Arab leaders are slowly realising that Hamas has to go

Within a month of returning to the presidency, Donald Trump has once again disrupted the Middle East’s fragile status quo. Reports indicate that his administration has proposed relocating up to two million Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan as part of a broader initiative to transform the territory into a tourism and economic hub, dubbed the ‘Riviera of the Middle East.’

While Trump insists any relocation would be voluntary, critics warn that forced displacement would constitute ethnic cleansing and violate international law.

The proposal has reignited debate over Gaza’s future but faces significant political and logistical hurdles. While some regional actors are considering alternative approaches, reactions from Arab governments are mixed. Most reject any form of forced relocation, but some officials have signalled openness to discussions on Gaza’s governance, a key and contentious aspect of Trump’s plan.

To understand this proposal, it is essential to examine Trump’s first term (2017–2021), during which he sought to reshape US policy in the Middle East. His administration abandoned the longstanding two-state solution framework, arguing that traditional peace efforts had failed. Instead, he introduced the 2020 Peace to Prosperity plan, which envisioned a heavily restricted Palestinian state under Israeli oversight. The plan was widely rejected by Palestinian leaders and much of the international community as overwhelmingly favouring Israeli interests.

Despite this, Trump achieved major geopolitical shifts. His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, normalising diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and later Morocco. While the accords strengthened Arab-Israeli ties, they largely sidestepped the Palestinian issue, reinforcing a broader trend of regional powers prioritizing national interests over Palestinian self-determination.

Now, Trump appears set to build upon these policies — but in a more controversial manner. The proposed relocation of Palestinians is framed as an economic revitalisation effort, yet it has encountered strong opposition from key regional players.

In response to the controversy, Arab governments are advancing their own Gaza reconstruction plans, emphasizing rebuilding without displacement. Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi is set to meet with Saudi leaders in Riyadh to discuss a regional initiative that reportedly includes up to $20 billion in funding. Details remain unclear, but the plan is expected to be formally presented at next month’s Arab League summit in Cairo.

While most Arab states oppose mass relocation, divisions persist over Gaza’s governance. Key stakeholders — including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Qatar — hold differing views on Hamas’s role. Qatar has historically provided financial aid to Hamas, whereas other Gulf states seek to reduce its influence, arguing that long-term stability requires new leadership in Gaza.

A major challenge to any reconstruction effort is Gaza’s political landscape. Since Hamas’s October 7 attack against Israel, some officials have suggested a Marshall Plan-style rebuilding effort. However, unlike postwar Germany and Japan—where surrender and governance reform facilitated reconstruction—Hamas remains in control, has not surrendered, and continues to hold hostages. Furthermore, there is no indication that Gaza’s population is pressuring Hamas to step down, raising doubts about whether large-scale reconstruction is feasible under current conditions.

There are signs of shifting attitudes. Some Arab leaders have cautiously acknowledged aspects of Trump’s plan, particularly regarding Hamas’s future. The UAE’s ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba, argued that there is ‘no alternative’ to addressing Gaza’s governance. Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit similarly suggested that Hamas should consider stepping aside ‘if serving Palestinian interests demands it.’

On social media, Emirati politician Anwar Gargash called Aboul Gheit’s remarks a ‘rational call,’ stressing that ‘the interests of the Palestinian people must come before the interests of [Hamas].’ These statements reflect a growing divide—while most Arab states oppose forced displacement, some view Hamas’s continued rule as a major obstacle to peace and development.

Despite these discussions, Hamas remains deeply entrenched in Gaza, both politically and militarily. Any transition in governance would require a clear enforcement strategy, yet no current proposal—whether from Trump’s administration or regional Arab leaders—has outlined a viable mechanism to achieve this.

Trump’s proposal has intensified debate over Gaza’s future but remains largely impractical given the legal, ethical, and logistical challenges of mass relocation. While some analysts see it as a pressure tactic rather than a genuine policy objective, it has nonetheless fuelled regional discussions on governance and reconstruction.

In contrast, Arab governments are moving forwards with alternative strategies focused on rebuilding without displacement. However, their success depends on securing international funding, ensuring regional cooperation, and addressing the unresolved question of Hamas’s rule. Without a clear roadmap for post-war Gaza, the Middle East remains at a crossroads, with competing visions shaping the next phase of diplomacy and security.

Michael Sharnoff is Associate Professor at the National Defense University’s Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. He is the author of Nasser’s Peace: Egypt’s Response to the 1967 War with Israel.

The opinions, conclusions and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author