BLUF: "In our interview, Kushner told me he was just making historical observations about the subjective nature of borders. “Most of the modern Middle East, since [the 1916 agreement known as] Sykes-Picot, is based on arbitrary lines drawn by foreigners. There does seem to be a different standard being applied to Gaza than there was to Syria, Yemen and a lot of other places,” he told me.
Opinion Kushner’s Gaza remarks are a dark signal for Trump’s second-term policy
As the world contemplates what a second Trump administration’s foreign policy would look like, the words of former president Donald Trump’s close advisers and family members — two overlapping groups — provide important clues. That’s why Jared Kushner’s recent remarks on the Israel-Gaza conflict have sparked so much controversy. As Trump’s former Middle East adviser, his son-in-law has sent a signal that a second Trump term could mean greater U.S. support for Israelis who want to expel Palestinians from Gaza and resettle the area themselves.
Regarding Israel’s war in Gaza, Trump has made few specific prescriptions, saying only that he wants Israel to “finish it up and do it quickly.” (He has also criticized Democrats and Jews who don’t reflexively support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.) Kushner has now stumbled into this policy vacuum — and even if, as he has said, he won’t serve in a second Trump administration, his comments are impossible to ignore.
In a Feb. 15 interview at Harvard University, videos of which have recently emerged, Kushner said several striking things about the Israel-Gaza crisis. “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable,” he said, lamenting that Palestinians had diverted resources away from economic development and toward weapons and tunnels. “It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.”
This language prompted widespread criticism in Arab media as a call for giving Gazan land to Israelis — and as an evocation of ethnic cleansing. Kushner said on X on Tuesday his words were taken out of context. Reached on Thursday, he said he was proposing Gazans be moved only temporarily. “With regard to moving the people, if Israel is going to invade Rafah, there are options they should consider to protect the civilians,” he told me.
In fairness, Kushner did at first say during his Harvard interview that if he were in charge in Israel, he would create “a secure area” inside Israel’s Negev desert to house Palestinians while Israeli forces “finish the job,” in the absence of Arab countries willing to take them in as refugees. Tarek Masoud, his interviewer and faculty director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative, asked if this was something under actual consideration in Israel.
“I don’t know,” Kushner said. “I’m sitting in Miami Beach right now. And I’m looking at the situation, and I’m thinking: What would I do if I was there?”
But then, when Masoud pointed out that Palestinians don’t want to leave Gaza for fear Netanyahu might never let them return, Kushner quickly provided justifications for that outcome as well.
“Maybe [they won’t be able to return], but I’m not sure there’s much left of Gaza at this point,” he said. “If you think about even the construct, Gaza was not really a historical precedent, right? It was the result of a war. … So, you have another war. Usually, when wars happen, borders are changed, historically over time.”
The idea that Gaza’s borders are fungible and that realistically Palestinians might not be able to return to their homes directly contradicts current U.S. policy, which insists on the right of Gazans to stay in Gaza under its current borders. There is sound logic behind that approach; for one thing, acts of forced displacement could be elements of a charge of genocide, as the International Court of Justice explained in its January order in a the case brought against Israel by South Africa.
In our interview, Kushner told me he was just making historical observations about the subjective nature of borders. “Most of the modern Middle East, since [the 1916 agreement known as] Sykes-Picot, is based on arbitrary lines drawn by foreigners. There does seem to be a different standard being applied to Gaza than there was to Syria, Yemen and a lot of other places,” he told me.
That perspective is one that aligns comfortably with a far-right segment of Netanyahu’s coalition that is openly calling for the Israeli resettlement of Gaza. Although Netanyahu himself has not publicly called for the permanent expulsion of Palestinians, members of his cabinet have. In January, 11 Israeli ministers attended a conference of far-right Israeli groups calling for what they disingenuously term the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians out of Gaza.
By casually discussing policies that would violate long-standing U.S. human rights norms, Kushner is also reminding the world of the transactional way the Trump team — which increasingly dominates the Republican Party, as the November election nears — approaches foreign policy. Every international problem is viewed as an opportunity to strike a deal between leaders, while the rights and aspirations of people without any power are deemed inconsequential.
The United States has a moral responsibility and a strategic interest in ensuring Palestinians in Gaza are able to continue to live on their own land. And Kushner’s reckless rhetoric is a possible preview of the chaos and callousness that would come with a second Trump administration’s foreign policy, whether he himself is involved or not.