In a move that has sparked significant controversy, ex-President Donald Trump has proposed transferring the entire population of Gaza to different nations as a possible resolution to the region’s ongoing crisis. This suggestion, presented during a discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, has met with strong disapproval from international aid experts and human rights groups, who caution that such a plan could worsen the already severe humanitarian conditions experienced by 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
Gaza’s ongoing humanitarian crisis
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.
According to international organizations, Gaza’s crisis has reached unprecedented levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that out of 36 hospitals and 11 field hospitals in the region, only seven remain fully operational, all located in central or southern Gaza. The rest are either partially functioning or completely out of service due to damage and a lack of resources. This collapse of the healthcare system has left over 111,000 injured individuals, along with newborns, pregnant women, cancer patients, and those with chronic illnesses, without access to adequate medical care.
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, emphasized the urgency of addressing these healthcare gaps. “The focus must be on rebuilding Gaza’s health system and providing medical aid on the ground,” Shakir stated. He added that displacing the population would not address the root causes of the crisis and could jeopardize access to essential care for vulnerable groups.
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 portray displacement as a humanitarian remedy. Sheline emphasized that this plan overlooks the Palestinians’ rights to return to their homes and restore 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.”
Escasez de alimentos y agua
Food insecurity and water shortages
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 destacó 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. «Mover a las personas a otro lugar no garantiza mejores condiciones y corre el riesgo de replicar los mismos problemas en otro sitio.»
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
Experts agree that the only viable path forward involves addressing the root causes of Gaza’s crisis and supporting its population within the territory. This includes providing immediate humanitarian aid, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and ensuring that Palestinians have the resources to recover and rebuild their communities.
“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
International response to the proposal
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.
