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.
In a highly controversial move, former President Donald Trump has suggested relocating Gaza’s entire population to other countries as a potential solution to the ongoing crisis in the region. The proposal, made during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, has drawn sharp criticism from international aid experts and human rights advocates, who warn that such a plan could exacerbate the already dire humanitarian situation faced by Palestinians.
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.
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.
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 desplazar personas en un momento en que sus necesidades son tan críticas no es una solución,” explicó Sheline. “Es absurdo presentar esto como lo mejor para ellos en lugar de centrarse en proporcionar los recursos que necesitan para recuperarse y reconstruir.”
El desplazamiento también plantea serias preocupaciones legales y éticas. El derecho internacional prohíbe el traslado forzoso permanente de poblaciones civiles. Además, los expertos advierten que mover a los residentes de Gaza a entornos desconocidos podría generar inestabilidad a largo plazo y agravar aún más las vulnerabilidades existentes, como la desnutrición y la falta de acceso a agua potable.
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 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.
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 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.
“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.”
La necesidad de soluciones sostenibles
Los expertos coinciden en que la única ruta viable hacia adelante implica abordar las causas fundamentales de la crisis de Gaza y apoyar a su población dentro del territorio. Esto incluye proporcionar ayuda humanitaria inmediata, reconstruir infraestructura esencial y garantizar que los palestinos tengan los recursos necesarios para recuperarse y reconstruir sus comunidades.
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.”
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.
