GENEVA: US President Donald Trump’s bombshell proposal to “take over” Gaza and empty the war-ravaged Palestinian territory of its people would be blatantly illegal under international law, the UN and experts warn.
Trump announced his proposal on Tuesday at a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who hailed it as “the first good idea that I’ve heard” on how to deal with Gaza, an Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory.
After the idea sparked uproar from leaders in the Middle East and around the world, the Trump administration appeared to walk back some of the suggestions.
But on Thursday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said he had instructed the military to formulate a plan for the “voluntary departure” of Palestinians from Gaza.
Here is what the United Nations and experts say about the legality of such plans.
Right to self-determination
UN rights chief Volker Turk insisted on Wednesday that international law was “very clear”.
“The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law and must be protected by all states, as the International Court of Justice recently underlined afresh,“ he said.
“Any forcible transfer in or deportation of people from occupied territory is strictly prohibited.”
Why is it illegal?
Observers point to Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions relative to “the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”.
It stipulates that “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”.
That text adds though that “the occupying power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand”.
But with clear limits: “Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement”.
And, it adds, “persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased”.
‘Utter nonsense’
The UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, also dismissed the proposal from the US president as “utter nonsense”.
“It’s inciting to commit forced displacement, which is an international crime,“ the independent expert said during a visit to Copenhagen on Wednesday.
Ethnic cleansing
UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has warned that Trump’s proposal could incite “ethnic cleansing”.
The UN describes it as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian populations of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographical areas”.
While ethnic cleansing is not recognised as an independent crime under international law, these practices could constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes and may also fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
Legal consequences
Trump’s proposal makes you “wonder if there is a lawyer at the White House”, Vincent Chetail, an international law professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told AFP.
The proposals “are completely illegal under international law”, he said, describing them as “absurd”.
Asked about the possible legal consequences of moving ahead with the plan, he stressed the need to distinguish between a forced transfer of people and an occupation.
Sending in troops “without Security Council authorisation … would be considered a crime of aggression”, which could be referred to the International Criminal Court, he said.
Forcible transfer is meanwhile “a violation of international humanitarian law and certainly constitutes a war crime”, Chetail said, adding that it could even constitute “a crime against humanity if the entire population was transferred”.
Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is recognised by the Geneva Conventions, such crimes can be prosecuted anywhere in the world, regardless of where they took place.
Experts also emphasise that establishing that any departures were actually “voluntary” would be difficult to determine amid Israel’s occupation, which is recognised as illegal by the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ).
If people do opt to leave Gaza en masse, Chetail warned that “it will inevitably be under direct or indirect constraint”.
