Follow us on social

google cta
Trump can't 'clean out' Gaza without destabilizing entire region

Trump can't 'clean out' Gaza without destabilizing entire region

Not only is forced displacement a war crime, but Arab monarchies, particularly Jordan, could collapse from the pressure

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

President Trump told reporters on Air Force One this weekend that he wants Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries to take refugees from Gaza in order to “just clean out that whole thing.” Any forced repatriation of Palestinians would constitute the war crime of ethnic cleansing, although international law has not historically governed Israel or the United States’ treatment of Palestinians.

Yet if Trump were to greenlight such a plan, the result would be extreme destabilization of neighboring states, which would contradict Trump’s stated goal of bringing peace to the Middle East.

As I wrote in a recent brief for the Quincy Institute, Jordan in particular would face a level of upheaval that could bring down King Abdullah II and the Hashemite monarchy that has long worked with the U.S. and Israel. If Trump were to facilitate the displacement of Palestinians into Jordan, Washington could lose an ally and gain an enemy, or at best a government with no interest in working with Tel Aviv or Washington.

Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. A key aspect of the treaty was that Israel would not displace Palestinians into Jordan. When I visited Jordan last fall, many former officials expressed concern that they no longer had a partner in the Israeli government and that Netanyahu was preparing to violate the treaty. If Israel were to do so by forcing Palestinians across the border, King Abdullah of Jordan would either have to respond — which would result in the loss of U.S. assistance that helps Abdullah maintain his throne — or allow the war crime to proceed, which could result in his overthrow.

The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, which won a plurality of seats in September’s parliamentary election, would be the organization best placed to take control. Although the Brotherhood historically acted as a “loyal opposition” to the Hashemite kings, in recent years it has faced intensified repression and has responded by adopting more aggressive positions, including on the question of Palestine.

Regardless of whether the Brotherhood or another movement took control of Jordan in the aftermath of the Hashemites’ ouster, the resulting government would be extremely pro-Palestine, reflecting the sentiments of Jordanians, over half of whom are originally Palestinian. The depth of support for Palestine is reflected in the mass boycott of American and European products and businesses, as well as in recent attacks by Jordanians on the Israeli border and embassy.

Even a staunch ally of President Trump, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) expressed confusion at Trump’s remarks about forcing U.S. partners to accept Palestinian refugees: “I don't know what he's talking about. But go talk to MBS, go talk to [the] UAE, go talk to Egypt,” Graham said. “What is their plan for the Palestinians? Do they want them all to leave?”

Trump may view the governments of Jordan and Egypt as reliant on the U.S. and therefore in no position to refuse. Trump has already frozen all foreign assistance except that designated for Israel and Egypt, perhaps to remind Abdullah of his status as dependent. Yet neither Trump nor the Israeli government would be well served by facilitating Abdullah’s downfall and his replacement with a less compliant alternative.

Early in Israel’s war on Gaza, members of Congress reviewed a plan that would have required U.S. partners to accept Palestinian refugees. Interestingly, this plan focused on Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Yemen receiving refugees, but not Jordan. This may have reflected a deeper historical understanding that displacing Palestinians into Jordan has not previously facilitated a resolution of the Palestinian issue.

A post on X from the Palestinian human rights activist and former Minister of Education under the PLO Hanan Ashrawi stated, “Note to President Trump: Palestine, including Gaza, the West Bank & Jerusalem, is the land of the Palestinian people […] To ethnically cleanse them is not only inhuman & a war crime, but it also presents a dangerous threat to the stability of the whole region & to the sovereignty of neighbouring states. That’s how to start wars, not end them.”

If Trump wishes to deliver on his stated plan to bring peace to the region, destabilizing U.S. partners like Jordan and Egypt would do the opposite.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters as they ask questions aboard Air Force One during a flight from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida, U.S., January 25, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.