An Oxford academic has spoken out, stating that displacing Palestinians from their region would categorically constitute a ‘blatant crime against humanity’. A further infraction would entail annexing the region and exerting control over it.
Recent suggestions from President Trump that the US should take command of Gaza, relocate its citizens to Egypt and Jordan, and transform the enclave into the ‘Middle East Riviera’ have been met with controversy. Experts have argued that such actions would, without a shadow of a doubt, break international law.
The act of forced displacement or transportation of inhabitants, in this case Palestinians, is considered a violation of international humanitarian law. It is identified as a criminal offense against humanity and a war crime.
The prohibition against enforced deportations of civilians has been codified in the law of war since the Lieber Code came into effect. This law of war, put forth by the Union forces during the American Civil War, sets rules for the conduct in times of conflict.
This law is upheld by numerous sections of the Geneva Conventions, defining forced displacement as a war crime. In the aftermath of World War II, the Nuremberg Tribunal also categorized it as such.
The Rome Statute, which underpins the International Criminal Court, lists forced demographic shift as not only an act of war, but also a crime against the entirety of humanity. The focus on specific groups for displacement on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, or national identity constitutes additional criminal behavior – persecution.
Given that Palestine is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, the court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed within the Gaza Strip, even if the culprits are citizens of the United States, who are not members of the court.
Responding to an inquiry about the proportion of Gaza’s population he intended to relocate, Mr. Trump responded with ‘all of them’, hypothesizing that the inhabitants would be ‘elated’. Pressed further on the idea of forcible removal should the civilians resist, the President stated his belief that they wouldn’t refuse.
If the United States were to take permanent control over the Gaza territory, it would be viewed as another extreme infraction of international laws. The precise nature of such a violation would rely, in part, on the legal recognition of Palestine as a state.
The legal recognition of Palestine’s statehood is itself a contentious issue. The United Nations recognises Palestinian statehood; however, the United States does not share this acknowledgement.
The implications of the proposed forced mass movement of inhabitants are spanning. Thus, the international community, legal experts, and entities upholding human rights are keeping a keen eye on the development of this situation.
This debate further extends beyond pure legal considerations, becoming a frothing ground for ethical, political, and social debates surrounding sovereignty, territorial rights, and human dignity.
The proposal also raises crucial questions about the receptivity and capabilities of Egypt and Jordan to accommodate a mass influx of displaced Gazans, and the collateral impacts such a demographic shift might have on these nations.
The envisaged transformation of Gaza into a ‘Middle Eastern Riviera’ also brings to the fore issues of neocolonialism, gentrification, and the potential erasure of the cultural and historical fabric of the region, further magnifying the controversy surrounding this proposal.
This unfolding situation presents a poignant illustration of the profound complexities and challenges that pervade the world of international law and geopolitics, often leaving the common people caught in the crossfire of power politics.