The King’s Visit to Washington: The First Step in the Race to Reject Displacement

His Majesty King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein met with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington on February 11, 2025, as part of a working visit that also included meetings with U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and several members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

The first official trip by an Arab leader to the United States during Trump’s second term comes within the context of Jordan’s diplomatic efforts to reject Trump’s stance on what should happen the day after the war in the Gaza Strip and to assess the seriousness of the president’s calls for the displacement of Gaza’s residents. Arriving a week after the February 4 White House meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump, the king also addressed the coordination between Jordan and Arab countries regarding the future of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S.-Israeli Rhetoric on Displacement

Calls and plans for the displacement of Gaza’s residents emerged following the outbreak of the war on October 7, 2023. They primarily came from far-right parties within the Israeli government that view displacement as a radical solution to achieve security for Israel and as an opportunity to resettle Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip. However, this rhetoric was not explicitly outlined in Israeli plans for the post-war period. Although the military campaign directly targeted health and educational facilities and aimed to destroy the basic infrastructure of life in Gaza, it was interpreted as part of a broader strategy to make living there untenable and create an uninhabitable geography.

Displacement remained a distant option until Trump revived it, incorporating it into an idea he floated at a joint press conference with Netanyahu: the United States would take over the territory and the entire population of Gaza would be relocated to other countries like Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Albania.

It is important to review the ongoing changes in Trump’s rhetoric regarding the motivations for displacement. The initial proposal for displacement was framed as a measure for reconstruction, which was understood at the time as a temporary solution. However, in his interview with Fox News on February 9, Trump said he would not allow the displaced people to return, emphasizing that he was talking about creating a permanent settlement for them outside Gaza. The discussion then shifted to the idea of the United States taking ownership of Gaza in exchange for financial compensation. This eventually evolved into a proposal to impose U.S. authority over the Gaza Strip, though without clarifying the form or legitimacy of such a governing authority.

The lack of consistency demonstrates that displacement, as proposed by Trump, remains an idea that is still not fully developed in terms of tools and clarity.

Nonetheless, the U.S. president bases his rhetoric on the reconstruction plan, which has long been considered one of the most complex issues in the day after the war, particularly regarding the uninhabitability of the Gaza Strip. The region has suffered immense destruction to its infrastructure, services, and housing. According to United Nations estimates, more than 90% of the homes in Gaza have been destroyed, and the war has left behind more than 50 million tons of rubble, which may take up to 21 years to clear. Rebuilding the destroyed homes could continue until 2040.

Additionally, the collapse of all economic activities has been severe. According to the International Labour Organization, unemployment has risen to 80%, and nearly 100% of the population now lives in poverty. In addition to Washington’s desire to empty the Gaza Strip to eliminate the network of underground tunnels used by factions and Hamas.

The Sensitivity of the Jordanian Position

Jordan has prior experience dealing with Trump during his first administration, which showed a tendency to liquidate the Palestinian cause without considering the fundamental principles of the cause or the principles of U.S. foreign policy towards it, as well as the demands and calls from Arab countries, particularly neighboring countries Jordan and Egypt.

In December 2017, Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, thus bypassing the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 181 from November 1947 that called for the internationalization of Jerusalem to protect the city’s religious interests. In May 2018, he moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In August 2018, he halted more than $200 million in economic aid for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Then, in September 2018, his administration announced the closure of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s office in Washington. In March 2019, Trump recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which it had occupied since 1967. In June 2019, the White House released the economic framework of “Peace to Prosperity, his plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that he claimed was the “deal of the century.”

Later that same year, Trump supported an Israeli plan to annex the Jordan Valley, prompting King Abdullah to warn, in an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel, of “a massive conflict” if Israel annexed parts of the West Bank.

In the end, the so-called “deal of the century” and Israel’s plans to annex the Jordan Valley did not succeed, and both King Abdullah and Jordanian diplomacy played a significant role in preventing both plans from being realized, particularly through multilateral efforts with Arab and Islamic countries as well as European nations.

After the events of October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza, Jordan warned against attempts by Israel to exploit military operations and U.S. support to alter facts on the ground. Jordan considered the displacement from the West Bank to be an “act of war.” Before all of this, on June 11, 2024, Jordan organized an international and UN conference for humanitarian response in the Gaza Strip, with the participation of Egypt, the United Nations, and representatives from 75 countries, along with international humanitarian and relief organizations. According to the attendees, the outcomes from that conference formed the foundational framework for future planning to rebuild Gaza.

However, the current situation appears more complex. In practice, neither the United States nor Israel have a clear plan for displacement. However, the seriousness of these calls seems to stem from the complexities of the realities in the Gaza Strip, the broader Middle East, and the international community.

From one angle, the Middle East is entering a new phase of reshaping power dynamics and balances, particularly in light of the repercussions of the Gaza conflict, the shifts in Syria, where the potential for chaos could have catastrophic consequences for the region, as well as the polarization among regional countries regarding the stance on reconstruction. On the international level, the Chinese and Russian positions have amounted to a retreat from intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting their stance to calls for halting the war.

Meanwhile, European countries are preoccupied with the Russia-Ukraine war and are concerned about the pressure they face from Trump to accept a settlement for the war in Ukraine that may not consider European interests. However, the Atlantic bloc also seems to be impacted by Trump’s calls to annex Canada and Greenland (which belongs to Denmark) into U.S. territory. This implies that their rejection of Trump’s calls for the displacement in Gaza under U.S. authority is intrinsically linked to their rejection of the annexation of Canada and Greenland. Additionally, Europe desires to play a security and logistical role in the future of Gaza.

Highlighting His Majesty’s Statements

Given the changing realities facing the Gaza Strip, the broader Middle East, and the international community, Jordan’s position now seems to be based on more precise calculations compared to its approach during Trump’s first administration. This is especially true since the threats today extend across all Palestinian territories, not just the Gaza Strip. In light of an Israeli plan aimed at annexing settlements in Area C, a large-scale military operation has been ongoing since January 21. This operation has forced around 40,000 Palestinians to leave their homes, and it is estimated that 90% of the residents of the Jenin camp have been displaced.

In contrast, the current circumstances require multilateral efforts, particularly from Arab and Islamic countries, to support Jordan’s position. King Abdullah’s trip to Washington was aimed at closely assessing Trump’s stance and evaluating the seriousness of his calls for displacement, especially as it came just days after Netanyahu’s visit. While Trump was expected to discuss broader issues, as is customary during such meetings, particularly the Syrian file in which Jordan plays a central role, the press conference revealed that the focus of the discussion between the two leaders was centered on the post-war scenario in Gaza.

His Majesty’s responses and statements during the press conference were diplomatic, aimed at avoiding confrontation at an inappropriate time, considering the general situation in the Middle East, the necessity for joint Arab action, and preventing Jordan from facing economic or political pressures similar to those it encountered during the “Deal of the Century” proposal. This is especially important as one of Trump’s first executive orders was the temporary suspension of U.S. aid to all countries except for Israel and Egypt.

Therefore, His Majesty’s statements and comments carried several key implications.

First: Addressing U.S. Institutions

During his conversation with President Trump, His Majesty maintained a diplomatic tone. His rhetoric was directed at U.S. institutions that have long-standing relations with Jordan to protect the Palestinian cause and Jordan’s position from President Trump’s impromptu rhetoric. His Majesty emphasized the central role of the United States in the region and reiterated this in a tweet he posted after the meeting.

Second: Addressing Exceptional Humanitarian Cases

His Majesty stated that Jordan is ready to receive 2,000 children from the Gaza Strip who suffer from chronic diseases, a clear message that Jordan is ready to receive specific groups of people from the Gaza Strip under certain conditions. Jordan’s acceptance is based on a medical emergency, given the lack of a health sector capable of treating them in Gaza, and it ends once Gaza is reconstructed and the medical sector is rehabilitated.

Third: Presenting an Alternative Arab Plan

King Abdullah avoided engaging in controversial responses to Trump’s ideas that had not been translated into practical or objective actions, preferring instead to present a practical alternative by referring to an alternative plan presented by Egypt. Following the meeting, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Egypt is willing to present a comprehensive vision of the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Additionally, during a phone call with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi on February 12, His Majesty reaffirmed “the unity of the Jordanian and Egyptian positions,” especially towards the reconstruction process. In this way, the two countries offer a solution that counters Trump’s arguments regarding the Gaza Strip’s uninhabitability. The Arab response to Trump’s plan will be a parallel plan to reconstruct the strip, taking humanitarian concerns into account and ensuring the continued presence of Palestinian citizens in Gaza.

Fourth: Emphasizing Multilateral Efforts

During his meeting with Trump, His Majesty sought to avoid discussing the issue from a purely Jordanian perspective, given the seriousness of the matter and its implications for the region. Instead, he emphasized the importance of collective Arab action. His Majesty mentioned that “Arabs will respond to America’s plan on Gaza,” which is expected to be reflected in the alternative plan now being worked on by Egypt. This plan is likely to receive Arab consensus at the emergency Arab summit scheduled for February 27 in Cairo; the annual Arab summit, to be held in Baghdad, has been postponed.

Fifth: Considering the Interests of the Palestinians and Arabs

His Majesty emphasized the importance of making plans suitable for all parties, stating, “I think the point is how do we make this work in a way that is good for everybody.” This means that solutions must be tailored to the needs of everyone, including the people of Gaza, Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab countries, rather than solely serving the interests and ambitions of the far-right in Israel or the immediate ideas of Trump.

Sixth: Prioritizing Jordan’s interests

In response to the question regarding whether Jordan is going to provide a piece of land where Palestinians can live, King Abdullah demurred: “I have to look at the best interest of my country.” Jordan has a long history of hosting refugees in its territory, the most recent example being the Zaatari refugee camp for Syrian refugees, which was established on land above the Amman-Zarqa water basin. However, there is an awareness of the consequences and implications of such actions, especially in terms of infrastructure, services, and resources. There are also concerns about repeating the displacement scenario in the West Bank, which would mean attempting to advance resettlement goals and liquidating the Palestinian cause at Jordan’s expense.

Seventh: Upholding Jordan’s Core Principles

His Majesty reiterated Jordan’s rejection of attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue through the displacement of the Palestinian people from their land. He stated in a post on X following the meeting: “I reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This is the unified Arab position.” He also added, “Achieving just peace on the basis of the two-state solution is the way to ensure regional stability. This requires U.S. leadership.” His post underscored that the “two-state solution” is the position accepted by Arab countries.

Eighth: Seeking a Just and Sustainable Peace

His Majesty emphasized that there is a way to bring peace and prosperity to the region, which practically can only be achieved by reaching a just solution to the Palestinian issue. He refuted the idea of displacement, highlighting that it would have consequences and repercussions that would extend across the Middle East. “Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation,” His Majesty pointed out, “should be the priority for all.” There is no other way to achieve real peace.                  

Jordanian Alternatives to Confront Displacement

The displacement plans being circulated by the U.S. and Israeli government do not seem feasible for implementation within a set timeline. Aware of these facts, His Majesty is maintaining a balance that prevents the displacement rhetoric from being treated as a viable solution. This can be seen as the first step in a joint Arab and Islamic effort to present a more objective and actionable alternative, focusing on the reconstruction of Gaza and achieving peace that aligns with everyone’s aspirations.

The results of the visit quickly led to a shift in the American tone regarding displacement. First, Trump sent a message to the Jordanian people, praising His Majesty and the Jordanians. Later, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that Washington is awaiting the Arab peace proposal and that Trump is committed to the vision of peace in the Middle East.

In reality, Jordan’s current stance represents a step in an ongoing effort to reject displacement. Here is a set of alternatives that can be proposed as follows:

1- Strengthening and consolidating the comprehensive Arab position, which rejects the displacement process, and working to prevent divisions among Arab countries on other issues to affect their unified position against displacement and support for the reconstruction process.

2- Reviewing the peace agreement signed with Israel, both legally and internationally, and highlighting provisions that provide evidence that it is against the process of displacement.

3- Providing a clear explanation, backed by numbers and calculated predictions, of the instability in the region and increasing uncertainty, especially toward Israel.

4- Outlining how forced displacement could exacerbate new conflicts and disputes in the region, potentially creating unforeseen crises.