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 years, Gaza has faced severe humanitarian difficulties, worsened by prolonged conflict, blockades, and the breakdown of infrastructure. The continuous fighting between Israel and Hamas has exacerbated conditions, leaving the people in urgent need of essentials such as food, clean water, and healthcare. Aid workers report widespread devastation and displacement, with numerous 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 Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, highlighted the critical need to tackle these healthcare deficiencies. Shakir stated, “Priority should be given to reconstructing Gaza’s health infrastructure and delivering medical support locally.” He further mentioned that relocating the population would fail to resolve the underlying issues of the crisis and might risk access to crucial care for at-risk groups.
Displacement as a possible risk
Displacement as a potential threat
Experts argue that forcibly relocating Gaza’s population would likely worsen the humanitarian crisis rather than resolve it. Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, criticized the proposal as a misguided attempt to reframe displacement as a humanitarian solution. Sheline pointed out that such a plan disregards the rights of Palestinians to return to their homes and rebuild their lives within Gaza.
“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.”
Escasez de alimentos y agua
La inseguridad alimentaria sigue siendo uno de los problemas más apremiantes de Gaza. Un informe de la iniciativa Clasificación Integrada de la Seguridad Alimentaria, respaldada por las Naciones Unidas, destacó el riesgo continuo de hambruna en la región. El informe clasificó los niveles de inseguridad alimentaria de Gaza como una “emergencia” y prevé que los casos de desnutrición aguda podrían superar los 60,000 para abril de 2025. Aunque Israel se ha comprometido a aumentar la cantidad de camiones de ayuda que ingresan a Gaza bajo un acuerdo de alto el fuego, las organizaciones humanitarias señalan que la entrega de ayuda se complica por carreteras dañadas y municiones sin detonar.
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”.
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.”
Los detractores de la propuesta de reubicación de Trump han advertido sobre la posible creación de campos de refugiados a largo plazo. Sheline mencionó los comentarios de Jared Kushner, yerno y exasesor principal de Trump, que sugieren la posibilidad de trasladar a los habitantes de Gaza al desierto del Néguev en el sur de Israel. Sheline comparó esta idea con la creación de un campamento de refugiados permanente, señalando que tales condiciones probablemente serían mucho peores que las que existían en Gaza antes de la guerra.
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.
La necesidad de soluciones sostenibles
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.”
Sheline echoed this sentiment, arguing that displacement would only shift the crisis to a new location without resolving the underlying issues. “It’s not just about meeting basic needs,” she said. “Palestinians deserve the chance to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their futures in their own land.”
International response to the proposal
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.
