Barely days into Donald Trump's presidency, a torrent of sharp decisions reshaped global discourse. His foreign policy agenda swiftly imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, sanctioned Colombia, and pressured Egypt and Jordan to facilitate the displacement of Gaza’s residents.
Although shocking, Trump’s proposal was not unprecedented. During his campaign, he had hinted at the need to "acquire more space" for "Israel, that tiny spot on the Middle East map." These actions reflected the populist approach defining his presidency and aligned with his previous "Deal of the Century," reinforcing the far-right ideology of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Regional opposition to Trump's project emerged swiftly, triggering successive waves of tension and resistance. The first phase saw immediate rejection from Egypt and Jordan, citing threats to regional stability. In the second phase, the Trump administration intensified its efforts, unveiling – following a meeting with Netanyahu – a contentious plan to transform Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East." Opposition escalated in response, leading to a third phase of resistance. A six-party conference of foreign ministers convened in Cairo, reaffirming the rejection of the displacement plan and underscoring the urgency of Gaza’s reconstruction.
Recognizing the critical regional dynamics, Egypt aims to advance an alternative proposal aimed at countering Trump’s plan while securing regional consensus – particularly in the aftermath of the Jordanian king’s controversial visit. As a result, reconstruction became central to Egypt’s diplomatic agenda, prompting the postponement of the Egyptian president’s visit to the White House.
This sequence culminated in a fourth phase, with a five-party summit anticipated in Riyadh in the coming days, followed by an emergency Arab summit in Cairo. Both gatherings will deliberate on Egypt’s reconstruction proposal, which explicitly rejects the displacement of Palestinians.
Evaluating the viability of Trump’s plan and the resilience of regional opposition – particularly Egypt’s stance – requires situating this initiative within the broader historical context of past efforts to displace the Palestinian people.
Breaking with diplomatic norms, Trump pressured Egypt and Jordan to accept the displacement of Palestinians. However, U.S. administrations have long advanced displacement agendas as part of Zionist settler colonial expansion. Since the Nakba, or "catastrophe," of 1948, the agenda of Palestinian displacement has persisted, with more than 50 plans proposed since the 1950s.
From the 1953 "Sinai Plan" to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s 1970 proposal for Palestinian displacement to Egypt and the 1990s initiative advocating relocation to Gulf states, multiple attempts have been made – none achieving full implementation. However, Israeli governments have consistently pursued this objective. In 2010, Netanyahu proposed a land-swap deal to Egypt’s then-President Hosni Mubarak, suggesting moving Palestinians to Sinai. Mubarak firmly rejected the offer, warning it could reignite war.
Geopolitical shifts over the past decade revitalized the colonial displacement agenda, culminating in Trump’s "Deal of the Century" (2016–2020), which ultimately failed. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood preemptively disrupted the displacement plan, triggering an Israeli assault aimed at creating conditions favorable for its realization. In late 2023, then U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken proposed relocating Palestinians to Sinai as a precursor to resettlement in various Arab countries in exchange for economic aid to host nations. However, regional countries upheld their historic rejection of the plan, reaffirming that a two-state solution remains the only viable resolution to the conflict.
The ongoing tensions between the new U.S. administration and countries of the region, along with upcoming decisions, place Egypt’s stance under scrutiny. The Egyptian government has unequivocally rejected Trump’s regional plans, a position shaped by key factors that have evolved over the course of the war.
Firstly, militarily and strategically, Israel's armed forces suffered a significant operational failure, failing to achieve their objectives. A severe intelligence lapse further exposed weaknesses in Israeli security agencies, damaging their credibility domestically and internationally. Palestinian resistance has demonstrated sustained resilience, maintaining combat effectiveness, replenishing leadership ranks and preserving operational capabilities. These factors indicate that any future Israeli military campaign in Gaza risks escalating into a prolonged and costly confrontation.
Secondly, economically, the war on Gaza has inflicted losses exceeding $40 billion on Tel Aviv’s budget, with further escalation expected as the conflict’s repercussions intensify. Thirdly, globally, Tel Aviv faces mounting isolation amid accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, as reports indicate over 61,000 martyrs and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for several Israeli officials. Given these dynamics, Trump’s plan to displace Palestinians appears more as a political maneuver to sustain Tel Aviv’s far-right government and avert its collapse rather than a viable strategic initiative. Scattered proposals for relocating Palestinians to Somalia or Morocco further underscore the lack of feasibility. Nevertheless, regional states must navigate Washington’s moves cautiously, as military and economic constraints render implementation impractical.
In response, Egyptian officials have firmly rejected the plan across political, military, media and public domains. Diplomatically, Egypt has intensified regional engagements to consolidate opposition and convey a unified stance to the U.S. administration: The displacement plan poses a grave threat, particularly in the wake of the Gaza genocide.
Egypt has mobilized key regional actors – including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar – to counter U.S. pressure and assert shared demands. Reinforcing this position, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Jan. 26, unequivocally rejecting settlement expansion, land annexation and forced displacement while reaffirming international support for a two-state solution. Egypt convened a high-level meeting, culminating in a six-party summit in Cairo on Feb. 1, attended by foreign ministers. The summit reaffirmed a unified stance against the displacement plan, emphasizing the urgency of reconstruction efforts and the need to uphold the ceasefire agreement.
Following the summit, Egypt’s foreign minister launched a diplomatic tour, visiting several countries, including Türkiye on Feb. 4, where he met President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to discuss the crisis and coordinate regional responses.
Militarily, the Egyptian Armed Forces have reinforced their presence in Sinai, deploying additional troops, tanks and armored vehicles. This escalation signals that displacement is not merely a political issue but a national security threat requiring direct military measures to safeguard Egypt’s sovereignty.
In the media, Egyptian newspapers and television channels have echoed the government’s position, categorically rejecting the displacement proposal. Reports have underscored violations of international law, reinforcing the stance that forced displacement remains illegal and unacceptable.
Publicly, widespread solidarity with Gaza’s victims has surged, particularly on social media, reflecting the Palestinian cause’s deep resonance in Egyptian public consciousness. As displacement discussions resurfaced, protests erupted near Rafah, where demonstrators voiced firm opposition to Trump’s plan. There are still internal demands to expand the scope of participation and social mobilization to confront the Zionist project.
This intensive mobilization at domestic and international levels reflects Egypt’s deep-seated concerns over the displacement plan. From a national security perspective, the Egyptian Armed Forces view forced displacement as a direct threat, potentially entangling Sinai in the broader regional conflict. Ceding control over this strategic territory under Israeli pressure would destabilize Egypt, triggering severe domestic and external repercussions.
Economically, displacement would fundamentally alter Sinai’s landscape, disrupting key sectors such as tourism and international trade through the Suez Canal. Egypt has already incurred losses exceeding $6 billion in canal revenues due to Red Sea tensions, highlighting the economic risks associated with regional instability. Publicly, both domestic and international opinion strongly opposes the displacement plan, regardless of financial incentives. The Palestinian cause remains central to Arab collective consciousness, while global solidarity – intensified by the Israeli-perpetrated genocide – has reinforced rejection of the project.
As part of broader regional opposition, Türkiye has categorically rejected the plan, with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly affirming Ankara’s stance. Egypt views Türkiye’s involvement as pivotal in applying diplomatic and political pressure on the U.S. administration to halt the project and maintain the cease-fire. This strategic alignment was evident in the Egyptian foreign minister’s visit to Türkiye on Feb. 4, where he personally delivered a written message from President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi to Erdoğan.
The resilience and military strength of the Palestinian resistance have forced all parties to acknowledge its role in the geopolitical landscape. Meanwhile, Israel’s intelligence and military failures underscore the need for regional actors to reassess the effectiveness of their containment strategies. Gaza’s steadfast resistance – both militarily and among its civilian population – reinforces Egypt’s commitment, alongside other regional powers, to reject the displacement plan, safeguard Palestinian rights and protect national security.
Egypt and the region confront a critical test amid the expansionist ambitions of the far-right Zionist movement. However, unified positions and coordinated strategies have previously thwarted similar colonial projects and can once again preserve regional sovereignty while mitigating losses. Effective coordination between Egypt and regional states, alongside a satisfying agreement with resistance factions, remains essential. The coming days will determine the trajectory of these efforts.
