Sudanese officials have rejected a US request to discuss resettling Palestinians from Gaza under Trump’s proposal. Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland have collectively stated their refusal to accept displaced Palestinians, emphasizing the rights of the Palestinian people. Despite US efforts to incentivize the plan, regional consensus remains firmly against the initiative, which some legal experts have labeled as unlawful.
Sudanese officials have formally rejected a request from the United States regarding the acceptance of Palestinians displaced from Gaza as part of former President Donald Trump’s plan. Reports indicate both the US and Israel contacted Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland about the resettlement of uprooted Palestinians, demonstrating a determination to pursue Trump’s proposal amidst widespread international outcry.
Two officials from the conflict-stricken Sudan confirmed the initial outreach, which is reported to have started prior to Trump’s inauguration. The discussions included military aid for Sudanese forces combating paramilitary groups, along with other incentives, but were decisively rejected. “This suggestion was immediately rebuffed,” remarked one official.
Somalia’s foreign minister, Ahmed Moalim Fiqi, did not definitively confirm any proposals from the US or Israel. However, he emphasized Somalia’s refusal to permit any plan that would jeopardize the rights of Palestinians to live peacefully in their homeland. Trump’s vision involves relocating Gaza’s residents permanently to facilitate the territory’s transformation into a premier tourist and business hub.
Initially, Egypt and Jordan were identified as potential havens for displaced Palestinians, both of which expressed firm opposition to such proposals. The Palestinian people have also rejected the resettlement initiative, arguing that any exodus would not be voluntary. Alternative multibillion-dollar reconstruction proposals from Arab nations intend to keep Palestinians in Gaza.
US officials asserted that Trump remains committed to his proposed vision for Gaza. Additionally, discussions with Somalia and Somaliland commenced shortly after Trump’s Gaza proposal was unveiled, although details about the nature of these conversations remain elusive. Both the White House and Israeli authorities have refrained from commenting on the ongoing efforts.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Trump’s plan as a “bold vision,” while Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, has indicated efforts to identify nations willing to accept Palestinians. Legal experts have warned that such forced relocation under dire circumstances could be deemed illegal under international law.
Sudan, a signatory to the Abraham Accords intending to normalize relations with Israel, is currently embroiled in a civil war marked by significant human rights abuses. The US has attempted to provide various incentives, yet Sudan’s military leadership firmly opposes any attempts to displace Palestinians, insisting on their right to remain.
As for Somaliland, an unofficial territory seeking recognition, US officials suggested quiet talks for potential assistance in exchange for global acknowledgment. However, officials in Somaliland have denied being engaged in any discussions regarding the resettlement of Palestinians. Somalia has additionally affirmed its solidarity with the Palestinian cause and expressed no intention to accept displaced individuals.
Overall, the responses from Sudan, Somaliland, and Somalia reflect a regional consensus against the US and Israeli plans to reshape Gaza’s future through forced migration of its residents, reaffirming their support for Palestinian rights.
In conclusion, Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland have collectively dismissed United States and Israeli overtures regarding the resettlement of Palestinians displaced from Gaza under Trump’s proposed plan. Both Sudan and Somalia have articulated firm stances opposing any displacement of Palestinians, emphasizing their right to remain in their homeland. Furthermore, legal experts have highlighted the potential illegality of such resettlement initiatives, indicating widespread regional disapproval of the proposal.
Original Source: www.theguardian.com
