logo
Israel's plan for ‘humanitarian city' on ruins of Rafah paves way for Trump's ‘Gaza Riviera'

Israel's plan for ‘humanitarian city' on ruins of Rafah paves way for Trump's ‘Gaza Riviera'

It is difficult to know with any certainty what such an unprecedented undertaking would look like in practice. One analyst said Katz had, in effect, just ordered the construction of the largest tented area in the world.
Loading
However, clues can arguably be found in the ongoing initiative to feed civilians via a US backed firm, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), not least because some of its purpose-built distribution sites are in and around Rafah.
According to eyewitness reports and some videos that have emerged, civilians are forced to walk for miles through a militarised wasteland where nearly all the buildings have been destroyed by the bombs or bulldozers of the IDF.
They are typically corralled between large man-made berms of earth or high metal fences fringed with barbed wire while they wait for ID checks. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in mass-shootings near the sites, with Palestinians accusing Israeli troops. The IDF blames Hamas for deliberately sowing chaos.
Katz's comments have prompted alarm not only because of the added suffering it could inflict on ordinary Gazans, but because, some fear, the plan will be used to facilitate the forced displacement of the population.
In other words, the highly controversial vision for Gaza as announced by US President Donald Trump early this year.
According to the president's so-called Middle East 'Riviera' idea, the population would be moved to redevelop the Strip into a rich man's paradise resembling Las Vegas or Dubai.
In more recent months, particularly as he visited Arab leaders in the Gulf, Trump had gone noticeably quiet on this topic.
This led commentators to conclude that he had never meant it seriously, but instead used the provocative idea to force the Middle East into coming up with its own plan for post-war Gaza.
Loading
However, during Netanyahu's visit to the White House this week, the spectre of a 'Trump Gaza' has, arguably, re-emerged.
One Israeli official in Washington was reported as saying that Trump was still keen on the idea, although the president dodged the question at a press conference.
Netanyahu himself praised the president's 'brilliant vision' and said Israel was close to agreements with third countries to receive Gazan civilians.
The prime minister was clear, as he has been since February, to frame the idea as a one of voluntary relocation.
'If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave,' he told reporters, fresh from having handed Trump a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
'It shouldn't be a prison,' Netanyahu continued. 'It should be an open place, and give people a free choice.'
Human rights organisations say life is now so grim for Gazans civilians that, if even a half-safe third country was prepared to take them, they would have to agree to go.
In other words, in practical terms, there would be nothing voluntary about it.
Loading
That is the main reason why Katz's plan for a so-called humanitarian city has caused such a stir.
Often the most bellicose in Netanyahu's Right-wing cabinet when it comes to the subject of Palestinians, he has consistently been the biggest cheerleader for the idea of relocation, other than the ultranationalist coalition partners.
He has previously ordered officials to prepare a mechanism to allow Gazans to resettle elsewhere.
It is no coincidence that the subject of population transfer has re-emerged as formal talks continue with Hamas on a ceasefire and hostage release deal.
It does Israel no harm to posit an extreme scenario for what might happen to the enclave if Hamas does not play ball.
Although Katz spoke of forcing civilians to the south in the context of a 60-day ceasefire deal, Hamas will have several potent reasons to reject the proposal.
The terror group thrives when surrounded by ordinary civilians – it is their preferred means of fighting.
The Katz proposal would also cut them off entirely from incoming aid, emptying their already drained coffers and allowing the IDF to effectively starve them out over months.
The humanitarian city would be run by international organisations, Katz said, but did not specify which ones.
Finally, their self-styled status as the Palestinian people's legitimate arm of resistance risks being trashed if they consented to rendering the entire population refugees within their own land, let alone – potentially – outside it.
However, some analysts believe that Hamas, ground down by the relentless IDF assault, is gasping for a ceasefire and may show some flexibility on these points.
An official close to the talks in Qatar said that while agreement had not yet been reached, the 'gaps are small'.
If the multiple recent leaks from Israel's security cabinet in the last couple of weeks are to be relied on, the army's leadership is extremely sceptical of any plan that involves their long-term presence in Gaza as a governing power.
The Israeli chief of staff, Major-General Eyal Zamir, is said to have told ministers that his troops have gone as far as they can go without putting the remaining hostages – 20 are thought to be alive – at grave risk.
It would take three brigades at least to secure Katz's proposed 'humanitarian city'.
To whatever extent Hamas has been causing unrest at the aid distribution sites, Israeli troops have a tendency to react aggressively when Palestinians come close.
Having to police the entire population in a relatively small area raises the risk of further mass shootings and international outrage.
Loading
Despite the potential for a deal in the coming days, or further down the line, it is clear that for the ultranationalists in Netanyahu's government, and indeed others on the Right, population transfer in Gaza is not just a bargaining chip, but a goal.
Senior Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are enthusiastically behind it – and can bring down Netanyahu's coalition if they choose.
On Monday, it was reported that a $US2 billion ($3.1 billion) plan to create 'humanitarian transit areas' inside – and possibly outside Gaza – were already presented to the White House, possibly months ago.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests
US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests

The Advertiser

time2 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests

A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement.

India will continue to buy Russian oil, officials say
India will continue to buy Russian oil, officials say

The Advertiser

time2 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

India will continue to buy Russian oil, officials say

India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources say, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Trump indicated in a Truth Social post in July that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal said India had a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stood on their merit and should not be viewed from the prism of a third country. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On July 14, Trump threatened 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up one per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. In July, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported in July. India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources say, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Trump indicated in a Truth Social post in July that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal said India had a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stood on their merit and should not be viewed from the prism of a third country. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On July 14, Trump threatened 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up one per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. In July, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported in July. India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources say, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Trump indicated in a Truth Social post in July that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal said India had a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stood on their merit and should not be viewed from the prism of a third country. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On July 14, Trump threatened 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up one per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. In July, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported in July. India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources say, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Trump indicated in a Truth Social post in July that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had "not given any direction to oil companies" to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal said India had a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stood on their merit and should not be viewed from the prism of a third country. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners - Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On July 14, Trump threatened 100 per cent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35 per cent of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up one per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. In July, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported in July.

‘A threat was made': Trump repositions nuclear subs after online spat with ex-Russian leader
‘A threat was made': Trump repositions nuclear subs after online spat with ex-Russian leader

The Age

time3 hours ago

  • The Age

‘A threat was made': Trump repositions nuclear subs after online spat with ex-Russian leader

Washington: In a warning to Russia, US President Donald Trump said Friday he's ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev, who has raised the prospect of war online. Trump posted on his social media site that, based on the 'highly provocative statements' from Medvedev, he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The president added, 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' He told US cable network Newsmax Friday night Washington time (Saturday AEST) that the submarines had been moved closer to Russia. It wasn't clear what impact Trump's order would have on US nuclear subs, which are routinely on patrol in the world's hotspots, but it comes at a delicate moment in the Trump administration's relations with Moscow. Trump said later Friday that he was alarmed by Medvedev's attitude. 'He's got a fresh mouth,' he said in an interview with Newsmax on Saturday AEST. Trump has said that special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Russia to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine and has threatened new economic sanctions if progress is not made. He cut his 50-day deadline for action to 10 days, with that window set to expire next week. The post about the sub repositioning came after Trump, in the wee hours of Thursday morning, had posted that Medvedev was a 'failed former President of Russia' and warned him to 'watch his words'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store