The path to peace will require accepting painful notions that we are all here to stay

The proposal for 'humanitarian migration' – a sanitized term for ethnic cleansing – is being marketed as a moral solution to Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

By GILAD HIRSCHBERGER FEBRUARY 11, 2025 01:29

A PROTEST takes place in Rafah, Egypt, at the border crossing with the Gaza Strip, last Friday, against US President Donald Trump’s proposal that Egypt and Jordan take in Palestinians from Gaza. Trump’s proposal offers Israelis false hopes with an unworkable solution to a complex problem (photo credit: REUTERS)

The ink has barely dried on Donald Trump’s second presidential oath, and his unorthodox proposals are already making headlines – from Greenland acquisition schemes to his latest focus: Gaza.

Viewing the Gaza Strip through a real estate mogul’s lens, Trump envisions lush golf courses and luxury resorts along Gaza’s Mediterranean coastline. However, this vision conveniently ignores the current reality: 37 million tons of rubble, over 400,000 precarious structures, and over two million Palestinians, most displaced from their homes.

The proposal for “humanitarian migration” – a sanitized term for ethnic cleansing – is being marketed as a moral solution to Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

The logic seems deceptively simple: since the widespread destruction has made the territory uninhabitable, shouldn’t we help its residents relocate? Yet this seemingly compassionate proposal masks a dangerous fantasy.

The impracticality of this scheme is evident. The man who failed to build his promised Mexican border wall during his first term is unlikely to successfully orchestrate the transfer of two million Palestinians or find willing host countries.

An illustration US President Donald Trump and the Gaza Strip (credit: REUTERS, SHUTTERSTOCK)

It comes as no surprise that the plan’s implementation details remain troublingly vague, particularly regarding the role of American forces and potential destination countries. 

No Arab nation has expressed willingness to absorb Gaza’s residents, and previous attempts at Palestinian resettlement have historically faced fierce resistance. Is the American public ready for the costs and risks of an American occupation in Gaza, particularly given the challenges of urban warfare in one of the world’s most densely populated areas? 

MAGA Strip

The transition from the Gaza Strip to MAGA (Make America Great Again) Strip is unlikely to go smoothly.

The proposal has already strained relationships with key regional allies. Jordan and Egypt, crucial partners in maintaining regional stability, have strongly opposed any forced population transfers, viewing such moves as potentially destabilizing to their own security interests. 

Even Saudi Arabia, despite potential normalization talks with Israel, has explicitly rejected the plan, reaffirming its support for Palestinian statehood. 

---

---

For Israel’s far Right, the plan offers a dangerous illusion – the possibility of eventually resettling Gaza with Jewish civilians, a long-held desire that would only perpetuate the cycle of conflict. 

Practical obstacles notwithstanding, the mere discussion of such ideas causes significant damage, even without relocating a single Palestinian. Trump’s humanitarian migration plan has reignited population transfer fantasies among many Israelis, nurturing false hopes for an easy resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The very suggestion creates an illusion that this intractable conflict spanning over a century can be solved through the relocation of an entire population. In reality, promoting such ideas only intensifies the conflict and delays realistic solutions.

Historical evidence from violent intergroup conflicts shows that resolution comes not from mutual understanding or empathy but from deep frustration and exhaustion with the fantasy of defeating or eliminating the other side. 

Germany and Japan transformed from belligerent powers into peaceful nations because they had no alternative. The Irish, Scottish, and English learned to coexist after centuries of failed warfare because no better option existed.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires both sides to become sufficiently frustrated with the fantasy of total victory. As long as either side believes it can end the conflict through force, expulsion, or annihilation, the motivation for compromise remains low. 

Ideas like “voluntary migration” reinforce the hope that the conflict can be resolved through unilateral force rather than fostering the understanding that real solutions require mutual concessions and accepting (perhaps reluctantly) the other’s presence.

Trump’s proposal, despite its stated aim of resolving the conflict, actually exacerbates it by offering Israelis false hope in an unworkable solution to a complex problem. 

When this false hope confronts reality, it will likely lead to another cycle of bloody violence between two people who have yet to accept that the other side isn’t going anywhere. Just as Palestinian calls to expel Jews “back to Europe” fuel hostility, Trump’s humanitarian migration plan will only intensify hatred and violence.

The mere existence of transfer discourse diminishes the possibility of genuine dialogue with Palestinians, as it will be seen as proof that Israel no longer seeks conflict resolution. 

This rhetoric will distance Israel from potential agreements with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states, potentially sending Trump to The Hague as a war criminal rather than Oslo as a peacemaker.

While Gaza’s current situation is untenable for both its residents and Israel, magical solutions like population transfer are merely smoke and mirrors. Such false solutions generate dangerous hope and distance us from the frustration necessary to reach a painful but essential compromise. 

The path to peace lies not in fantasies of elimination but in the acceptance of the (admittedly painful) notion that both people are here to stay and must find a way to share this land.

The writer is vice dean of the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology at Reichman University, and is a co-director of the T-Politography project. His work focuses on collective existential threats and how threat perceptions influence and shape political cognitions.