The Israeli Broadcasting Authority recently reported statements from Bezalel Smotrich, the far-right Israeli Finance Minister, suggesting that the Trump administration presents a unique opportunity to promote voluntary emigration from Gaza. Smotrich proposed that within two years, Gaza’s Palestinian population could be halved. He emphasized that voluntary displacement in Gaza might serve as a model for the West Bank, asserting that dismantling Hamas necessitates Israeli civil administration in Gaza.
Smotrich’s demands regarding Gaza’s occupation are not new, but they raise significant concerns. These recurring proposals suggest undisclosed objectives behind the ongoing conflict in Gaza, potentially including prolonged occupation, military governance, and the resumption of settlement activities. While Israel claims its goals of the war are “eliminating Hamas” and “recovering the captives,” developments in Tel Aviv and Gaza do not support this narrative and suggest alternative aims.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refrained from outlining a post-conflict plan for Gaza, and Israel appears to be deepening its control by expanding operational fronts and establishing what resemble permanent “military outposts.” It seems that Israel is not only planning for military rule, which has become somewhat evident but also for the potential resumption of settlement activities, a move that would be the most contentious if it were to occur.
Israel has been striving for decades to find “radical” solutions to the Palestinian issue that align with its security and political interests. From this perspective, its efforts to facilitate immigration for the residents of Gaza to the United States or other countries can be interpreted as a means to achieve multiple objectives. Notably, Israel views the population of Gaza, which exceeds two million, as a persistent demographic and security threat. By opening the door to immigration, Israel can reduce the number of Palestinians in Gaza, thereby easing its control over the territory and diminishing the likelihood of future conflicts. Additionally, this strategy aims to weaken the national identity of the Palestinian people both domestically and abroad, ultimately undermining the resistance that symbolizes their resilience against occupation. Should Israel succeed in displacing a significant number of Gaza’s residents, it would diminish the Palestinians’ strength as a unified entity and reduce the momentum of their resistance, effectively working towards the resolution of the Palestinian issue. In any case, Israel believes that addressing the Palestinian question necessitates the direct or indirect removal of Palestinians from their land. By pressuring the Trump administration to accept waves of Palestinian immigration, Israel can pursue this goal incrementally, particularly if it coincides with efforts to encourage other countries to accept refugees.
These statements undoubtedly raise questions regarding their alignment with Trump’s stringent immigration policies. It is well-documented that Trump has adopted a hardline stance against the acceptance of refugees and migrants, particularly from Islamic and Middle Eastern countries.
For many years, only a few Palestinians have been accepted for immigration to the United States, and no administration has altered these policies against Palestinians. For instance, among over 60,000 refugees resettled in the United States during the fiscal year 2023, only 56 were Palestinians. According to the Department of State, fewer than 600 Palestinians have arrived in the United States as refugees over the past decade.
The number of Palestinians is significantly low because they are unable to follow the same path to the United States as other nationalities. This situation arises from the 1951 Refugee Convention, which established the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and defined refugee criteria globally, explicitly excluding Palestinians residing in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Since then, the United Nations has created the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which provides only assistance rather than resettlement, as stated on its website.
Thus, most Palestinians who find their way to the United States are refugees coming from various parts of the world while retaining their Palestinian nationality. They may have been referred to as refugees by the United Nations refugee agency by non-governmental organizations. Consequently, what Israel is requesting from Trump is a fundamental shift in policies regarding Palestinian immigrants, rather than merely a lenient approach.
However, Trump’s close relationship with Israel may lead him to consider exceptions that serve Israel’s strategic interests. Israel could also justify this request by framing it as part of a humanitarian solution aimed at alleviating the suffering of the people in Gaza, who are enduring blockade, poverty, and unemployment. This approach might assist Trump in presenting the decision as a humanitarian gesture, particularly in light of the significant failure of his plan known as the “Deal of the Century.” This initiative aimed to provide economic and political solutions while overlooking the fundamental national rights of the Palestinians, such as the right of return and the establishment of an independent state. However, the plan faced widespread Palestinian rejection and limited international support, resulting in its practical collapse.
Anyway, regardless of the reasons and motivations behind the proposals for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, or even the support or opposition from Trump regarding these proposals, there is one undeniable reality on the ground today. This reality is that the attack on October 7, 2023, marks a completely new phase in the Palestinian issue, one that may be more intense and complex than previous stages. Israel has indeed invaded Gaza, and I do not believe it will concede or withdraw from the territories it has occupied, especially since we no longer hear of any plans for the immediate future in Gaza.
Most importantly, Trump has promised to implement a ceasefire in Gaza, and many strongly believe in his capability to achieve this. However, there are no commitments regarding the reconstruction of Gaza or the return of Palestinians to their homeland. Consequently, while a ceasefire may indeed be established, the current situation is likely to remain unchanged. Furthermore, it is probable that discussions surrounding a two-state solution, which Israel has consistently opposed and has actively undermined through the establishment of numerous settlements in Palestinian territories, will fade from discourse. It is evident that Israel, which has been conducting a campaign of genocide against Palestinians since the onset of the Gaza conflict and before, cannot provide a safe and free homeland for them. It would be naive to entertain the notion that such a scenario could be plausible, especially in light of the unwavering American support that challenges even the international community, which today unanimously acknowledges the right of Palestinians to establish an independent state.
Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and writer
