President Donald Trump’s reckless statement last Saturday advocating for the ethnic emptying of Gaza has sparked widespread condemnation. At a time when delicate Gaza ceasefire negotiations were underway, delayed by a manufactured Bibi Netanyahu excuse, Trump’s ill-considered remarks emboldened the most extreme right-wing elements in Israel, who were quick to applaud his comments. This episode underscores an inauspicious (to say the least) beginning for any potential Trump-led efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Trump’s remarks sucked all the oxygen out of the room, diverting attention from the fragile ceasefire process and shifting focus to his inflammatory rhetoric. By legitimizing extreme views, he provided cover for those advocating policies rooted in racism and exclusion. The timing could not have been worse. In a moment that called for careful diplomacy and a commitment to de-escalation, Trump chose to inflame tensions instead.
Jordanians, both in government and among the general public, were surprised by the statement made aboard Air Force One by the U.S. president suggesting the transfer, “temporary or long-term,” of 1.5 million Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. Jordan, which has hosted Palestinian refugees since 1948 based on the U.N. promise that they would return to their homeland, has also accommodated further displaced Palestinians since 1967. After the 1967 War, Jordan hosted Palestinians from the West Bank, granting them Jordanian citizenship, while also providing refuge to half a million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, who still await the opportunity to return to their homes. Following the Oslo Accords, hopes were raised for their eventual return.
Both Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi rejected on January 29 any forced displacement of Gazans. President Sisi said that displacing “the Palestinian people from their land is an injustice that we cannot take part in.” Speaking at a press conference in Cairo with Kenyan President William Ruto, he added that Egypt’s historic position in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state “can never be compromised.”
In Brussels, Jordan’s Abdullah stressed his country’s “firm position on the need to keep the Palestinians on their land and to guarantee their legitimate rights, in accordance with the Israeli and Palestinian two-state solution.”
The strange statement by the U.S. president came days after the announcement that most U.S. foreign aid (except military aid to Egypt and Israel, and some humanitarian assistance) had been suspended for no longer than 90 days. While on the surface this temporary and global measure is not connected to Trump’s Gaza statement, many in Jordan expressed concern that Washington plans to use its foreign aid to pressure Amman.
Jordan and the U.S. government had signed in 2022 a seven-year Memorandum of Understanding stating that American aid to Jordan shall not dip below $1.45 billion annually. This MOU runs out in the fiscal year 2029, and Jordanian officials have stated that there is no connection between the two issues. Nevertheless, Jordanian politicians, parliamentarians, civil society organizations, and the media have come out in an unprecedented blitz opposing the Trump idea and accusing the American president of playing with the lives of people and their rights by encouraging the war crime of ethnic cleansing. Jordan and Egypt support Gaza and the West Bank becoming an independent state, and both back the Ramallah-based leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Mahmoud Abbas.
What made Trump’s statement particularly troubling was that it came at a sensitive time in the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, which included the permission for Palestinians who were forcibly asked to leave the north of Gaza to return. On the very day of the statement, thousands of Palestinians were stuck with their belongings at the Israeli-controlled junction near the Netzarim area on both Salaheddine Street and Rashid Street, south of Gaza city. The delay by Israel was clearly a manufactured obstacle that was eventually resolved Monday morning, allowing the thousands to return—many to their bombed houses, forcing them to set up tents at their former residences.
The irony in Trump’s statement was that it appeared to have surprised even the Israeli government. Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked Trump for a different decision—the rescinding of the Biden administration’s order against the delivery of 2,000-ton bombs—but refrained from engaging with Trump’s call for population transfer. The statement, however, was hailed by two far-right Israeli parties, headed by Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who praised it and called on Netanyahu to continue the war against Palestinians to force the depopulation of Gaza.
It is unclear whether Trump’s statement is the incubation of a plan or a slip of the tongue reflecting chatter he was privy to at Mar-a-Lago. A U.S. official has said that the idea of transferring Palestinian refugees is a frequent topic of discussion at Trump’s Florida stomping grounds among some of the hawkish pro-Israeli Americans who have been advising the newly elected president. The fact that his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has yet to be confirmed suggests that the statement is not part of a well-thought-out plan. Furthermore, a statement by veteran Republican Senator Lindsey Graham questioning whether Jordan and Egypt would buy into the idea appears to have thrown cold water on a reckless comment. Palestinians in Gaza who refused to leave their homeland despite the brutal Israeli war on them will certainly not agree to move voluntarily, and it is hard to imagine how 1.5 million Palestinians will be moved against their will and against the will of their neighbors.
The reaction from the international community has been swift and overwhelmingly negative. Leaders across the globe have condemned Trump’s statement as not only reckless but undermining the moral authority of the United States to mediate conflicts in the region. The repercussions of his remarks are likely to linger, further complicating an already fraught situation and diminishing hopes for a sustainable resolution to the decades-long conflict.
By aligning himself with the most extreme factions in Israel, Trump has done more harm than good. His statement has alienated moderate voices on all sides and weakened the credibility of any future U.S. involvement in the peace process. His approach serves as a stark reminder that words matter, particularly from those in positions of power. Reckless statements can inflame existing tensions, embolden extremists, and set back the cause of peace by years, if not decades.
If Trump’s intention was to present himself as a dealmaker capable of resolving one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, his words have achieved the opposite. Instead of laying groundwork for peace, he has exacerbated divisions and undermined the trust necessary for negotiations. The long-term effects of his thoughtless rhetoric will likely be felt for years to come, casting a shadow over any efforts to bring lasting peace to the region.
