The Israeli right eagerly embraced U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to displace the population of Gaza—an idea they had sought to implement since the beginning of the aggression on Gaza and one of the war’s unofficial objectives.
During the war, Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence prepared a detailed plan (some aspects of which were absurd) outlining a displacement scenario for Gaza. Although this ministry was later dissolved, its plan remained pending.
In January, the Israeli right organized a conference advocating for the displacement of Gaza’s residents, attended by government ministers and Knesset members from the ruling coalition. The push for displacement was not confined to the right-wing; opposition Knesset member Ram Ben-Barak from Yesh Atid (a former intelligence chief) co-authored an article with Likud’s Danny Danon (Israel’s UN representative) proposing “voluntary migration” of Gaza residents to various countries.
As the aggression continued and Israel failed to forcibly displace Gaza’s population, it attempted a partial displacement strategy in northern Gaza starting in October 2023, but this effort also failed.
Trump reignited the idea of displacement among Israelis when he detailed the plan at a Washington press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A week later, Israel’s Security Cabinet officially adopted Trump’s plan during its first meeting after Netanyahu’s return. Netanyahu lauded it as “brilliant,” later admitting that Israel had worked with the U.S. administration to shape the plan and influence Trump’s stance.
Trump’s displacement plan revived the Zionist dream that resolving the conflict with Palestinians lies in forced expulsion—an objective the Zionist movement failed to achieve in 1948 and 1967.
Trump’s proposal aligns with mainstream Zionist-Israeli thinking rather than being an exception. Opposition to Palestinian displacement over the past four decades was not due to moral concerns but rather a belief that ethnic cleansing was no longer internationally acceptable. When Trump proposed it, most Israeli political movements and parties in the Knesset welcomed the idea—except for the Democratic Labor Party led by Yair Golan.
Following Israel’s adoption of Trump’s proposal, Israeli Defense Minister established a special unit within the Ministry of Defense to draft a detailed displacement plan. This initiative aimed to encourage Gaza residents to leave through economic incentives, offering pathways via Israeli-controlled land, sea, and air crossings. The unit comprises officials from various government ministries, yet it remains unclear whether the plan necessitates full occupation of Gaza.
Israeli Debate Over Trump’s Plan
Israeli discourse on Trump’s displacement plan divided into three camps:
-
- Ethical Opponents – A minority in Israel opposed the plan on moral grounds.
-
- Skeptical Supporters – Some supported it but doubted its feasibility, believing it could still serve as leverage to pressure regional actors for Israeli interests.
-
- Hardline Advocates – Others fully endorsed it, convinced that execution was possible, especially with firm U.S. backing.
A survey by the Jewish People Policy Institute revealed that 53% of Israeli Jews supported the plan and its feasibility, while 30% endorsed it but deemed it impractical. The remaining respondents opposed it for various reasons.
Trump’s Rhetoric Softens
Tracking Israeli discourse reveals a swift decline in discussions surrounding Trump’s proposal. This rhetorical retreat coincides with diminishing enthusiasm within the U.S. administration. While Trump initially praised his plan as “brilliant,” he later stated that it was merely a “recommendation” rather than an enforced policy.
This marked a noticeable shift in tone compared to his earlier statements, particularly during his joint declaration with Netanyahu. U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, began signaling that Trump’s plan remained an option only if Arab states failed to propose an alternative solution. This shift suggests that the U.S. administration redefined the displacement proposal as a bargaining tool rather than a definitive policy objective—using it to pressure regional actors into formulating a political vision for Gaza’s future. This vision aligns with Washington’s goal of ending Hamas governance in Gaza while ensuring reconstruction without displacement.
As the first phase of the ceasefire agreement neared its conclusion and negotiations for the second phase began, Israel recalibrated its rhetoric. It resumed emphasizing war objectives—disarming Gaza and dismantling Hamas rule—while noticeably omitting Trump’s displacement plan. Instead, Israeli discourse echoed Trump’s calls for the immediate release of all Israeli hostages.
Israel recognizes that a broader political process is unfolding beyond the ceasefire negotiations—one largely driven by Arab states in response to Trump’s proposal. This Arab-led initiative engages directly with Washington and may eventually lead to a U.S.-approved Arab plan based on a formula of reconstruction without displacement and without Hamas rule.
While this broader political trajectory aims to remove Hamas through Arab-Palestinian consensus with U.S. approval, it poses a challenge for Israel. Netanyahu’s government seeks to accomplish this goal independently and with direct Israeli influence.
Israel’s Strategic Dilemma
As part of its second-phase negotiations, Israel has outlined stringent conditions—particularly Gaza’s disarmament. However, the Arab proposal explicitly rejecting displacement places Netanyahu’s government in a difficult position. This plan envisions a professional Palestinian administration independent of both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Yet, over the long term, it could lead to the PA regaining governance in Gaza—an outcome Israel strongly opposes. Netanyahu’s stance remains: “No Hamas and no Abbas.”
If the Arab proposal gains traction and secures U.S. endorsement, it would effectively terminate Trump’s displacement plan and shatter Israel’s long-held dream of expelling Gaza’s population. This explains the gradual retreat of both U.S. and Israeli rhetoric surrounding the proposal, although it remains a talking point within the settler-right faction of Netanyahu’s government.
Moving forward, Israel’s focus will likely shift toward influencing the Arab reconstruction plan and Gaza’s governance structure. Nevertheless, given Washington’s broader strategic priorities, Israel will be compelled to engage in second-phase negotiations to resolve the so-called “Gaza problem.”
This development threatens Netanyahu’s government, which initially consolidated around Trump’s displacement proposal. Netanyahu leveraged it to maintain coalition stability, arguing that displacement necessitated unity within his government—regardless of the political cost. He framed it as an existential opportunity, suggesting that expelling Gaza’s residents is a historic dream waiting to be realized.
The Arab Initiative: A Game Changer?
The success and seriousness of the Arab initiative could become the most significant geopolitical shift since 1967. By preventing displacement, halting the war, facilitating reconstruction, and establishing a new Palestinian governance structure, this initiative could ultimately derail Israeli plans. Moreover, it might lay the groundwork for a long-term unification of Gaza and the West Bank—an outcome that would profoundly challenge Israeli expansionist ambitions.
