Md. Shawkat Alam Faisal

In a stunning and controversial announcement, US President Donald Trump has advocated taking over the Gaza Strip, sparking international outcry and heated debate. Trump, speaking at a press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, offered a vision for Gaza that involves removing the Palestinian inhabitants and making the region into the "Riviera of the Middle East." His plan, he claimed, would end ongoing conflicts and provide a fresh start for the territory, but the implications of such a drastic shift have elicited immediate condemnation from a variety of sources.

According to Trump's proposal, all Palestinians in Gaza would be permanently moved to neighboring countries, primarily Egypt and Jordan. He proposed that this would result in a long-term solution to the region's deep-rooted issues, reducing the need for future military operations and opening the door to economic development. While he did not directly advocate for US military occupation, he did not rule out the deployment of American troops to ensure security throughout the transition. His vision for Gaza, he claimed, would include removing the ruins of conflict, reconstructing infrastructure, and transforming the territory into a tourism and commercial magnet free of the damage and instability that have afflicted it for decades.

The response to this idea has been mostly negative. Palestinian officials and Arab leaders have denounced the plan as a flagrant breach of international law, claiming that forcefully transferring an entire people is equivalent to ethnic cleansing. Hamas has condemned the proposal as a "unthinkable act of aggression," while the Palestinian Authority has claimed that such a move would ruin any residual possibility for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. International human rights organizations have also spoken out, condemning the proposal as a flagrant disregard for the Palestinian people's fundamental rights. Legal experts have stated that the forced relocation of an occupied population breaches the Geneva Conventions, rendering the idea legally unacceptable on a worldwide scale.

Even in the United States, the criticism has been immediate and intense. Democratic senators have condemned the proposal as dangerous, brutal, and politically motivated, accusing Trump of exploiting the Gaza crisis to get attention ahead of a potential political return. Republican leaders have been more cautious in their replies, with some voicing support for redevelopment but not backing forceful removal. The Biden administration has yet to issue an official response, but insiders say key officials are concerned about the diplomatic backlash this announcement has already produced.

Meanwhile, Israel's stance has been more ambiguous. While Netanyahu has not publicly supported the full scope of Trump's plan, he has admitted that talks regarding Gaza's future are ongoing. Israel has long battled with how to handle the enclave after decades of fighting, and Trump's proposal, while extreme, addresses themes that Israeli leaders have debated for years. However, given the geopolitical intricacies and the sheer volume of opposition, the idea of a US-controlled Gaza Strip remains a pipe dream.

The timing of this disclosure is extremely crucial, as it coincides with delicate cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. With the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza growing by the day, efforts to broker peace have been precarious, and Trump's action threatens to destabilize an already dangerous situation. The notion that the United States take direct control of Gaza is likely to exacerbate tensions, putting any genuine solutions farther out of reach.

If the United States took control the Gaza Strip and forcefully removed its Palestinian inhabitants, it would violate numerous international legal frameworks, including humanitarian law, human rights law, and criminal law. Forcible transfers are prohibited by Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and classified as "war crimes" under Article 147. The Hague Regulations (1907, Article 43) require occupiers to obey local laws and manage lands for civilian advantage, which this act would violate. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966, Article 12(1)) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948, Article 13) provide freedom of movement and prohibit arbitrary exile.

The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (1998) recognizes forced population transfer as a crime against humanity (Article 7(1)(d)) and criminalizes the repopulation of conquered territory. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, sometimes known as the Genocide Convention (1948, Article II), may apply if relocation is intended to eliminate a national or ethnic group. The United Nations Charter (1945, Article 2(4)) prohibits force against a state's sovereignty, rendering US action unconstitutional. Resolutions 194 and 242 of the UN General Assembly acknowledge Palestinian rights and call for Israel's disengagement from occupied territory. Any such action would be a serious violation of international law, facing prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Aside from the legal framework, the ethical consequences of uprooting an entire people from their homes are important humanitarian considerations. Historically, forcible relocations have resulted in long-term instability, animosity, and resistance, implying that rather than settling the problem, such a move could exacerbate tensions throughout the Middle East. Geopolitically, the proposal threatens to strain relations between the United States and major Arab allies, like Egypt and Jordan, which have already expressed strong objections. Furthermore, if carried out, it might set a dangerous precedent for military operations disguised as economic growth, eroding America's reputation as a global advocate for human rights and self-determination. Instead of providing a sustainable solution, this idea looks to be a provocative and unrealistic proposal that ignores the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian problem in favor of a unilateral and very contentious approach.

The United States has long positioned itself as a global protector of human rights, frequently denouncing other countries for infractions and putting sanctions on accused violators. However, its own past paints a different story, one characterized by frequent and systemic violations of the same principles it claims to uphold. The proposal to take control Gaza and forcibly evict its residents adds to a lengthy history of US measures that have flagrantly violated international law and human rights. From the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction, to the ongoing operation of Guantanamo Bay, where detainees have been held for decades without trial and tortured, the United States has frequently acted with impunity while accusing others of human rights violations.

During the Vietnam War, the US military carried out "Operation Ranch Hand," in which it poured over 19 million gallons of deadly Agent Orange, resulting in long-term genetic abnormalities and environmental devastation—an act that could be considered a war crime. During the Cold War, the United States sponsored authoritarian regimes and dictatorships in Latin America through programs such as "Operation Condor," which directly or indirectly aided mass killings, forced disappearances, and torture in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.

More recently, its unrelenting backing for Israel's military actions in Gaza, despite incontrovertible evidence of war crimes, demonstrates the absurdity of its human rights rhetoric. The United States has not only failed to hold its partners accountable, but has deliberately shielded them from international scrutiny by often vetoing UN resolutions designed at defending civilian populations. Whether in Afghanistan, where drone strikes have killed thousands of innocent civilians under the guise of counterterrorism, or in its treatment of asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border, where children have been separated from their families and held in cages, the United States has consistently violated basic human rights. This trend of double standards begs the question: can a government that consistently violates human rights on a global scale truly be trusted as its self-proclaimed protector?

As the world responds to this extraordinary idea, practical and ethical problems remain unsolved. How would such a takeover be implemented without causing a larger regional conflict? Where would the displaced Palestinians go, and how would they be compensated for having lost their homes? Would any country truly support such a drastic reorganization of the Middle East's most contentious territory? While Trump's proposal has gotten a lot of attention, the reality is that putting such a plan into action is extremely difficult. The Gaza Strip, long associated with pain and tenacity, is once again at the heart of an international firestorm—one that is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

The writer is a, Columnist and an Apprentice Lawyer at the Bangladesh Bar Council.