South Sudan says no talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza
On Tuesday, the Associated Press, citing six people with knowledge of the matter, reported that Israel was holding discussions with Juba to resettle Palestinians from Gaza in the East African nation.
'These claims are baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy of the Government of the Republic of South Sudan,' South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry said in a statement.
Israel's military has pounded Gaza City in recent days prior to its planned takeover of the shattered enclave which is home to more than 2 million Palestinians.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday reiterated a view - also enthusiastically floated by US President Donald Trump - that Palestinians should simply leave Gaza.
Many world leaders are horrified at the idea of displacing the Gaza population, which Palestinians say would be like another 'Nakba' (catastrophe) when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced out during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.
In March, Somalia and its breakaway region of Somaliland also denied receiving any proposal from the United States or Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, with Mogadishu saying it categorically rejected any such move.
South Sudan's Foreign Minister Monday Semaya Kumba visited Israel last month and met with Netanyahu, according to the foreign ministry in Juba.
Last month South Sudan's government confirmed that eight migrants deported to the African nation by the Trump administration were currently in the care of the authorities in Juba after they lost a legal battle to halt their transfer.
Since achieving independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has spent nearly half its life at war and is currently in the grip of a political crisis, after President Salva Kiir's government ordered the arrest of Vice President Riek Machar in March.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Why disarming Hezbollah cannot wait
Lebanon stands at a decisive crossroads. The choice is stark and unavoidable: reclaim the monopoly on legitimate force or watch the slow, irreversible erosion of the state. At the heart of this crisis lies Hezbollah's arsenal — a parallel military power that operates beyond government authority, answers to an external command structure and wields enough influence to veto national decisions at will. For decades, Hezbollah's weapons have been justified under the banner of 'resistance,' originally framed as a necessary shield against Israeli aggression. That narrative, however, has long since expired. What began as a defensive posture has morphed into a political and military apparatus that holds the Lebanese state hostage, subverts democratic institutions and serves as an arm of a foreign power's regional strategy. Today, Hezbollah's weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah's ability to dictate Lebanon's future. The foundation of any sovereign state is its monopoly over the use of force. In Lebanon, this principle is broken. Hezbollah maintains a standing arsenal, a command structure independent of the national army and the capacity to make war or peace without consulting the state. This dual security system corrodes the very idea of sovereignty. One side is accountable to the Lebanese people through democratic governance. The other side is accountable to foreigners, drawing its legitimacy from an ideology and an external agenda that do not always align with Lebanon's national interests. As long as Hezbollah retains its weapons, Lebanon's national sovereignty is conditional at best — a slogan for political speeches rather than a lived reality. Foreign policy decisions will remain hostage to the calculations of an armed faction whose priorities extend far beyond Lebanon's borders. Hezbollah's weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah's ability to dictate Lebanon's future Hani Hazaimeh The consequences of this military imbalance are not theoretical. Every regional escalation risks pulling Lebanon into confrontation, whether through military exchanges with Israel or covert operations on Lebanese soil. This constant risk makes the country a bargaining chip in geopolitical rivalries it cannot control and should not have to endure. The region itself is moving toward a different paradigm. Arab capitals are engaging in diplomacy and prioritizing economic recovery over ideological confrontation. Yet Lebanon remains locked in a militant posture that isolates it from these opportunities. Instead of benefiting from economic partnerships, foreign investment and integration into a stabilizing regional order, Lebanon remains vulnerable — economically isolated, diplomatically constrained and politically paralyzed. Hezbollah's weapons are not only an internal security problem; they are a structural barrier to Lebanon's reintegration into a changing Middle East. Supporters of Hezbollah's armed status often argue that these weapons serve as a deterrent against Israeli aggression. In practice, they have not prevented conflict; they have invited it. Each round of escalation devastates Lebanese infrastructure, displaces civilians and deepens the economic crisis. The destruction of southern Lebanon in past confrontations and the lingering risk of renewed war are proof that this deterrent is, at best, a temporary shield with a devastating price tag. Moreover, the military balance has shifted in ways that diminish Hezbollah's strategic value. Israel's technological and intelligence capabilities have evolved, making Hezbollah's arsenal less of a deterrent and more of a liability. What remains is a political reality: the weapons are less about protecting Lebanon from external threats and more about preserving Hezbollah's leverage in the internal balance of power. Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon's democratic process. No government can operate freely when one political actor can back its demands with the implicit — or explicit — threat of force. Cabinet decisions, parliamentary debates and policy initiatives all exist under the shadow of Hezbollah's military muscle. This imbalance makes genuine reform nearly impossible. Political leaders, even those opposed to Hezbollah's influence, must calculate their positions based not only on the public interest but also on the risk of provoking an armed response. The result is a system in which accountability is selective, governance is paralyzed and corruption thrives in the absence of real checks and balances. Lebanon's prolonged economic collapse — marked by currency devaluation, banking failures and mass emigration — has been compounded by political paralysis. International donors have made clear that aid and investment depend on political stability, transparency and a functioning state. None of these are possible while an armed group operates outside the chain of command of the Lebanese Armed Forces. Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon's democratic process Hani Hazaimeh The longer the disarmament issue is postponed, the deeper Lebanon sinks into dependency and division. As economic desperation grows, the state's capacity to assert itself will shrink, making eventual disarmament even harder. The country risks reaching a point where the armed status quo becomes so entrenched that it can only be dismantled through crisis, not consensus. Disarming Hezbollah will not be easy. It will require a coordinated national strategy that combines political consensus, regional diplomacy and international support. The Lebanese state must reassert itself as the sole legitimate authority over arms within its borders. This is not merely a security measure — it is a prerequisite for national revival. The process will demand courage from Lebanon's political class, unity among its fractured institutions and a clear message to both domestic and foreign actors: the era of divided sovereignty must end. Regional partners must also recognize that a stable, unified Lebanon serves the interest of the entire Middle East. Without their support — political, financial and diplomatic — the Lebanese state will struggle to break free from the cycle of dependency and coercion. In the end, the debate over Hezbollah's weapons is not just about disarmament; it is about whether Lebanon chooses to be a real state or a geopolitical pawn. A sovereign Lebanon can decide its own foreign policy, rebuild its economy and restore public trust in governance. A Lebanon where an armed faction holds veto power over national decisions will remain trapped in instability, vulnerable to external manipulation and cut off from the opportunities of a changing region. The choice is urgent. Delay will only make the cost higher and the consequences more severe. Disarmament is not a favor to foreign powers, nor is it an act of hostility toward a single community. It is an act of self-preservation — the only path toward reclaiming Lebanon's sovereignty, securing its future and honoring the right of its people to live in a state where power is wielded by elected leaders, not by the force of arms. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
EU, Norway, rights groups rap West Bank settlement plan
MAALE ADUMIM: Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, a move his office said would 'bury' the idea of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian government, allies, and campaign groups condemned the scheme, calling it illegal and saying the fragmentation of territory would rip up peace plans for the region. Standing at the site of the planned settlement in Maale Adumim on Thursday, Smotrich, a settler himself, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had agreed to the revival of the E1 development. However, there was no immediate confirmation from either. 'Whoever in the world is trying to recognize a Palestinian state today will receive our answer on the ground, not with documents nor with decisions or statements, but with facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighborhoods,' Smotrich said. Israel froze construction plans at Maale Adumim in 2012, and again after a revival in 2020, because of objections from the US, European allies, and other powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. Restarting the project could further isolate Israel, which has watched some of its Western allies condemn its military offensive in Gaza and announce they may recognize a Palestinian state. Palestinians fear the settlement building in the West Bank — which has sharply intensified since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that led to the Gaza war — will rob them of any chance to build a state of their own in the area. In a statement headlined 'Burying the idea of a Palestinian state,' Smotrich's spokesperson said the minister had approved the plan to build 3,401 houses for Israeli settlers between an existing settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In Maale Adumim, Smotrich said the plan would go into effect on Wednesday. Breaking the Silence, an Israeli rights group established by former Israeli soldiers, said what it called a land grab 'will not only further fragment the Palestinian territory, but will further entrench apartheid.' Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the Palestinian president's spokesperson, called on the US to pressure Israel to stop settlement building. 'The EU rejects any territorial change that is not part of a political agreement between the involved parties. So annexation of territory is illegal under international law,' European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper said. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the move by Smotrich, an ultra-nationalist in the ruling right-wing coalition who has long advocated for Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, showed that Israel 'seeks to appropriate land owned by Palestinians in order to prevent a two-state solution.' Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank, said there were still steps needed before construction. However, if all goes through, infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building could start about a year later. 'The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed,' Peace Now said in a statement. Consecutive Israeli governments have initiated, approved, planned, and funded settlements, according to Israeli rights group Yesh Din. Some settlers moved to the West Bank for religious or ideological reasons, while lower housing costs and government incentives drew others. They include American and European dual citizens. Palestinians were already demoralized by the Israeli military campaign, which has killed more than 61,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, and fear Israel will ultimately push them out of that territory. About 700,000 Israeli settlers live among 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognized by most countries, but has not formally extended sovereignty over the West Bank. The UN and most world powers say settlement expansion has eroded the viability of a two-state solution by fragmenting Palestinian territory. The two-state plan envisages a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, existing side by side with Israel. Most of the global community considers all settlements illegal under international law. Israel rejects this interpretation, saying the West Bank is 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' territory. Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand imposed sanctions in June on Smotrich and another far-right minister who advocates for settlement expansion, accusing both of them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Leaders
an hour ago
- Leaders
Palestinian Tragedy Lies in Powerlessness, Says Noam Chomsky
American linguist and professor Noam Chomsky said that part of the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have essentially no international support. In a video that went viral on social media, Chomsky noted that Palestinians do not have wealth or power. So, they do not have rights. 'It is the way the world works, your rights correspond to your powers. Same inside the United States, if you are a poor black kid in Roxbury, you do not have the rights of a rich person.. same in the international arena,' he added. Moreover, he noted that Palestinians may get statements of support, but no body is going to do much for them, especially when the US threatens anyone who might try to do something. 'What is called the national interest turns out to be the interest of dominant domestic forces in US society,' he said. Therefore, the national interest means the interests of the very rich, major corporations, the ones who set government policy, according to Chomsky. 'That is the national interest and not the population. Population is basically irrelevant,' he added. Related Topics: Gazan University Professor Recounts War's Heartbreak, Hunger Watch: British Influencer Describes Gaza War as 'Holocaust' Al Jazeera Holds Vigil for Journalists Killed in Gaza Airstrike Short link : Post Views: 8
