Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has drawn widespread condemnation for openly applauding the destruction of Gaza and outlining plans to forcibly relocate Palestinians into an artificially created “humanitarian city” built on Rafah’s remains. Legal experts, Holocaust historians, and international bodies warn that these proposals constitute ethnic cleansing that may constitute crimes against humanity.
At a briefing for Israeli journalists, Katz shared directives ordering the military to set up a fortified “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza – specifically on Rafah’s rubble – which initially planned on housing around 600,000 displaced Palestinians but could extend across all of Gaza population. Entry would involve security screenings while exits would remain prohibited and under Israel’s tight control (The Guardian; 26 November).
Katz stated the initiative as part of an “emigration plan,” noting it will “happen,” even though Israeli officials claimed voluntary transfer would take place.
The Guardian + 1
Legal authorities and historians have strongly criticized this plan for its evocative echoes of past atrocities:
Michael Sfard, an internationally-recognized human rights attorney, described it as an illegal transfer scheme and form of population transfer given the coercive conditions in Gaza. (Sources: Wikipedia and The Guardian.)
Amos Goldberg, an expert on Holocaust history and genocide, likened the proposed camp to that of a concentration camp, noting its harsh controls and lack of basic freedoms, according to The Guardian and Washington Post reports.
These expert criticisms challenge Israeli assurances that its measures are solely humanitarian, raising serious concerns that coercion could be being employed disguised as voluntary migration.
Katz’s proposal aligns with an ideological agenda driven by far-right Israeli leaders. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is known for advocating “total destruction” of Gaza and forcing population transfer; publicly supporting such measures (Sources: Reuters, Wikipedia and The Guardian).
This initiative appears tied to previous U.S. frameworks–like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s concept of Humanitarian Transit Areas–though neither party have explicitly acknowledged any connection. [The Guardian and The Washington Post].
Israel’s Internal and Regional Repercussions
Within Israel, the plan generated strong internal debate and legal backlash, with both IDF reservists and human rights organizations filing petitions in protest at an order meant to protect civilians instead of stripping them of their homes (refer to Guardian for more details). Reservists also petitioned Israeli courts against it citing it was meant to help civilians rather than dispossessing them – though both bodies maintain it meant protecting civilians not dispossessing them (The Guardian +1).
Internationally, Israel’s plan has raised tensions; critics claim it undermines potential ceasefires and jeopardizes diplomatic relations. At a time when indirect U.S.-brokered talks are underway for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza, these revelations further complicate negotiations and focus scrutiny of Israel’s long-term intentions.
Humanitarian and Legal Implications
Analysts warn the “humanitarian city” model could create collective punishment, violate Geneva Conventions, and set a precedent for future displacement policies in conflict zones. Establishing an isolated enclave with no exit rights eludes definitions of consent and humanitarian intent (The Washington Post +3; The Guardian); What Are My Next Options For Relief? (TWP+3, Guardian), What Is Next For Me (TGW +3) etc
Legal Review – U.N. human rights experts will likely examine possible violations of international law and weigh in with their expertise.
Domestic Resistance – Israeli courts and civil society could challenge enforcement orders in Israel.
Diplomatic Repercussions – Global partners, particularly European capitals, could impose political costs or call for sanctions in response to U.S. actions against Russia.
Ceasefire negotiations – Any deal depends upon Israel’s willingness to reduce displacement and end forced transfers.
Katz’s declaration that Gaza’s destruction should be seen as a milestone rather than tragedy marks an extraordinary turn in attitude. Now comes the crucial question of whether international law and diplomacy can prevent this plan from unfolding before its time?