President Trump’s proposal to relocate Gazans to Egypt and Jordan as a solution to the ongoing crisis in Gaza has faced strong backlash, particularly from Cairo.
Egyptian leaders have firmly rejected the plan, warning of its potential to destabilize the country economically, politically, and socially. After recent conversations with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II, Trump claimed that despite their objections, both leaders would eventually agree to host Palestinians displaced by the conflict, saying, “I think [Egypt’s President el-Sissi] will take in Palestinians from Gaza, and the King of Jordan will do the same.”
Given the vehement responses from the region to Trump’s comments, his confidence remains speculative at best. Since he first made them, experts have highlighted various concerns, including the risk of ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the potentially destabilizing effects of a more substantial Hamas presence in these host countries.
If Trump’s idea were to be implemented, Egypt, home to over 105 million people, including around 150,000 Palestinian refugees it already hosts, would likely receive the bulk of this population from Gaza. Such an imposition would have serious consequences for the peace between Israel and Egypt.
“Even though Egypt has maintained peaceful relations with Israel for over half a century, such a move would destabilize the region as a whole,” said Dr. Amr Adly, an associate professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
“This wasn’t completely surprising, but Trump’s suggestion still is shocking and extremely dangerous. This isn’t just about absorbing people,” he stated. “It’s about compromising Egypt’s territorial integrity and security, non-negotiable issues for Cairo.”
Echoing historical traumas
Furthermore, the suggestion of “temporarily relocating” Palestinians echoes historical traumas like the Nakba in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and never allowed to return to their homes, a situation that has also been compared to ethnic cleansing. “Trump seems oblivious to this historical baggage,” Dr. Adly noted, “or perhaps he simply believes that an offer can be made without regard for the Palestinians’ right to return.”
Kobi Michael, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, also agrees with Dr. Adly that the idea of temporary relocation for Palestinians from Gaza is deeply problematic.
“Displacement is not a logistical issue; it’s a matter of national identity. The Nakba is deeply ingrained in Palestinian consciousness, and any suggestion of relocation—even temporary—will be perceived as ethnic cleansing and will intensify hostility,” he shared with The Media Line.
Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and the chairman of the Department of Strategy, Diplomacy, and Security at Shalem College, also believes that international disapproval of this suggestion makes it impractical.
“The global community is unlikely to support any plan that even appears to constitute ethnic cleansing. Displacing Palestinians from Gaza would not only ignite regional tensions but also severely damage Israel’s international standing,” he told The Media Line.
Evacuation vs permanent relocation
Meanwhile, Dalia Ziada, a prominent Egyptian writer and senior fellow for research and diplomacy at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, defended Trump’s comments. “First, we must distinguish between evacuation and permanent relocation. Trump was talking about moving refugees somewhere else temporarily until Gaza is restored—perhaps after getting rid of Hamas—so they can return to a place where they can actually live, because right now, Gaza is uninhabitable,” she told The Media Line.
According to Ziada, beyond the guaranteed right for the Palestinians to return to Gaza after it is rebuilt, many Palestinians want to leave while others feel the need to move out for humanitarian reasons. For these reasons, she argues that Trump’s suggestion has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing.
“Trump speaks in business terms, not in diplomatic ones. He sees deals in transactional terms, and many people forget that. Also, many critics like to use big words, but why call it ethnic cleansing when some people simply seek refuge in another country? It doesn’t make any sense,” she added.
However, Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt may negatively impact the 1979 Camp David Accords. This peace agreement between Israel and Egypt is a cornerstone of regional stability in the Middle East, and for over four decades, it has maintained a cold but enduring peace between the two nations, serving as a stabilizing force in a volatile region. Trump’s proposal threatens to undermine this fragile equilibrium.
Dr. Adly highlighted that destabilizing Egypt or Jordan would be self-defeating for both Israel and the US, considering that an increased presence of Hamas in the Sinai Peninsula could strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood in the region.
“These are the only Arab states with long-standing peace agreements with Israel, and they are critical for regional security. If Trump’s plan—or any variation of it—were to destabilize these nations, it could unravel decades of diplomatic progress,” he warned.
“Egypt and Jordan are cautious about their limitations, and this isn’t a stable region to begin with. Any massive and sudden demographic shift would have ripple effects across the Middle East. It’s not just a bad idea; it’s a dangerous one,” Dr. Adly further argued.
While Egypt has a large population—leading some to argue that absorbing an influx of people might not be as destabilizing as it would be for smaller countries like Jordan or Lebanon—it’s not just about the numbers; it’s about the context, Inbar clarified. “They don’t want Palestinians, particularly if they are associated with Hamas. They have enough problems with Muslim brothers,” he added.
Emphasizing that Arab countries express strong support for Palestinians, Ziada said that “when it comes to actual support, they hesitate. They claim that allowing Palestinians in would undermine the Palestinian national project, but my question is: Do Palestinians really want a state or do they just want to destroy Israel? For example, they could have built a state after Oslo if they had wanted to. They also had the chance in 1948 when the UN offered them partition plans and borders. But they refused it,” she said.
Meanwhile, for Israel, the cost of subduing the Palestinians has become unbearable, and the idea of moving Gazans to Egypt is seen by some as an attempt to pass this burden onto other nations.
“For Egypt and also for Jordan, this is a red line. Even if it doesn’t involve physical relocation, delegating the management of Gaza would shift the conflict from being between Israelis and Palestinians to being between Palestinians and Egyptians—a dangerous prospect,” Dr. Adly noted.
The Sinai Peninsula, which borders Gaza, has already been a hotspot for insurgency and terrorism. The Egyptian military has struggled for years to suppress militant groups operating in the region, including those affiliated with ISIS. Adding a significant population of displaced Palestinians, many of whom may have connections to or sympathies with Hamas, would further complicate security efforts.
As Prof. Michael noted, “The Sinai is a critical security buffer for Egypt and Israel. Turning it into a holding ground for displaced Palestinians would compromise the peace treaty and heighten tensions.”
According to Prof. Michael, Trump’s transactional diplomacy also ignores the need to de-radicalize Gazans who support Hamas and the dangerous dynamic at play involving the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
“Relocating Gazans, including Hamas operatives, to Egypt could ignite tensions. If this were to happen, there would need to be many safeguards in place, and not just international economic assistance for Egypt, to facilitate such a plan.”
Economic aid from the US would play a significant role in enabling this plan, and threats of punishing Egypt or Jordan for not playing along isn’t an option for Trump’s administration.
“Trump will use incentives only and will try to pressure Egypt through Saudi Arabia and other regional players. US aid to Egypt is a more complicated story. The US president cannot just cut or freeze it without offering a valid reason, like blatant human rights violations,” Ziada added, reminding that the risks of cutting aid funds for Egypt or Jordan could destabilize these countries and the whole region.
Still, de-radicalization could take at least a decade and would involve comprehensive reforms, such as changing educational curricula, reshaping media narratives, and fostering economic opportunities through reconstruction.
“The key to addressing radicalization is ensuring Hamas is no longer the sovereign power in Gaza while maintaining the peace that has already been achieved between Israel and Egypt,” Prof. Michael added.
As the need to rebuild Gaza persists, experts also agree that such a process won’t fully happen while Hamas controls the area. Still, given how embedded Hamas is in Gazan society, removing them “cannot be purely military. This isn’t like making an amputation,” said Dr. Adly.
“A Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas is indeed a significant problem, not just for Israel but also for Egypt and for many residents of Gaza who have suffered immensely under its rule,” Dr. Adly added.
“Tens of thousands have perished, and the vast majority of the population has been displaced. The Israeli army, one of the most advanced militaries globally, has been unable to uproot Hamas despite extensive operations in Gaza, and the human and financial costs of such an endeavor are immense and ultimately unsustainable.”
In this context, Ziada pointed out that Egypt’s willingness to receive some Palestinians who would want or need to temporarily leave Gaza would be an effort in this grander scheme for de-radicalization. She added that “Egypt, and all moderate Arab countries—including the UAE and Saudi Arabia—will need to play a role. The most important step would be to get rid of Hamas and establish a new government in Gaza—one that is more secular, not Islamist, and willing to cooperate with Israel. But I’m not optimistic de-radicalization will begin anytime soon, especially after Hamas re-emerged following the recent ceasefire and hostage deal,” she said.
Dr. Adly further noted that the continuation of Hamas in Gaza also feeds into a destructive cycle that empowers extreme-right elements and narratives in Israel. “This is an extremely rare moment when you have a US president siding not just with the Israeli government but with the very far-right components within it. More importantly, this aligns with historical far-right Zionists, like the Kahanist movement, which has been classified as terrorists under Israeli law for decades. This is a sign of turmoil within the US and extremely dangerous for the region because you have an American president aligning with extremist ideas and even discussing them as executable plans,” he warned.
As the Gaza ceasefire holds and the exchange of Palestinian prisoners for hostages taken on October 7 continues, the debate over Gazans’ relocation underscores the urgent need to rebuild Gaza and de-radicalize Palestinians from Hamas influence. With lives in Gaza hanging in the balance, it remains to be seen whether Trump’s diplomacy will achieve its objectives.
This article was originally published at www.jpost.com
