Over the past week, President Donald Trump has made a repeated proposal that the population of Gaza be absorbed by Arab countries in the region—specifically Egypt, Jordan, and other neighboring states. This proposal was met with surprise and outrage by many media outlets and world leaders. However, a deeper look at the history of population displacement reveals that what Trump is suggesting is not unprecedented—and is, in fact, far more humane than the alternatives historically chosen by global powers.
The forced transfer or voluntary resettlement of populations has been a feature of conflict resolution throughout modern history. When wars end, borders shift and populations are relocated. It is messy, painful, and never ideal. But it is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times in the last century alone.
Consider the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, during which an estimated 10–20 million people were displaced. Millions of Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after World War II. Nearly a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries after the establishment of the State of Israel. In each of these cases, the international community accepted—or even facilitated—the transfer of populations as the lesser evil compared to perpetual conflict.
The situation in Gaza is dire. Its population has been governed by a terrorist organization that has launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, built an elaborate tunnel network for terror purposes, and on October 7th, carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. The current state of affairs—where 2 million people live in a war zone under the tyranny of Hamas—is untenable.
Trump's suggestion, however provocative, raises an important question: what is the long-term plan for the people of Gaza? The status quo has failed them. Reconstruction under Hamas will simply lead to another cycle of violence. And no amount of international aid will change the fundamental dynamic as long as a terror organization controls the territory.
Historically, the Arab world has refused to absorb Palestinian refugees, using them instead as a political tool against Israel. This refusal has perpetuated the suffering of millions. Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, has kept its Rafah crossing largely sealed. Jordan, despite its large Palestinian population, resists further absorption. The question must be asked: why?
If the international community truly cared about the welfare of the Palestinian people, it would explore every option for their betterment—including resettlement in countries with the space, resources, and cultural affinity to absorb them. This is not a radical idea. It is what has been done throughout history when populations are caught in intractable conflicts.
The lesson of history is clear: sometimes the most compassionate solution is not the most popular one. Trump, whether intentionally or not, has opened a conversation that the world has been afraid to have. It is time to have it honestly.