Trump’s Gaza earthquake and the Shifting Sands of International Law

Israel has long stood in the shifting sands of international law. The Nazi genocide of Jews during the Holocaust in World War II, alongside many other Nazi atrocities against other peoples, was arguably a major catalyst for the development of much of international humanitarian law.

Nevertheless, the world has not been kind to the Jews or to Israel. Despite being one of the original peoples to fight for and achieve national self-determination in what was once the Mandate of Palestine, today’s public discourse has largely shifted to the focus on Palestinian self-determination—often obscuring the Jewish historical and legal claims to the land in the first place. The 1967 Six-Day War became a cornerstone in establishing the principle that territory should not be acquired through force, despite the fact that Jordan, which occupied Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967, never had widespread international recognition of its claim. Israel was subsequently labeled an “occupying power” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Despite its consistent objections to this designation, Israel continues to be viewed as such by the international community. Even East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest site, is not recognized by most of the world as Israeli territory, despite the Israeli parliament’s annexation of the area in 1981. My own take on Israel’s claims to Judea and Samaria here.

Against this backdrop, when US President-elect Donald Trump publicly declared his intent not only to occupy the Gaza Strip but also to depopulate its inhabitants, it sent shockwaves through international legal circles, upending long-held principles. Despite the wishes of many nationalists in Israel, the forced transfer of entire populations from a territory is strictly prohibited under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, states unequivocally:

ART. 49.—“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.”

Additionally, according to Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), forced deportation is considered a war crime and is prosecutable as such. Notably, neither Israel nor the United States are signatories to the Rome Statute. However, “Palestine,” which claims jurisdiction over Gaza, is, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already been issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes. Under the same rationale, the ICC prosecutor could issue a similar arrest warrant for US President Donald Trump.

As such, even the mere suggestion of deporting all of Gaza’s population flips International Humanitarian Law on its head. Most of the world views its actualization as a crime against humanity. However, Trump views it as progress. Gaza’s population will be repopulated in friendlier surrounding and housing, and instead of war, will live beautiful lives. From his interpretation it is not a war crime at all, but progress in solving a major international issue. After, Gaza will become an American protectorate, where once there was war, will become the next American built Dubai. Whether Palestinians agree to the transformation or not does not matter, as it will be Israel that hands the territory to the United States.

Behind the scenes it will be the Arab World that will also agree, in the context of a megadeal, to end one of the world’s longest current conflicts. Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia say no now, but can be coaxed to agree in another mega deal with the United States. The Middle East suddenly became the framework for Trump’s mega deal.

America’s Trump can exercise this sort of power because International Law has never been truly solid. It relies on state compliance—particularly the cooperation of major powers (today, the five veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council)—to have any real effect. By definition, state sovereignty places nations above the jurisdiction of any higher legal authority without their consent.

The shifting nature of international norms was made evident when Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. While the Western bloc largely boycotted Russia and armed Ukraine, others supported Russian President Vladimir Putin. The ICC prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Putin (despite Russia also not being a signatory of the ICC), yet no decisive UN action with real consequences has been passed on the conflict. As a result, despite being widely sanctioned by the West, Russia continues its war in Ukraine and has even annexed portions of its territory. International law, it seems, has proven powerless to come to Ukraine’s defense.

Now, let’s return to Trump’s declaration. It aligns with a broader pattern of rhetoric, including threats to seize back the Panama Canal, annex Canada and Greenland, and use tariffs aggressively in international trade to advance his “America First” agenda. Trump’s approach is more reminiscent of 19th-century statesmanship than that of the 21st. His admiration for former President William McKinley is telling—McKinley presided over an era of US expansionism, marked by the Spanish-American War and the acquisition of overseas territories. Trump appears to reject the post-World War II international order, instead advocating for a return to an era in which American power was exerted more overtly, often through coercion and economic pressure. In his view, the modern world order has weakened America, and only a return to hard-power tactics will restore its global dominance.

Trump’s strategy employs old tactics in a global landscape that has evolved beyond them. For Gaza, and perhaps for “Palestine” as a whole, this could mean the unraveling of everything that has shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1967 war. International law may be sidelined as Trump seeks to forge a “mega deal” to resolve Middle Eastern tensions on his own terms.

Realpolitik is likely to return in a major way. Key players such as Iran, Russia, and China may act as spoilers, further destabilizing the world order.

We may be entering a world more reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries—where conquest and population transfers were not only considered but often executed— at least in the realm of real politik. That is, unless the whole gambit is a deliberate provocation to shift the sands toward a solution to the sweltering wound that is Gaza and Hamas.

The Gaza war, much like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has already disrupted the international norms we have grown accustomed to. Now, it may become the defining event through which Donald Trump reshapes the global order to fit his vision.