Sunday Times 2
“Riviera Of the Middle East”: A paradise inside a hornet’s nest
View(s):By Somar Wijayadasa
NEW YORK, (IDN) – President Donald Trump’s bombshell proposal that the United States would take over the war-ruined Gaza—that he described as a “demolition zone”—relocate Palestinians to neighboring countries—possibly in Egypt and Jordan—and redevelop the war-torn enclave into what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
That imprudent proposal promptly sparked worldwide condemnation.
First of all, any forcible transfer or deportation of people from an occupied territory is against international humanitarian law and is nothing but a moral abomination. Human rights organisations quickly condemned the proposal as a form of ethnic cleansing, emphasising that forced displacement violates international law.
Displaced Palestinian children sit on a sand mound overlooking tents set up amid destroyed buildings in Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip. In hunger-stricken makeshift shelters set up in former schools, bombed-out houses and cemeteries across the Gaza Strip, devastated by 15 months of war between Hamas and Israel, hundreds of thousands lack even plastic sheeting to protect from winter rains and biting winds, aid workers say. AFP
Trump also said that the US “will take over Gaza” and send in troops “if necessary”.
Dead on arrival
I admire that the accomplished real estate developer salivates when he sees a unique RE opportunity, and Trump described his grandiose vision as transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Unfortunately, though akin to his ambitious plans to annex Canada, and buy Greenland and Panama Canal, Gaza is not for sale.
A key aspect of the proposal involves relocating Gaza’s millions of Palestinian residents to neighbouring countries but both Egypt, Jordan, other major Arab nations, and the Arab League have unequivocally rejected any resettlement citing concerns over regional stability and Palestinian rights.
The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (the only person with any authority over Palestine) said “the Palestinians will not relinquish their land, rights and sacred sites, and that the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the land of the State of Palestine, along with the West Bank and East Jerusalem”.
This reminds me of Trump’s previous (2019) $50 billion Peace Plan of economic aid known as the “Deal of the Century” for the Palestinians. That too was a nonstarter promptly repudiated by the Palestinians saying that “the US is selling us illusions”.
History repeats itself
Historically, the question of Palestine was first brought before the United Nations General Assembly in 1947. By resolution 181, the Assembly decided to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime.
Since 1948, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Security Council (UNSC) have been pre-occupied with this disastrous conflict—adopting nearly 400 resolutions (187 UNSC and 192 UNGA, respectively)—all defied by Israel.
Palestinians recognise their country to the geographic region spanning from the Mediterranean Sea in the east to the Jordan River in the west. The conflict over these lands has left the Palestinians facing multiple humanitarian crises—such as lack of water, food, electricity, and without access to proper medical care.
In July 2024, in a “watershed” ruling, the International Court of Justice (UN’s top court) ruled that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 is illegal, and that it must withdraw its military forces and settlers from all Palestinian territories, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established. It concluded that where Palestinians have lost land and property, that Israel should pay reparations.
The ICJ perceived it is “plausible” that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention. Also, following investigations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two senior Israeli officials—including Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is a vivid example of how Israel blatantly defies the UN resolutions and the ICJ rulings—and the absolute impotence of the United Nations.
This 78-year problem can be resolved only by assisting Israel and Palestinians to establish the two-state solution—recommended and recognised by the whole world including the United States—except Israel.
World reacts with condemnation
Though grandiose but not benevolent, Trump’s proposal drew a barrage of criticism worldwide. Even the US’s closest allies voiced indignation against resettling Palestinians instead of finding a permanent solution to the harrowing problem. While many countries from around the world condemned Trump’s imprudent proposal, all countries agree that the two-state solution is the only way for lasting peace in the Middle East.
The proposal was outright rejected by almost all Arab States. Egypt and Jordan have rejected resettlement proposals in the past as well.
Rejection by the Arab world
Saudi Arabia, a key American ally in the region, also firmly rejected Trump’s proposal.
Saying that “permanent peace” in the Gaza enclave can only be achieved through the establishment of a Palestinian state, the Saudi Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its “unequivocal rejection of any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, whether through Israeli settlement policies, annexation of Palestinian lands or attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land”.
Most importantly, Saudi Arabia warned that without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, it would not form diplomatic relations with Israel.
“Permanent peace” cannot be achieved without Palestinians securing their “legitimate rights” to statehood, the statement added, urging more “peace-loving countries to recognise the State of Palestine” based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The ministry stressed that Riyadh would not establish ties with Israel unless this key condition is met, insisting that its stance towards the Palestinians is “non-negotiable”.
If Saudis’ position can be taken for granted, we can consider that the project “Riviera of the Middle East” is dead.
Responding to Trump’s proposal for the US to take control of Gaza and relocate its residents to a “good, fresh, beautiful piece of land”, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour said “For those suggesting a happy, nice place for them, let them return to their original homes inside Israel”.
He further emphasised that Palestinians want to return to their homes in Gaza, declaring, “Our homeland is our homeland… They want to rebuild Gaza—its schools, hospitals, and infrastructure—because this is where they belong and where they love to live. I believe leaders should respect the will of the Palestinian people”.
Democrats express shock as Republicans heap praise on the President for suggesting ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian enclave.
A headline of an NBC News item read ‘Deranged’ and ‘problematic’: Bipartisan group of lawmakers bashes Trump’s Gaza proposal. It contains the comments of several Congressmen.
In the dustbin of history
More than 90% of the UN Member States—including almost all Western countries—agree that the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is to create a Palestinian state to exist side-by-side with Israel—based on the 1967 boundaries. And Gaza would be part of a future Palestinian state that includes the occupied West Bank.
Time is opportune for the two Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas to join hands if they want a separate state—as their squabbles have aggravated the peace process.
With so strong repudiation of Trump’s proposal, it is crystal clear that this conflict can only be resolved by paving way for the Palestinians to establish an independent, fully sovereign state along the 1967 pre-war borders with East Jerusalem as its capital—a state for Palestinians to live in dignity.
(Somar Wijayadasa, was a Faculty Member of the University of Sri Lanka
(1967-1972); worked for UN Agencies IAEA and FAO (1973-1985): delegate of UNESCO to the UN General Assembly (1985-1995); and was the Representative of UNAIDS at the United Nations from 1995-2000.)