Trump Gaza ‘Riviera’ scheme ‘utterly contrary to international law’
Damage in Gaza Strip, 2023. WAFA/Wikimedia Commons.
At the end of February, US President Donald Trump shared an AI-generated video promoting his controversial vision to take over Gaza and transform it into a Mediterranean resort. The surreal footage shows a colossal golden statue of Trump, its surface glinting against a simulated sun, before panning across a futuristic skyline of glass-walled high-rise hotels. ‘Donald Trump will set you free,’ a melodic narration says. ‘Golden future. A brand-new life.’
Trump was doubling down on his bizarre proposal whereby Palestinians would be forced from their homes and out of Gaza to make way for ‘a Riviera of the Middle East’, while declaring ‘everybody loves’ the idea. In truth, the proposal has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with global leaders stating that the proposal fundamentally contravenes international law.
The scheme, first mooted at the beginning of February, and shrouded in ambiguity, suggests forcibly relocating Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians to neighbouring states, further demolishing the war-torn strip and erecting a US-backed ‘Riviera’. Within hours, allies and adversaries alike criticised the scheme. Saudi Arabia, a regional US ally, rebuked the plan in a rare 04:00 statement. Even in North Korea, a habitual challenger of global norms, the official media derided it as ‘robbery’. Experts globally branded it a flagrant violation of humanitarian statutes.
‘The international community cannot accept state authorities destroying a foreign territory – people’s homes, hospitals – and then selling it off or facilitating another state’s ‘purchase’, as this would set an intolerable precedent,’ says Kirsty Sutherland, Co-Chair of the IBA War Crimes Committee. ‘The international community appears uniform in its rejection of this abominable proposal.’ She urged a pivot to ‘positive and sustainable solutions rather than chaos mongering’.
The idea that permanent displacement does anything positive for Gaza’s people is an absolute farce and utterly contrary to international law
Sara Elizabeth Dill
Co-Vice Chair, IBA War Crimes Committee
A legal quagmire
Trump’s notion, sparse in detail but brimming with grandiosity, skirts critical questions: timelines, troop deployments, funding sources and final legal status. IT would, though, empower Washington to ‘take over’ Gaza, slam the door on Palestinian return and strong-arm Egypt and Jordan into absorbing millions of refugees - a manoeuvre legal experts condemn as ‘forced displacement’, which would flout international law.
‘Aside from blatant disregard for sovereignty and the interests of the Palestinians, as well as gut-wrenching disregard for the illegality of Israel’s continued occupation, there are immediate – sadly only slightly facetious – questions around who Trump would be paying and whether this would include damages or compensation for destruction caused by Israeli bombardment – and US weaponry,’ Sutherland says.
Sara Elizabeth Dill, Co-Vice Chair of the IBA’s War Crimes Committee, says the plan tramples bedrock tenets of international law. She pinpointed violations of Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits mass expulsion, and Article 8(2), banning property appropriation. ‘Israel’s relentless war in Palestine, with the financial and arms support of the US and UK, certainly includes violations – and forced displacement and denial of the right to return are among them,’ says Dill.
Separately, a group of UN experts issued a statement warning that the US ‘shocking threats’ to ‘take over’ Gaza would shatter fundamental rules of international order.
Both are adamant that it is manifestly illegal to invade and annex foreign territory by force, to forcibly deport its population and to deprive the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self-determination, including to retain Gaza within a sovereign Palestinian state.
Global backlash
UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that the scheme risked ‘ethnic cleansing’. Arab states, including Egypt and Jordan spurned it despite US threats to withdraw financial support. Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, facing mounting domestic opposition, cancelled a tentatively planned visit to Washington to avoid discussing the contentious proposal. State-run media in both countries said the plan would destabilise both nations.
Saudi Arabia reiterated that normalisation with Israel, a cornerstone of Trump’s Middle East policy, hinges on progress towards Palestinian statehood. Wealthy Gulf states backed plans for an emergency summit in Cairo on 4 March to counter Trump’s plan, likely drafting an alternative proposal.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy stressed the right of Palestinians to ‘thrive in their homelands, Gaza and the West Bank’, while France labelled it a ‘grave breach of international law’ and Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said the scheme was ‘unacceptable and contrary to international law’ and that it would create ‘new suffering and new hatred’. Russia and China also denounced the scheme. Only Israel embraced it, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming it ‘could change history’ and praising Trump for ‘thinking outside the box with new ideas’. The plan aligns with Israel’s long-standing goal of diminishing Palestinian territorial claims.
Humanitarian façade
Trump framed the idea as a boon for Gazans who have been enduring a humanitarian disaster, claiming they’d all be ‘thrilled’ to move out of the rubbles of Gaza. ‘The idea that permanent displacement does anything positive for Gaza’s people is an absolute farce and utterly contrary to international law,’ says Dill. She notes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Fourth Geneva Convention all recognise the right of return. She stresses that even US and UK military manuals on international humanitarian law mandate displacement be limited and temporary. Sutherland emphasises that any movement of the Palestinians must be voluntary. ‘It is particularly galling as Israel has exercised strict control over those seeking to flee Gaza and sharply restricted aid,’ she says. ‘What Gazans need is help allowed in – in accordance with international law.’
As Arab leaders prepared their emergency summit, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz backpedalled, calling the idea a ‘starting point’ for dialogue. Yet, with legal landmines and logistical black holes riddling the proposal, Trump’s Mediterranean pitch appears less a peace overture than a recipe for tension. Hamas, which still governs Gaza, has vowed to resist any project side-lining Palestinian rights. ‘Whoever comes to fill Israel’s place [in Gaza] will be treated like Israel,’ Osama Hamdan, a Hamas spokesperson and political bureau member, said in February in Doha, Qatar. ‘Whoever wants to work as an agent for Israel will bear the consequences of being Israel’s agent.’
The spectre of Trump’s earlier defiance of international norms looms large, fuelling concerns that legal frameworks may again be swept aside. In his first term, Trump unilaterally recognised Israeli sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, sweeping moves that directly contravened decades of international consensus. Both actions were rejected by the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, as well as by a majority of states, which deemed the annexations to be violations of international law. If Trump’s Gaza scheme is anything to go by, he seems utterly unperturbed and ready to flout international law entirely if it suits him.