Trump proposes relocating Gazans to Jordan and Egypt

Trump proposes emptying Gaza and relocating Palestinians to third countries

Donald Trump described Gaza as a "demolition site" and advocated for Jordan and Egypt to accept its residents "temporarily or long-term," according to BBC and Ara newspaper reports. Presented as a real estate operation—building homes elsewhere so Palestinians can live "in peace"—the proposal lacks details on who pays the bill or what happens to those refusing to move.

The approach reignites an old debate: whether Gaza and the West Bank cease to be territorial issues and become logistical relocation problems. The first question arising is not humanitarian, but financial.

Who pays for relocating Gazans?

The most common answer is Europe. The argument is that it has funded airports, hospitals, schools, and housing in the region for decades, only for each completed infrastructure project to face destruction in the next conflict cycle, requiring a restart. In this narrative, European taxpayers ultimately foot the bill, not Washington or Gulf monarchies.

Financially capable Arab nations—the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar—are not volunteering as donors. The prevailing theory is they will not accept the operation unless someone fronts the money. That someone does not appear to be the United States.

Jordan and Egypt have already said no

Rejection by both neighbors is where nearly all analyses agree. In Jordan, Palestinians already constitute a significant part of the population, and accepting more would destabilize the country. In Egypt, the working hypothesis is that only a very generous economic deal could open the door to Sinai, and even then with reservations: the goal would be preventing displaced populations from reaching the Nile Valley.

Past experience weighs heavily. Lebanon hosted Palestinian refugees and ended up in civil war; Jordan experienced internal tensions; the Palestinian Authority is often described as one of the world's most corrupt organizations, with international aid diverted to elites. This history explains why no neighboring government wants to repeat the experiment.

The historical precedent nobody wants to repeat

The most frequently cited parallel is US Indian reservations: confining a population to foreign territory and calling it a solution. Others go further back, recalling that Israel's own creation involved such decisions, and over seventy years later, the conflict remains unresolved.

Some argue physical separation of the two populations is the only way to stop violence, even at the cost of walls and mass displacement. Counterarguments state that ethnic cleansing under another name solves nothing: it transfers and multiplies the problem.

The hidden real estate business

The least discussed aspect is economic. If Gaza becomes a luxury Mediterranean zone, someone must build it. Construction firms enter here, not necessarily Israeli ones. The question raised is whether Spanish companies have opportunities in such projects, with the answer being yes, provided someone fronts the capital.

The issue is that the developer is unidentified, the land isn't cleared, and current tenants haven't agreed to move. A real estate project without buyers, land, or occupant consent isn't a project: it's a slide deck.

What peine with the Segarro proposal?

Alongside the Jordan and Egypt plan, another version circulated: deporting Palestinians to Somaliland, Puntland, and Segarro. The appeal for these territories would be US backing—Somaliland seeking independence recognition, Segarro seeking recognition of Western Sahara sovereignty. Information came from Israeli media and went no further.

What did happen was domestic interpretation: if Palestinians end up in Segarro, they will cross into Spain. This reasoning applies to any North African displacement, explaining why Madrid trinc the issue more closely than Washington.

Background: Nobody wants Palestinians nearby

The recurring conclusion, varying in bluntness, is that the problem isn't where to put them, but that no country is willing to host them. Not Arab neighbors, not Europe, not the US. Solidarity with the Palestinian cause, when it means opening one's home, stays on protest banners.

What if the only realistic solution is staying put, with a viable state alongside Israel? It's the least discussed option and the least likely to succeed while nobody funds it.