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.
Persistent humanitarian issues in Gaza
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.
For decades, Gaza has struggled with extreme humanitarian challenges, compounded by years of conflict, blockades, and infrastructure collapse. The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas has further devastated the territory, leaving its population in desperate need of basic necessities like food, clean water, and medical care. Aid workers describe scenes of widespread destruction and displacement, with thousands of families living in makeshift shelters amid the rubble of their former homes.
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.
Displacement as a possible risk
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”.
“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.
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.
Water shortages are another critical concern. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, 70% of Gaza’s vital water infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed during the conflict. Many residents are now reliant on limited and unsafe water supplies, further compounding the health risks they face.
Preocupaciones sobre campos 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 se trata solo de sobrevivir,” afirmó Sheline. “Los palestinos tienen el derecho a la autodeterminación y a 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.”
“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.”
Los expertos coinciden en que la única vía viable para avanzar implica abordar las causas fundamentales de la crisis en Gaza y apoyar a su población dentro del territorio. Esto incluye proporcionar ayuda humanitaria inmediata, reconstruir la infraestructura crítica y garantizar que los palestinos cuenten con los recursos necesarios para recuperarse y reconstruir sus comunidades.
“El verdadero enfoque debe estar en salvar vidas y ofrecer soluciones a largo plazo dentro de Gaza”, enfatizó Shakir. “Esto significa permitir la entrada de profesionales médicos y trabajadores humanitarios en la zona, aumentar las entregas de ayuda e invertir en proyectos que restituyan servicios esenciales como la atención médica, el agua y la 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
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 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.
