&w=3840&q=100)
Israel in talks to possibly resettle Palestinians from Gaza in South Sudan
Six people familiar with the matter confirmed the talks to The Associated Press. It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another, and raise human rights concerns.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to realise US President Donald Trump's vision of relocating much of Gaza's population through what Netanyahu refers to as voluntary migration. Israel has floated similar resettlement proposals with other African nations.
Palestinians, rights groups, and much of the international community have rejected the proposals as a blueprint for forcible expulsion in violation of international law.
For South Sudan, such a deal could help it build closer ties to Israel, now the almost unchallenged military power in the Middle East. It is also a potential inroad to Trump, who broached the idea of resettling Gaza's population in February but appears to have backed away in recent months.
Israel's Foreign Ministry declined to comment and South Sudan's foreign minister did not respond to questions about the talks. A US State Department spokesperson said it doesn't comment on private diplomatic conversations.
Egypt opposes proposals to resettle Palestinians out of Gaza Joe Szlavik, the founder of a US lobbying firm working with South Sudan, said he was briefed by South Sudanese officials on the talks. He said an Israeli delegation plans to visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up camps for Palestinians there. No known date has been set for the visit. Israel did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of the visit.
Szlavik said Israel would likely pay for makeshift camps.
Edmund Yakani, who heads a South Sudanese civil society group, said he had also spoken to South Sudanese officials about the talks. Four additional officials with knowledge of the discussions confirmed talks were taking place on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss them publicly.
Two of the officials, both from Egypt, told AP they've known for months about Israel's efforts to find a country to accept Palestinians, including its contact with South Sudan. They said they've been lobbying South Sudan against taking the Palestinians.
Egypt is deeply opposed to plans to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza, with which it shares a border, fearing an influx of refugees into its own territory.
The AP previously reported on similar talks initiated by Israel and the US with Sudan and Somalia, countries that are also grappling with war and hunger, and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland. The status of those discussions is not known.
Cash-strapped South Sudan needs any 'ally' Szlavik, who's been hired by South Sudan to improve its relations with the United States, said the US is aware of the discussions with Israel but is not directly involved.
South Sudan wants the Trump administration to lift a travel ban on the country and remove sanctions from some South Sudanese elites, said Szlavik. It has already accepted eight individuals swept up in the administration's mass deportations, in what may have been an effort to curry favour.
The Trump administration has pressured a number of countries to help facilitate deportations.
Cash-strapped South Sudan needs any ally, financial gain and diplomatic security it can get, said Peter Martell, a journalist and author of a book about the country, First Raise a Flag.
Israel's Mossad spy agency provided aid to the South Sudanese during their decades-long civil war against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum ahead of independence in 2011, according to the book.
The State Department, asked if there was any quid pro quo with South Sudan, said decisions on the issuing of visas are made in a way that prioritises upholding the highest standards for US national security, public safety, and the enforcement of our immigration laws.
From one hunger-stricken conflict zone to another Many Palestinians might want to leave Gaza, at least temporarily, to escape the war and a hunger crisis bordering on famine. But they have roundly rejected any permanent resettlement from what they see as an integral part of their national homeland.
They fear that Israel will never allow them to return, and that a mass departure would allow it to annex Gaza and reestablish Jewish settlements there, as called for by far-right ministers in the Israeli government.
Still, even those Palestinians who want to leave are unlikely to take their chances in South Sudan, among the world's most unstable and conflict-ridden countries.
South Sudan has struggled to recover from a civil war that broke out after independence, and which killed nearly 400,000 people and plunged pockets of the country into famine. The oil-rich country is plagued by corruption and relies on international aid to help feed its 11 million people a challenge that has only grown since the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to foreign assistance.
A peace deal reached seven years ago has been fragile and incomplete, and the threat of war returned when the main opposition leader was placed under house arrest this year.
Palestinians in particular could find themselves unwelcome. The long war for independence from Sudan pitted the mostly Christian and animist south against the predominantly Arab and Muslim north.
Yakani, of the civil society group, said South Sudanese would need to know who is coming and how long they plan to stay, or there could be hostilities due to the historical issues with Muslims and Arabs.
South Sudan should not become a dumping ground for people, he said. And it should not accept to take people as negotiating chips to improve relations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Hezbollah says govt 'handing' Lebanon to Israel with disarmament bid
Hezbollah's chief, Naim Qassem, accused the Lebanese government of succumbing to Israeli and American demands by seeking the group's disarmament. Qassem warned that Hezbollah would resist any attempts to disarm them, even if it meant resorting to fighting. He asserted that the group would not surrender its weapons while facing continued aggression and occupation. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Friday accused Lebanon's government of "handing" the country to Israel by pushing for the group's disarmament, warning it would fight to keep its spoke in a televised address after meeting Iran's top security chief Ali Larijani, whose country has long backed the Lebanese militant emerged badly weakened from last year's war with Israel, and under US pressure the Lebanese government has ordered the army to devise a plan to disarm the group by the end of the whose so-called "axis of resistance" includes Hezbollah, has also suffered a series of setbacks, most recently in the war with Israel that saw the United States strike its nuclear sites."The government is implementing an American-Israeli order to end the resistance, even if it leads to civil war and internal strife," Qassem said."The resistance will not surrender its weapons while aggression continues, occupation persists, and we will fight it... if necessary to confront this American-Israeli project no matter the cost," he urged the government "not to hand over the country to an insatiable Israeli aggressor or an American tyrant with limitless greed".
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
The war on crypto isn't ending. It's just changing battlefields.
A golden era is about to dawn in the digital asset ecosystem. Freed from the shackles of the Securities and Exchange Commission's overly aggressive, enforcement-focused agenda, the crypto movement will bloom. Or so its most enthusiastic adherents, some placed within the federal government, believe. It seems as if every week, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance announces that another digital asset or activity—including meme coins, proof-of-work mining activities, stablecoins, or protocol staking—shouldn't be considered a security. Under President Donald Trump, himself a crypto-enthusiast, the SEC has also dropped multiple cases against digital asset firms such as Coinbase Global and Token Metrics. But crypto fans may be counting their digital chickens before they hatch. The belief that 'anything goes" in the world of digital assets under Trump's SEC is probably an overblown hope, for several reasons. The federal court cases won by President Joe Biden's SEC chair, Gary Gensler, established that most digital assets are securities—assets subject not only to SEC supervision but also to the federal rules governing the sale and offering of securities, including registration and antifraud provision. Those findings still stand. Granted, Gensler's SEC didn't win every case it brought, and there were inconsistent decisions regarding whether digital assets are only considered subject to the securities laws in their initial distribution, as opposed to secondary market transactions. But a key holding of almost every case, such as those against Telegram, LBRY, and Terraform, was that digital assets are securities—and thus subject to the oversight of the SEC. The new SEC commissioner, Paul Atkins, recently tried to downplay those findings. In a speech before the America First Policy Institute, he said that the agency would work to advance Trump's intent to make the U.S. a global powerhouse in crypto. 'Despite what the SEC has said in the past," he said, 'most crypto assets are not securities." But absent explicit legislation providing that digital assets aren't securities, federal court decisions still have primacy over federal agency policy statements. The Supreme Court decided in the Loper Bright case last year that federal courts need not give deference to agency interpretations of statutes. So, although the SEC may no longer consider itself the cop on the beat when it comes to digital assets, the case law that was established while acting as such remains in effect. Even if the SEC were to abandon its oversight of crypto assets, state attorneys general and state securities bureaus have said they would assume that duty. A few weeks after the SEC announced it was dropping its enforcement action against Coinbase for allegedly selling unregistered securities, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued Coinbase, accusing it of selling Oregonians high-risk securities. Coinbase claimed in a countersuit that the state didn't inform it that it would start actively regulating cryptocurrencies as securities. Rayfield's office said in its suit that 'states must fill the federal vacuum being left by federal regulators who are giving up under the new administration." New York state Attorney General Letitia James is also aggressively pursuing digital asset enterprises. In an April court decision, James successfully argued that certain digital asset transactions can qualify as securities under state law. State statutes and regulations often apply more broadly than federal law. So, even if federal law changes, state laws will fill the remaining gaps. Especially in today's highly politicized culture, state officials will seek to differentiate themselves from federal enforcers by taking an aggressive approach to digital assets. It doesn't appear as if state agencies—once content to let federal authorities set the agenda—will remain on the sidelines. Third, the fact that the SEC is no longer going to take an enforcement-first approach toward digital assets doesn't mean that SEC lawyers—or at least former SEC lawyers—share that approach. I am a former SEC trial counsel. In talking with former colleagues over the past few months, I have learned something interesting. Many senior-level lawyers, some with decades of experience in courtrooms, are taking a path not many before them have trod. Traditionally, former SEC lawyers go either to large New York or Washington law firms, or in-house to a legacy bank or hedge fund (or, in my case, to a top-tier, midsize law firm). Now, for the first time in recent memory, many of my former SEC colleagues, including those from its now-disbanded crypto unit, are going to the plaintiff's bar. These are battle-hardened veterans of the courtroom who are experts in the application of securities laws to the digital asset space. They aren't retiring from the battle—just joining a different army. I'm sure others will join them over the next few months. As a result, digital asset enterprises are still at risk of litigation, from both state agencies and private law firms. This presents significant uncertainties, not to mention the possibility of additional costs for their projects. Those declaring victory prematurely should be aware that the war isn't ending. It's just moving to different battlefields. Howard Fischer is a partner at the New York law firm Moses Singer. He was previously a senior trial counsel at the SEC. Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit feedback and commentary pitches to ideas@
Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Standing like a wall': Amid tariff standoff with US, PM Modi reiterates India won't compromise on farmers' well-being
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday reiterated that India will not compromise on the well-being of its farmers, fisher folk, and cattle keepers amid a standoff in trade negotiations with the US over access for American products in India's agriculture and dairy market. The standoff is being seen as one the reasons behind US President Donald Trump's announcements of tariffs totalling 50 per cent on Indian goods, the highest tariff rate imposed by Washington on any country. 'The well-being of Indian farmers, fisher folk, and cattle keepers is our foremost priority. Modi is standing like a wall against any adverse policy that could impact Indian farmers, fisherfolk and cattle keepers. India will never compromise the interests of Indian farmers, fisherfolk and cattle keepers,' the Prime Minister said during his Independence Day speech. The Prime Minister did not make a direct reference to tariffs announced by Trump. This is the second public speech within a week in which the Prime Minister has expressed his commitment to prevent any adverse impact on Indian farmers. On August 7, after the US President Donald Trump announced additional 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods—over and above the 25 per cent announced earlier—Modi had said that he would not compromise 'even if it entailed paying a very heavy personal price'. 'Indian farmers have made significant contributions to the economy. Their hard work has borne fruit. Last year, farmers broke all records in terms of grain production. Today, India is number one in milk, pulses and jute production. India is the second-largest fish producer, and also the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, fruits and vegetables. These products are reaching foreign markets, and agro-product exports worth Rs 4 lakh crore have been recorded,' the PM said on Friday. This comes amid demands from the US to open the Indian agricultural market to American genetically modified (GM) products that have traditionally faced resistance in the country from the farming community. India has so far not allowed GM food crops. Farmers have not only resisted foreign agricultural products, they have sought to keep agriculture out of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Trump administration has also been pushing India to allow greater market access for American dairy products. New Delhi has been opposing these demands from Washington. Last month, the Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (ICCFM), a farmers' body, urged the government to exclude all aspects of agriculture from the US trade deal in order to protect the interests of Indian farmers. In a letter to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, the ICCFM warned that granting duty-free access to US agricultural products under a trade agreement could have serious consequences. It said that the US has been engaged in a trade war with China, Mexico and Canada since 2018, which has severely affected its agricultural exports. 'The US trade deficit in agriculture has nearly doubled, indicating a significant surplus they may seek to offload onto markets like India. For example, soybean exports from the US dropped from $34.4 billion in 2022 to $24.5 billion in 2024, while corn exports fell from $18.6 billion to $13.9 billion during the same period,' the letter stated. The ICCFM further emphasised the risk to Indian farmers, stating that the US government is among the world's largest agricultural subsidisers. The 2024 US Farm Bill has allocated a staggering $1.5 trillion towards farm subsidies to American farmers. These substantial supports not only restrict agricultural imports into the US but also enable American products to enter export markets at artificially low prices. Allowing such heavily subsidised US imports into India, the ICCFM argued, would undermine India's longstanding position at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against these very subsidies. A report by the State Bank of India (SBI) also cautioned that opening India's dairy sector to US imports could result in an annual loss of Rs 1.03 lakh crore to Indian dairy farmers. The report highlighted that milk prices in India could drop by at least 15 per cent if the sector is opened up, significantly affecting the livelihoods of small dairy farmers due to the heavily subsidised US dairy industry.
