Two Gaza migrants, Talal al-Damsi and Khaled Abdul Qassab, entered the Israeli Embassy in Asuncion, Paraguay, in May 1970, where they fatally shot the ambassador's secretary, Edna Peer. The pair were among thousands of Gaza residents whom Israel had persuaded to emigrate to Paraguay in exchange for airline tickets and several hundred dollars. During this period, Mossad and Shin Bet agents operated throughout Gaza, encouraging many residents to emigrate abroad in exchange for financial benefits. Some, like al-Damsi and Qassab, were promised agricultural land parcels for their livelihood.
During their trial, the two men testified that they had waited in vain in Asuncion for contact with the Mossad agent who had promised to meet them upon their arrival in Paraguay. After attempting to establish contact with the Israeli Embassy and finding themselves rebuffed (according to their testimony), they broke into the embassy building. There, they unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate Ambassador Benjamin Varon, who evaded their bullets, though his secretary was fatally shot. The two were sentenced to 13 years in prison.
The Peer murder first exposed Israel's secret government mechanism that attempted to encourage emigration from Gaza after the Six-Day War in exchange for economic benefits – a system established during Prime Minister Levi Eshkol's tenure. Ada Sereni, a leading figure in the Mossad's Aliyah Bet operations in Italy and later an Israel Prize laureate for special contribution to society and state, headed this mechanism. Initially, Eshkol opposed paying migrants, but Sereni defied this directive. She confronted Eshkol, arguing for additional funding to enable mass migration. Eventually, Eshkol refused, and Sereni's mechanism was suspended. The system managed to relocate approximately 50,000 Gaza residents from a total population of about 400,000 during those years, most of them refugees from 1948, dispersing them worldwide.
The existence of this mechanism was denied for years, but research by Professor Yoav Gelber, an expert on the War of Independence and the Palestinian refugee issue, and scholars like Omri Shafer Raviv, revealed the great secret that censorship had prevented from being published for decades. Shlomo Gazit, who served as the first coordinator of government activities in the West Bank and Gaza, believed in 2005 that "whoever talks about this should be hanged." However, as years passed, it became increasingly clear how the concept of voluntary transfer, or encouraging emigration through economic incentives, was actually widespread and accepted among the pre-state leadership, and later in Mapai circles – long before Rehavam (Gandhi) Zeevi of Moledet and Rabbi Meir Kahane of the Kach movement branded it as an ultra-right idea.
Government activity promoting voluntary emigration from Gaza occurred not only after the Six-Day War and in the early years of the state following the War of Independence but also during Operation Iron Swords. In fact, it began from its earliest days, despite strong opposition from the Biden administration. This happened many months before current US President Donald Trump became the standard-bearer of the idea.
Minister Ron Dermer and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed voluntary emigration with Trump many months before he entered the White House, effectively planting the idea with him. As early as late December 2023, two and a half months after the war broke out, Netanyahu reported in a closed Likud faction meeting that he was working to facilitate the movement of Gaza residents to other countries, though he admitted difficulty finding willing nations. In his final days as foreign minister before Israel Katz replaced him, Eli Cohen managed to establish teams that conducted negotiations with the governments of Rwanda and Congo to accept Gaza migration. Netanyahu was kept informed of all developments.
Qatar showed interest – then withdrew
The voluntary emigration initiative was championed at the time by Knesset member Ram Ben Barak from Yesh Atid and Knesset member Danny Danon from Likud, who now serves as Israel's ambassador to the UN. The joint article by the left-wing and right-wing legislators in The Wall Street Journal generated significant attention, but the more substantial activity occurred behind the scenes in the Foreign Ministry and Intelligence Ministry, which was led by Minister Gila Gamliel until March 2024.
On October 13, 2023, about a week after the massacre, Gamliel's ministry submitted a written proposal to the prime minister for "evacuating non-combatant population from combat zones" and facilitating "humanitarian voluntary evacuation" of that population outside the Gaza Strip. The initial phase, as proposed, involved establishing tent cities southwest of Gaza, within Sinai. Subsequently, a humanitarian corridor would be established to this area, ultimately leading to the construction of several cities in northern Sinai for the evacuees. Simultaneously, Israel would prepare a sterile zone 1.86 miles wide inside Egypt, south of the Israeli border, to prevent evacuees from returning to Gaza. The document also listed several countries to be contacted for potentially accepting Gaza migrants, including Spain, Greece, Canada, and Congo.
Gamliel's plan and the ideas circulating in the prime minister's office at the time were based on similar plans and concepts that had been redeveloped just a few years earlier, coinciding with the Gaza border protests of 2018-2019. Ayelet Shaked revealed aspects of these plans in August 2019, shortly after leaving the Justice Ministry, when she announced her support for a policy encouraging emigration from Gaza, defining it as a shared interest of Israel and the Palestinians. Simultaneously, plans were being examined to establish an airport near Gaza, from which planes full of Gaza residents would depart for their new destinations – including various African nations, as well as Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar. The National Security Council and Shin Bet submitted formal papers on the matter, but these plans and subsequent ones collapsed due to Arab nations' refusal to cooperate. This occurred with Egypt and Jordan after rounds of talks, and with Qatar, which withdrew from the idea after several rounds of meetings.
If the Biden administration had supported the idea during those years, even behind the scenes, something might have materialized despite everything – but the Democratic administration left no doubt about its position. When details of Gamliel's plans leaked, Biden personally approached Netanyahu requesting clarification. Prime Minister Netanyahu clarified that it was the minister's private initiative, not representing government policy. In early 2024, the Biden State Department declared that transfer rhetoric, as expressed by Finance Minister Smotrich, was "inflammatory and irresponsible." Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Netanyahu on January 8, and afterward stated: "I told Netanyahu today that the US opposes any proposal to resettle Palestinians outside Gaza, and Netanyahu committed that this is not Israel's government policy." Nevertheless, that same month, more than 1,000 Gaza residents departed for Canada in an organized manner, and Israeli officials involved were certain that if Canada had set a higher quota, it would have been quickly filled.
According to unofficial data from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and other sources, approximately 300,000 Gaza residents emigrated from Gaza between Hamas's rise to power in 2007 and the start of the war, primarily due to economic conditions and lack of hope for the future. Residents left the Strip through the Rafah crossing and Egypt, with Turkey being their most popular destination. Greece and its coastline served as another popular but unofficial destination, reached via rubber boats, some of which sank. Germany and Canada were two other preferred destinations, though they accepted only a small number of migrants.
A survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, led by Dr. Khalil Shikaki, focusing on emigration and conducted among residents in Gaza and the West Bank just before the war, revealed that 44 percent of young people in Gaza, 38 percent of all men, and 31 percent of Fatah members (compared to 14 percent of Hamas members) were seeking or considering emigration. It stands to reason that today, following the war, the percentage of those wanting to leave Gaza is even higher, and once the Rafah crossing opens, many residents will use this opportunity to leave the Strip.
"Weizmann tried to bribe me"
Beyond these statistics, the major question now hovering over Trump's plan is: for the first time since the War of Independence and its aftermath (600,000-700,000 Arab refugees), will the fact that the president of the world's greatest superpower now stands behind the idea – rather than Gila Gamliel or Eli Cohen – lead to the implementation of organized plans for voluntary Gaza emigration, plans that Israel is now working on (in coordination with the Americans)?
If you ask Professor Yoav Gelber, who has extensively researched the history of transfers, migrations, population exchanges, and voluntary or involuntary population movements, the chance of this succeeding is minimal to nonexistent. Gelber finds historical parallels between the current situation, where Trump champions the voluntary emigration of Gaza residents with Israeli leadership's encouragement, and a forgotten event that occurred before World War II.
This involves the work of St. John Philby, a British explorer and diplomat who converted to Islam and became the confidant and unofficial advisor to Ibn Saud, the founder and first king of Saudi Arabia. Philby dressed like an Arab, ate camel meat, lived in Jeddah, and took a Muslim slave as his second wife.
In 1939, Gelber recounts, "Philby proposed to Lewis Namier, Haim Weizmann's associate, that the Jews raise 20 million pounds sterling (the Saudi king's debts), and in return, the king would leave Palestine empty for them and resettle the evacuated Palestinians within his vast kingdom. Namier passed the proposal to Weizmann and Moshe Sharett, who authorized Philby to present this tempting offer to the Saudi king."
"The king gave Philby a rather mumbled response, which Philby interpreted as agreement. Weizmann was very excited about this 'agreement' and rushed to convey the information to Winston Churchill. We learn about this development both from Weizmann's memoirs and from British Foreign Office documents. The British, according to these documents, completely rejected the move and claimed it was an absolute delusion. David Ben-Gurion also heard about it, presumably from Weizmann. He didn't believe the Arabs of Palestine would agree to leave, perhaps only a few of them. However, Weizmann was captivated by the plan's charm and continued to pursue it. In 1943, he traveled to America and tried to sell it to President Theodore Roosevelt. Later, Roosevelt's envoy met with King Ibn Saud and asked his opinion on the proposal. Ibn Saud told him not to dare mention it again: 'Weizmann tried to bribe me, and don't come back to me with this.' That marked the end of the Philby plan."
What's happening now between Trump and Israel, says Professor Gelber, shows that suckers don't die, they just get replaced.
Who are the suckers of our time?
"Trump, who someone sold this idea to and who isn't seriously examining the question of who would absorb the Gazans – similar to Weizmann, Philby, and Churchill about a hundred years ago."
Perhaps the fact that unlike dozens of previous times, this time a US president is leading the idea, not some junior 'Philby,' increases the chances of implementing it?
"In my view, transfer isn't fundamentally wrong. It's much better than killing them. But the history of these plans teaches us that the successes were very limited, and outward migration occurred on a small scale – except for the major event of the state's establishment, of course, with hundreds of thousands of refugees who fled, left, or were expelled from the country."
Maybe the fact that many areas in Gaza are completely destroyed increases the chance of implementing a migration plan?
"No, because in the background is the consciousness of the 'Nakba' of 1948. This is a consciousness that lives with the Palestinians and goes with them everywhere. From their perspective, leaving Gaza is another 'Nakba.' There are two national movements fighting over the same small piece of land, and they will continue to fight. If migration happens – it might occur only on the margins."
How would you suggest Netanyahu and the government handle Trump's initiative?
"To nod politely – after all, nothing will come from arguing with him – and to be very careful of illusions that this will work. I have the impression they're living in a movie, like a large part of our public. According to polls, 47% think it's realistic. This is a combination of ignorance and messianism. I'll say again: if it were possible and practical – I would support it. It's a better solution than others."
Rothschild was willing to pay
The story of Weizmann, Philby, and the first Saudi king is just one event in a long series of transfer plans regarding the Arab population, mainly refugees from 1948 (but not exclusively), conceived since the beginning of the last century by various Jewish and international entities. The common denominator among all of them, besides the fact that they were never implemented, is that the Palestinian refugees rejected them under the direction of UNRWA and Arab states. They preferred to preserve refugee status as a weapon against Israel and reject any plan for their rehabilitation and resettlement. Their declared goal was, and still is, to return refugees to their previous settlements within Israel, or in other words – to turn back time to before the War of Independence, to reshape demographics and turn Jews here into a minority and Arabs into a majority.
Against the backdrop of discussions about various plans, before and after World War II, transfers of millions were carried out between Germany and its enemies, between Greece and Turkey, and later between India and Pakistan. There were also population exchanges after Yugoslavia's dissolution, and more. Until World War II, transfer was considered a humane solution to ethnic conflicts. Norwegian researcher and diplomat Fridtjof Nansen, who conceived the Balkan transfer (under international supervision), even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922. However, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 first prohibited population transfer from occupied territory without crucial military justification, and for the first time defined it as a crime.
Nevertheless, legal experts like Professor Avi Bell believe that international law doesn't prohibit a state from encouraging voluntary migration, and such migration isn't considered expulsion. The second Trump administration now relies on such legal opinions, and intends to use them if and when its plans regarding Gaza residents become practical.
Transfer plans regarding the Arabs of Palestine, and specifically Gaza residents, stretch far back, before and after the state's establishment. Dr. Eric Ariel, Dr. Mordechai Nissan, and others revealed in their research new details about "Operation Yohanan" and the "Worker's Plan." The first offered Christian Arabs from the Galilee agricultural farms in Argentina, supported by Moshe Sharett and Yosef Weitz among others. The second proposed encouraging Arab refugees to migrate to Germany, which in the 1960s desperately needed workers. A decade earlier, the Foreign Ministry considered settling Arab refugees in Somalia and Libya, and even in Tunisia and Algeria. Similar ideas circulated in the ministry during Abba Eban's tenure as foreign minister, all rooted in pre-state times.
In 1937, the British Peel Commission recommended a solution of an Arab state and a Jewish state, but simultaneously proposed transferring more than 200,000 Arabs from the proposed Jewish state to the Arab state. Ben-Gurion liked the idea and wrote: "The Peel Commission's proposal was fundamentally good, if they had also implemented the transfer (relocation of Arabs) from all the valleys." Israel Zangwill, Herzl's associate, wrote in support of transfer in the early 20th century, and Berl Katznelson, the spiritual guide of the Labor movement, explained in 1937 that transfer was "the best of solutions," and predicted it would happen one day. Katznelson clarified he meant not to Nablus, but to Syria and Iraq. Chaim Weizmann opposed forced transfer but estimated Muslims would prefer to migrate rather than live under an infidel Jewish regime. Baron Edmond de Rothschild said he was willing to pay Arabs to leave Palestine. Even Zeev Jabotinsky, who wrote in his famous poem "There shall the son of Arab, the son of Nazareth and my sons be blessed with abundance and joy" and believed Arabs shouldn't be forced to leave, thought that if they agreed voluntarily – there was no reason to regret it.
Two "Nakbas"
After the Six-Day War, Israel attempted to implement some of these ideas. The secret team led by Ada Sereni, which included Yosef Yariv, Shlomo Ben Elkana, and others, tried to encourage Gaza's population to migrate to Jordan and South American countries, but the plan was blocked following complaints by Egypt and Jordan to the UN against Israel. Yitzhak Rabin, in the mid-1970s, also tried to reach an understanding with King Hussein of Jordan to encourage Palestinian migration from Gaza to the kingdom, in exchange for generous economic aid from Israel and the West.
Then came the right wing, which effectively appropriated the transfer idea from the socialists and Labor movement. Meir Kahane, leader of the Kach movement, called for expelling Arabs from western Palestine, and after him, Rehavam Zeevi spoke about "voluntary transfer" or "transfer by consent" of the Arab population in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Zeevi heavily relied on Zionist movement leaders and leftists who supported the idea many years before him but failed to sell transfer as a politically correct product. "Transferist" became a derogatory term, repeatedly hurled at right-wing supporters of this approach – even though most, like the leftists before them, spoke of transfer by consent. Ariel Sharon, prime minister in the early 2000s who forcibly transferred the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Samaria, rejected a Jordanian demand during his tenure to publish a public statement denying transfer for Israel's Arabs.
As years pass and the blackout on additional transfer plans lifts, more materials on this matter are exposed. Trump's raising of the transfer flag – assuming it's not a "trial balloon" inserted into the discourse between Israel, the Palestinians, and Arab states only to be removed later in exchange for other agreements – has changed the transfer discourse prevalent here in recent years. Instead of questioning and discussing, as was customary here, whether voluntary or involuntary transfer is moral, the question now asked is whether transfer – moral or not – is realistic and practical, or merely a pipe dream.
Currently, the Palestinians themselves, as well as Arab states, not only present a united front against Trump's ideas – but adhere to what they call the "right of return" to cities like Jaffa, Ashkelon, Ramla, Haifa, Nazareth, and Lod, and essentially to any place where an Arab settlement existed that was captured by Israel during the War of Independence and whose residents left.
The Palestinian adherence to return and their fierce opposition to Palestinian population migration abroad are two sides of the same coin: on one side – unwillingness to accept the results of the War of Independence and their defeat in the campaign, after rejecting the establishment of a Jewish state within any borders. On the other side – non-acceptance of the Israeli-American attempt to again establish, 77 years after the War of Independence, a consciousness of defeat among Palestinians. They reject the transfer idea not only because they haven't given up on return, but also to avoid experiencing anew a "Nakba" that would be seared into them again for generations, this time with the backing of the world's greatest superpower, and would displace their "1948 Nakba," which remains one of the symbols of Palestinian identity and narrative.
Samir al-Barghouti, a Palestinian columnist for the Qatari daily Al-Watan, expressed these sentiments in one of his recent articles, where he linked the two "Nakbas" and addressed President Trump: "Gaza was Palestinian before and after the Common Era, and it will remain Palestinian after October 7 as it was before October 6... The solution in Palestine lies in returning those expelled in 1948 to their cities and villages. Return Gaza's residents to the Gaza border communities, to Beersheba, to Ashkelon, to Jaffa, to Lod, and to Ramla, from which they were expelled in 1948, and then you will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize."
