Shifting Borders, Shattering Trust: Trump’s Gaza Displacement Idea and Its Implications
During a press gaggle on Air Force One, President Trump made a statement that rippled across the Middle East—suggesting the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan, whether temporarily or permanently.
This remark is a stark departure from long-standing U.S. policy, which has historically advocated for a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state—a stance also held by key regional partners working with Washington on the issue. It is a cardinal position shared across the region, and a key component of any normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The question that arises around this comment, however, is what the intentions behind it were. There are several scenarios to consider, each with their own repercussions:
Scenario 1: Testing the Waters
Trump may have deliberately floated this idea to gauge regional and international reactions. With a campaign focus on reducing U.S. involvement in global conflicts—including the war on Gaza—Trump is incentivized to pursue expedient solutions, regardless of their long-term ramifications
By hinting at the possibility that he could consider displacement as a quick option, he can measure reactions to the proposition and determine whether or not it would present a solution to the current crisis, and one that he can claim credit for.
One of the primary drivers of Trump’s administration is quick, headline grabbing victories, as we can extrapolate from the U.S. Colombia deportation dispute. He escalated the situation very quickly in that case, leveraging multiple economic and diplomatic tools that took little or no consideration of the long standing relationship between the two countries.
If he determined that resistance to this proposition would be limited, he would consider leveraging the various political and economic tools at his disposal to put pressure on Egypt and Jordan. The fact that there would be considerable fallout in the long term from implementing this decision even if the Arab states acquiesced would not be a limiting factor for him.
If his intention is to gauge reactions, then this would have been the perfect platform to use: a media gaggle as he boarded his airplane is less impactful than a full press conference dedicated to the issue. As such, he can retract or amend the statement without losing face if he felt the resistance from the parties was insurmountable. The fact that he doubled down on the statement on Monday makes this less likely because it will be more difficult to retreat on a position he has voiced publicly twice.
Feasibility
Egypt and Jordan swiftly and unequivocally rejected the proposal. Both countries have long standing policies supportive of the rights of Palestinians to an independent state and support Palestinian rights to return to their homes. They have deep political, social and cultural drivers that prevent their complicity in the displacement of the Palestinian people, in addition to several strategic considerations that make the premise unacceptable.
Politically, both governments recognize that their participation in such a scheme would implicate them in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, exposing them to international criminal liability under the precedents set by the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia, and possibly other crimes against humanity.
On the domestic front, the backlash against participating in the displacement of Palestinians and supporting the right-wing Israeli government would precipitate extraordinary internal instability. The populations of both countries, and of other Arab states would reject this which could lead to widespread unrest. These developments could then be leveraged by opposition groups including Islamist political factions. An action like this would utterly delegitimize any government in the region even if it were in response to pressure from the U.S..
Logistically, both Egypt and Jordan already host a large number of refugees, not only from Palestine but from many other countries as well. Bringing in hundreds of thousands of refugees within their borders would foment internal instability and severe strains on their economic and political systems. Even if it were politically viable, this aspect alone would be enough to give either government pause.
Strategically, endorsing this proposal would embolden Israel’s right-wing factions to pursue further territorial expansion. As is currently happening in Syria, and has happened in Egyptian Sinai before, both countries would expect Israeli governments to use the pretext of security to attempt assaults and occupy their territories to further implement the expansionist plans of the right wing in Israel. Additionally, there would be no effective way to identify who is actually being forced across the borders, opening up both countries to threats of violent actors being allowed in.
Therefore, even if the notion were acceptable in principle by either country -which it is not- the challenges to effective implementation make it untenable for both. Pushing for this outcome will threaten to shake the foundations of peace that have been built over decades, and distancing both Egypt and Jordan from their long-standing alliance and cooperation with the U.S..
Scenario 2: Anchoring for a Better Deal
The second possibility is that Trump is leveraging the principle of anchoring -setting expectations by opening with an offer that heavily favors one outcome- thus enticing negotiating partners to adjust their own positions relevant to that first offer. He has been known to wield that tactic in his deal making approach.
Here, Trump may be employing the anchoring strategy—introducing an extreme proposition he knows the Palestinians, Egyptians, and Jordanians will reject, but one that recalibrates expectations in forthcoming negotiations.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, is in Riyadh and has met with officials from Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority already, and is expected to visit Israel Wednesday to continue discussions on the situation in the region. Trump’s statement may have aimed to make his job easier by triggering an anchoring bias in the minds of government officials in the region, setting the bar so high that any deal reached will seem acceptable by comparison.
The potential of U.S. support for displacing Palestinians would have raised considerable concern among Arab leaders, and therefore for them succeeding in walking back this outcome would already be considered a measure of success on their part, even if the actual outcomes fall short of their prior expectations.
Feasibility
This may have some impact; given the Trump administration’s disregard for existing frameworks and agreements, and the focus on achieving short term goals, Arab governments could find themselves scrambling to avoid this outcome, and make concessions on other issues regarding engagement with Israel.
If this is indeed the strategy, its effectiveness will become clear as Witkoff continues discussions in the coming days. If the Arab governments focus their efforts on averting this outcome rather than focusing on the initial goals of their negotiations, then it could be considered a success.
Even if the strategy proves successful however, it will have a fracturing effect on the long term U.S. Arab relations in the region, which will face mounting challenges as a result of waning trust in the U.S. as a guarantor of peace in the region. This may incentivize them to open the doors to other global superpowers to balance out the U.S. rather than invest in their commitment to any long term strategic relations with the American government.
The strategy could also backfire. If Arab governments take a hard position on this issue, and double down on their demands for previous commitments by the U.S. government to a two-state solution (most recently voiced by former President Biden), raising their shackles against perceived American reneging on commitments, it will make reaching an accommodation more complicated and less likely to succeed.
Scenario 3: A Favored Outcome
In the third scenario, Trump may actually favor this outcome over others. Figures within Trump’s inner circle, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, have previously voiced support for ‘clearing’ Gaza’s population to capitalize on its ‘valuable waterfront property’ potential.
With direct access to Trump, these voices may have persuaded him that Gaza’s investment potential would skyrocket if its population were removed. Already, the plan has been applauded by the extreme right wing ministers in the Israeli government Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, who have both called for forcible displacement of Palestinians and full occupation of Gaza throughout the past year and a half.
With the right wing in Israel voicing their support for Trump’s plan, and his inner circle pushing for its implementation, and with his long established support for Israel (he moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem during his first term for example) this outcome may not be outside the realm of possibility for him. The prospects of investment returns by those in his close circle, and the political clout it could garner him at home with the interests groups involved in U.S. elections -specifically AIPAC- may be enough to encourage him to push forward with this plan.
If this outcome -the forcible displacement of millions of Palestinians- becomes a priority for his administration, it will breach the foundations of peace in the Middle East and likely become a trigger for widespread destabilization in the region. It would alienate long term allies and empower rivals and adversaries -including global actors- to operate within the region, invited by Arab governments mistrustful of American intentions.
Feasibility
The plan requires the cooperation of multiple countries, all of whom are strongly opposed to the very idea. Beyond Egypt and Jordan’s staunch opposition, Germany and France have also condemned the plan, citing its destabilizing impact and clear violations of international law
With vehement opposition regionally and internationally, the plan would be difficult to implement. It would manifest as the forcible expulsion -read ethnic cleansing- of an entire population and would plant the seeds of broader war in the region.
Looking to the future, Israel’s neighbors would no longer put their faith in any existing peace agreements and instead would seek to secure themselves through building alliances apart from those with the U.S.. If this plan were to be initiated, the question of what would stop further annexation of territory of other nations and expulsion of their population would be at the forefront of regional thinking.
American credibility as a mediator in the region would crumble if this administration were to advance such a plan. Regional actors would seek assurances elsewhere to balance the presence of a mistrusted U.S. presence in the region.
The perception of the U.S. as a guarantor of Middle East stability has already eroded, and pursuing this policy would not just undermine U.S. credibility—it could precipitate its definitive collapse, leaving a vacuum that global competitors would be all too eager to fill.
It would also be unlikely to succeed on the ground. While the pretexts for Israel’s war on Gaza were founded on the elimination of Hamas -a plan that failed to achieve that goal according to former Secretary of State Blinken- direct international opposition to Israel would be more active if the goal were displacement of the Palestinian population. It is unlikely that European governments would be able to justify supporting Israel and the U.S. if they were to attempt this.
Where Do Things Stand?
We will probably learn the real intentions behind the statement in the coming days, however what is already apparent is that Arab governments have become wary of U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine question.
Previous U.S. administrations, reticent as they were to criticize even the most egregious of Israel’s violations of international law, at least maintained a semblance of adherence to the principles of a two-state solution in the future.
The Trump administration’s apparent willingness to entertain mass displacement as a policy option represents a seismic shift in the U.S. approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict—one that could shatter the fragile diplomatic framework that has, however tenuously, maintained regional stability. If Arab governments begin viewing Washington as an unreliable or even destabilizing force, they will recalibrate their alliances accordingly.
What happens next will set the stage for regional dynamics for years to come.