February 5, 2025|ז' שבט ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Does Temporary Relocation of Gazans While Rebuilding Gaza Constitute Ethnic Cleansing? By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

In recent discussions, President Trump proposed a plan to relocate Gazans to Egypt and Jordan while Gaza undergoes reconstruction. Initially, Trump’s remarks suggested that this relocation might be permanent, raising alarm among critics and prompting accusations of ethnic cleansing. However, the White House appears to have clarified the proposal’s intent, now emphasizing that the relocation is intended to be temporary.

Clarifying the Proposal’s Intent

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the controversy, stating, “The president has made it very clear… that he expects our partners in the region — particularly Egypt and Jordan — to accept Palestinian refugees temporarily so that we can rebuild their homes.” When pressed to clarify the shift from Trump’s earlier remarks, which suggested permanent relocation, Leavitt responded, “The president has made it clear that they need to be temporarily relocated out of Gaza for the rebuilding… as it’s a demolition site right now, it’s not a livable place for any human being.”

This clarification reframes the discussion, focusing on the feasibility and ethical implications of temporary relocation rather than permanent displacement.

What Is Ethnic Cleansing?

The term “ethnic cleansing” became prominent during the 1990s Yugoslav Wars. The United Nations defines it as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.” Intent is central to this definition. Ethnic cleansing involves a deliberate strategy to permanently remove a group from an area to achieve homogeneity.

Examining the Proposal in Context

The accusation of ethnic cleansing hinges on intent. Initially, Trump’s comments, such as suggesting Gazans might not want to return because “the place has been hell,” seemed to imply an agenda of permanent displacement. However, the White House’s clarification shifts the discussion to temporary relocation as a security and humanitarian measure.

If the relocation is indeed temporary, with Gazans given the option to return to a rebuilt and secure Gaza, the proposal does not align with the intent required for ethnic cleansing. However, if the goal were to permanently expel Gazans to achieve ethnic homogeneity, the ethical and legal calculus would change significantly.

A Torah Perspective on Relocation for Security

From a Torah perspective, the ethical question centers on the balance between civilian impact and the imperative to protect lives. The Maharal’s explanation of Shimon and Levi’s actions in Shechem offers insight. He views their actions as a war between two nations, justified by the collective threat posed by the Shechemite city. The objective was not to render the area homogeneous but to neutralize a danger.

Similarly, the stated goal of the temporary relocation proposal is to dismantle the infrastructure enabling Hamas’s terrorism, not to target Gazans as an ethnic group.

The Halachic Debate: Civilian Protection vs. Soldier Safety

Modern halachic authorities have debated the extent to which civilian harm is justifiable in wartime. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein emphasizes minimizing civilian casualties, while others argue that protecting soldiers’ lives justifies broader military measures. Within this framework, temporary relocation could align with halachic principles as a legitimate strategy to ensure security while mitigating long-term civilian harm.

Addressing the Accusation of Ethnic Cleansing

Given the White House’s clarification, the accusation of ethnic cleansing must be evaluated in light of the proposal’s stated intent to:

1. Protect Lives:Temporarily remove Gazans from a conflict zone to eliminate the infrastructure supporting terrorism.
2. Provide Temporary Refuge:Relocate Gazans to safer areas during reconstruction.
3. Rebuild Gaza:Create a livable, peaceful environment for those wishing to return.

Ethnic cleansing, by definition, involves the permanent removal of a group to create homogeneity. If relocation is truly temporary and Gazans can return, the proposal does not meet this criterion.

Reframing the Narrative

The initial ambiguity in Trump’s remarks contributed to confusion and criticism. However, the White House’s clarification provides an opportunity to refocus the debate on the temporary nature of the proposal. While the ethics and practicality of such a plan are open to discussion, labeling it as ethnic cleansing is inaccurate if the relocation is not intended to be permanent.

This reframing highlights the plan’s stated objectives: safeguarding lives, dismantling threats, and rebuilding Gaza as a place where its inhabitants can thrive. The ethical question now centers on whether temporary relocation is a justifiable and effective means of achieving these goals.