UN, Arab League Oppose Trump’s Proposal to Relocate Palestinians Outside Gaza

UN and Arab League oppose Trump's proposal to relocate Palestinians outside Gaza, citing violations of international law. [Image via The Nation]

The United Nations and the Arab League have both strongly opposed President Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians outside Gaza, citing grave concerns over violations of international law and humanitarian principles. The UN described the plan as a potential ethnic cleansing, undermining the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric emphasized, “We would be against any plan that would lead to the forced displacement of people, or would lead to any type of ethnic cleansing. ” He also expressed alarm over increased violence in the occupied West Bank, stating, “We’re very concerned about the deteriorating situation in the West Bank.”

The UN further noted the importance of regional opposition, including Egypt, Jordan, and the Arab League, to Trump’s proposal. These neighboring countries have warned against any forced relocation initiatives that could destabilize the region and worsen the humanitarian crisis.

Also See: Gaza Hostage and Ceasefire Deal Officially Signed

In parallel, the Arab League categorically rejected the relocation proposal, affirming that such measures violate international law and undermine peace efforts. The League stated, ” Attempts to uproot the Palestinian people from their land, whether through resettlement, annexation, or settlement expansion, have proven to fail in the past.” It added, ” Circumventing these established principles and longstanding commitments, which have garnered Arab and international consensus, will only prolong the conflict and make peace even more unattainable.”

The organization reiterated its stance on the Palestinian cause, highlighting that the conflict revolves around the land and rights of the Palestinian people. It stressed that past attempts to relocate or annex Palestinian territories have consistently failed and are “rejected and in violation of international law.”

Neighboring countries, including Jordan and Egypt, also voiced strong opposition. Jordan, with its large Palestinian population, warned that such initiatives could heighten regional tensions and further undermine Palestinian sovereignty. Similarly, Egypt emphasized that relocation efforts would threaten regional stability and called for solutions rooted in respect for Palestinian territorial and human rights.

The combined opposition by the UN, Arab League, and regional actors underscores the urgency of addressing the core issues of the conflict through a credible two-state solution to achieve lasting peace.

This news is sourced from The Nation and is intended for informational purposes only.

News Desk

Your trusted source for insightful journalism. Stay informed with our compelling coverage of global affairs, business, technology, and more.

Recent

A deep dive into how the Afghan Taliban weaponises anti-Pakistan rhetoric to mask governance failures, rising poverty, and Afghanistan’s growing security meltdown.

The Politics of Blame

Afghanistan’s leadership has responded to recent international backlash by amplifying a narrative that frames Pakistan as the root of all Afghan crises. This rhetoric, pushed by senior Taliban officials, serves as a diversion from Kabul’s own administrative paralysis, economic collapse, and its complicity in enabling militant groups like the TTP. As poverty deepens and Afghanistan becomes a hub for dozens of terrorist outfits, the politics of blame has become the Taliban’s primary tool for deflecting scrutiny.

Read More »
Sanctuary and Sovereignty: The Tribal Ethics Behind the Pakistan–Taliban Rift

Sanctuary and Sovereignty: The Tribal Ethics Behind the Pakistan–Taliban Rift

The piece analyzes the Pakistan–Taliban rift through the lens of Pashtunwali, highlighting how Kabul’s sheltering of the TTP and its revival of Durand Line irredentism conflict with the tribal code’s principles of hospitality, sanctuary, and reciprocity. These choices undermine decades of Pakistani support and have transformed a historically interdependent relationship into one marked by distrust and hostility.

Read More »