podría provocar más 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.
