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

As Bihar votes, Modi’s militarised politics faces its toughest test yet—will voters reject war rhetoric for real issues like jobs and poverty?

Bihar Should Reject Modi’s War Politics

Bihar’s election is shaping up as a test of Modi’s war-driven politics. With rising discontent over unemployment and poor governance, voters may choose to look past jingoism and focus on the real issues that shape their daily lives.

Read More »
Pakistan’s Doctrine of Verifiable Peace: Realism in the Face of Proxy Politics

Pakistan’s Doctrine of Verifiable Peace: Realism in the Face of Proxy Politics

Pakistan’s Doctrine of Verifiable Peace represents a major shift from fraternal idealism to strategic realism in South Asia’s volatile security landscape. Rooted in classical realist thought, the doctrine emphasizes verification over trust, deterrence over sentiment, and conditional diplomacy over blind faith. Confronting the twin challenges of cross-border militancy and Indian-backed proxy networks in Afghanistan, Islamabad now seeks peace that is enforceable, monitored, and verifiable, anchoring regional stability on responsibility, not rhetoric.

Read More »
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance

When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance

The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.

Read More »
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System

The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System

As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.

Read More »
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal

Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal

The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.

Read More »