&w=3840&q=100)
Israel plans to pack Gaza's population into closed border zone
AP Jerusalem
Israel's defence minister has outlined plans to pack hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into a closed zone of the Gaza Strip along the border with Egypt, according to local media reports.
It appears to be the latest version of plans by the Israeli government to maintain lasting control over the territory and relocate much of its population of some 2 million. Critics say that would amount to forcible displacement in violation of international law because Israel's offensive and blockade have made Gaza largely uninhabitable.
Israeli officials say the aim is to separate the civilian population from Hamas, which still controls parts of Gaza and holds dozens of hostages abducted in the Oct 7 attack that triggered the war 21 months ago. Palestinians would then be given the option of emigrating, they say.
US President Donald Trump, who has said he is narrowing in on a ceasefire and hopes to eventually end the war, has also voiced support for the mass transfer of Palestinians out of Gaza.
A humanitarian city atop the ruins of Rafah
Defence Minister Israel Katz outlined the latest plans in a closed briefing with Israeli military reporters on Monday. His office did not respond to a request for comment on their reports, which appeared in several Israeli media outlets.
Katz reportedly said he had ordered Israel's military to draw up plans to build what he called a humanitarian city in Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, which has been heavily damaged in the war and is now largely uninhabited.
Katz reportedly said that Palestinians would not be able to leave once they enter the zone.
The military would initially move 600,000 Palestinians from an existing so-called humanitarian zone along the coast, with the aim of eventually transferring the whole population to Rafah. Katz said Israel was searching for an unspecified international body to deliver aid as Israeli troops secured the perimeter.
He said the military could start building the city' during a 60-day ceasefire that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are discussing in Washington this week.
Hamas has said it will only release the remaining hostages in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Palestinians view Gaza as an integral part of their national homeland and oppose any plans to uproot them.
Rights groups see preparations for mass expulsion
Both Trump and Netanyahu have said Gaza's population should be relocated to other countries through what they refer to as voluntary emigration. During their meeting on Monday at the White House, Netanyahu said Palestinians should have a free choice on whether to stay or leave.
Palestinians fear that even if they leave temporarily to escape the war, Israel will never allow them to return a possible repeat of the mass exodus that occurred before and during the 1948 war surrounding Israel's creation.
Katz expressed hope that the emigration plan would happen and said Netanyahu was already leading efforts to find countries willing to take in Palestinians, according to Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
Rights groups fear that concentrating the population along the border with Egypt would create catastrophic conditions that leave Palestinians no choice but to leave.
Forcing people into what amounts to a large concentration camp echoes dark chapters of history," said Tania Hary, executive director of Gisha, an Israeli group advocating Palestinians' right to freedom of movement.
"Israel's leadership hasn't been shy about the goal to expel Palestinians from Gaza and maintain permanent control over wide swaths of the territory, she said.
An Israeli-backed aid system is already in place
Israel and the US have already rolled out an aid distribution programme in Rafah that has been marred by violence and controversy.
Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed or wounded while trying to reach sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a contractor supported by Israel and the US, according to local hospitals.
Palestinian witnesses and health officials say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire toward crowds of people heading to the sites. The military says it has fired warning shots at people who approached its forces in what it describes as a suspicious manner.
GHF denies there has been any violence in or around the sites themselves, which are in Israeli military zones off limits to independent media. Two US contractors told The Associated Press that their colleagues used live ammunition and stun grenades as crowds scrambled for food, allegations denied by the foundation. GHF has also denied involvement in any population transfer plans.
But in a press conference in May, Netanyahu appeared to link the two initiatives, saying Israel would implement the new aid program and then create a sterile zone in southern Gaza, free of Hamas, where the Palestinian population would be relocated.
Netanyahu has said Israel will maintain lasting control over Gaza and has ruled out any role for the internationally-recognised Palestinian Authority, led by political rivals of Hamas.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 minutes ago
- Business Standard
20 yrs since Israel's landmark Gaza withdrawal, conflict still continues
Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly two-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the future. Israel's disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate today. The emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanised Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organise and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. On Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will bury the idea of a future Palestinian state. For Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their lives. Soon after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state. A unilateral withdrawal enhanced Hamas' stature Israel couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005. There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor, he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international law. Because Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza. This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement, Michael said. They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance. Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an open wound in Israeli society, Michael said. I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future, he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume. Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically, he said. One of the first settlers longs to return Anita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was constructed. Originally from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbours, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a beautiful community. She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer Hazoni. She can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbours lit their houses on fire in protest. Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct 7, she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing war. Despite the passage of time, her family still is yearning and longing for their home, she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house. It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again, said Tucker. Palestinians doubt Israel will ever fully withdraw from Gaza again After Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an open-air prison. They had control on the inside under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the territory. Many Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement building. Now some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75% of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the war. Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through buffer zones. The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza unlivable in order to change the demographics, referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the territory. Israel is is reoccupying the Gaza Strip to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current war. Missed opportunities Israeli former Maj Gen Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand settlers. There were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire. Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort, said Harel. There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful. Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial opportunities. Most egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority. He also sharply criticised Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas an opportunity to do whatever they wanted. We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organisation into an organised military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure, he said. The Oct 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Go back to where you came from': Staten Island crowd boos Zohran Mamdani- See video
Not everyone welcomed New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani , to Staten Island on Wednesday afternoon, as he faced protests outside the Istanbul Bay Authentic Mediterranean Restaurant. A protester wearing a "Trump girl" T-shirt and holding an American flag shouted at the 33-year-old self-described socialist as he exited the restaurant's back door, Fox news reported. "Go back to where you came from. We don't want you on Staten Island," the individual declared. During Mamdani's third anti-Trump event of the week, protesters outside the restaurant drowned out the introductory speeches with cowbells, sirens, and megaphones. Despite the heat in the crowded restaurant and the opposition outside, Mamdani maintained a smile throughout the event and told reporters, "It saddens me to hear language of being told to go back to where I came from, and yet, it is not surprising because it is so much of what characterises US President Donald Trump's politics." Mamdani was hosting his third "Five Boroughs Against Trump" event of the week on Wednesday, reaffirming his commitment to protecting New Yorkers from President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration if elected mayor of New York City this November. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Watching Her Walk the Aisle? Explore Classic Dress Styles TheDaddest Undo by Taboola by Taboola "I will not let it dissuade me from continuing to come to Staten Island, from continuing to speak to New Yorkers, no matter where they live, no matter what politics they have," Mamdani said in response to the protesters. "Because I know that just as there are Republicans who feel that way, there are others who are sincere in their questions." Several protesters outside the restaurant told Fox News Digital that they planned to vote for Curtis Sliwa, CEO of the Guardian Angels, this November. "He's the only one that could save our city," Ed, a Staten Islander carrying a large American flag, said. Ed told Fox News Digital that he wanted to give Mamdani "a little surprise party" and let the socialist candidate know that his values do not represent those of Staten Island. "This is Trump country," said Manny, another protester and Wall Street retiree who said Mamdani's policies are "anti-Wall Street." President Trump won Staten Island by 30 points in the 2024 presidential election, according to The New York Times' data. Meanwhile, in neighbouring Brooklyn, former Vice President Kamala Harris carried the borough by 44 points. Tommy Banks, a native Staten Islander, said his message to Mamdani on Wednesday was simple: "Get out of town." "He wants to make everything free. He can't afford that. He's a socialist. He don't live that. We're not socialist," Banks said. Banks agreed with the other protesters outside the restaurant, telling Fox News Digital that "nobody else" could be mayor but Sliwa. "He's a true New Yorker. He's been fighting for New York all his life. Give him a chance to get in there," Banks added. Another protester, Liz, shouted, "Mamdani's a commie!" as the Democratic nominee departed in his SUV. Liz said she doesn't like Mamdani because "he's not a Democrat, he's a communist." She stated that Mamdani is trying to tempt New Yorkers with campaign promises like free childcare, free bus fare, and government-run grocery stores, but Liz warned it would be a "disaster" if he became mayor. When Mamdani declared victory in the Democratic primary, incumbent mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, called Mamdani a "snake-oil salesman" who would "say and do anything to get elected." President Trump has often criticised Mamdani and his policies, calling him a "100% communist lunatic." Staten Islanders who spoke to Fox News Digital outside Mamdani's anti-Trump event on Wednesday largely echoed these sentiments, calling him a "commie" and criticising his socialist policies, which include freezing the rent, raising corporate taxes, and increasing the minimum wage. However, Shahana Masum, who sported a "Zohran for Staten Island" sticker on her purse and attended the event, told Fox News Digital that Mamdani is the person who is representing "me and my community." Masum said she has also been told to go back to her country. To that, she responded, "You didn't go back to your country, and I came here with dignity and with my visa, so don't tell me to leave."
The Print
30 minutes ago
- The Print
India talked big on Russia-Ukraine mediation. Alaska meet offers a window
On Friday, Trump is set to meet Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. This is no random coffee shop—during the Cold War, it was the 'top cover for North America', guarding against Soviet bombers. Today, it still houses F-22 Raptors, the stealthiest fighters in the world, that routinely intercept Russian jets sniffing around US airspace. At first glance, these two threads—Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska and India's hopes—feel out of sync. But the riddle begins to unravel if you follow the breadcrumb trail of strategic ego, economic carrots, political grudges, and converging interests. Donald Trump is at it again. The man who claimed he could end the Ukraine war 'in 24 hours' is about to once again try his hand at what has become the bloodiest conflict in Europe since WW2. Curiously, India is watching this with cautious optimism, and Prime Minister Modi has even spoken with President Zelenskyy on the phone. In anticipation of the Alaska meeting, European leaders are scrambling to have a phone call with Trump, cautioning him of all the things that could go wrong with hurried decisions. The amount of international speculation the meeting has garnered is understandable. This is Trump and Putin's first in-person encounter since Osaka 2019, and Trump's first as the re-elected US president. The announcement was dropped—in classic Trump style—just before the 8 August deadline for putting fresh sanctions on Russia for failing to stop the war. Instead of pulling the sanctions trigger, Trump decided to invite Putin for a chat in the Arctic. India's déjà vu If you're in New Delhi, you've seen this movie before—and it wasn't exactly a box office hit. Smug with Trump's cosying up to Putin in the early weeks of taking office, India was ill-prepared for the US president's re-pivot to Europe. Trump's latest swings on Russia policy have had collateral damage for India. Punitive tariffs have been slapped on Indian goods, a hard-negotiated trade deal stands iced, and a 25-year strategic partnership has been suddenly made to look inconsequential. The not-so-secret spoiler here is also the Modi government's misreading of Donald Trump on events after Operation Sindoor. The cold shoulder toward Modi and punitive tariffs aren't solely about India buying Russian oil. These US actions are more about Modi refusing to publicly acknowledge Trump for facilitating the 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan—something Trump has bragged about dozens of times while India has repeatedly and unnecessarily denied. The US' sudden reduction of a self-assured India to a strategic expendable has gone down bitterly in New Delhi. This time, though, it is keeping its powder dry. Any US-Russia dialogue is welcome and conducive to Indian interests, but the memory, impact, and shock of recent disappointments linger. That said, pragmatism calls for keeping our cards open. The calculation is simple—if Trump warms up to Putin, India might get short-term relief (having the punitive tariffs lifted) and long-term diplomatic flexibility—engaging both Russia and the West without alienating either. The catch? India has talked a big game about playing peacemaker and mediator, but hasn't shown much appetite or capacity for actual, even limited, mediation. It has facilitated no prisoner swaps, no ceasefire preparatory talks—nothing on the level of what the Emiratis, Saudis, or Turks have done. The truth is, India's leverage in ending the war is rather limited. More disappointingly, it has not even lived up to its widely respected 'humanitarian actor' reputation in the war. Part of the problem is that India hasn't capitalised on its 2023 'moment'—hosting the G-20 and basking in global attention. Instead of pushing hard for investment, reforming defence procurement, and capitalising on 'China + 1' diversification, India got distracted. Now, with Trump and Putin set to meet again, India is reclaiming its mediator role. However, a little scrutiny will tell us that nothing decisive can be expected from Alaska. Also read: Trump is swinging on Russia again. What this means for Europe's security architecture Roadblocks in Alaska Even with Trump's flair for theatrics, three big roadblocks remain: 1. Land swap paradox: Trump's team has repeatedly mentioned land swap—the question is, how? Ukraine doesn't hold Russian territory; Russia only partially holds some annexed Ukrainian regions. Putin wants all four annexed territories without more fighting, and Ukraine refuses to gift land that it is still defending. Does Trump mean to ask Russia to give its own land to Ukraine? Or does he mean to ask Russia to give back some of the land taken from Ukraine? Either seems a rather outlandish proposition. The strategy, therefore, has a fundamental paradox to resolve. 2. Battlefield dynamics: The war in Ukraine began in 2014 with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the gaining of de facto control over the Donbass region. In 2022, Moscow escalated to a full-scale invasion, seeking to seize more territory and formally declaring four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—as part of Russia. Of these, Donetsk and Luhansk were part of the earlier occupied Donbass, while Zaporozhzhia and Kherson were new claims. However, after 11 years of grinding conflict, Russia fully controls only Luhansk. Roughly a quarter each of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia remains under Ukrainian control, with fierce fighting ongoing. Despite expectations of major breakthroughs, battlefield dynamics have stayed relatively static, and Russia's summer offensive has underperformed. Notably, following Trump's announcement of planned talks with Putin in Alaska, Russian forces have intensified operations, attempting to seize as many villages as possible before potential negotiations. Yet Russian gains average at about 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory. Putin's strategy hinges on presenting a simplified battlefield dynamic to Trump, which will not hold in reality. 3. Diffused power differential: Who holds the cards to end the Ukraine war? Trump may hold immense power, but the US cannot singlehandedly end the conflict. Russia, for all its reputed military might, has failed to secure victory on the battlefield, while Ukraine—despite its resilience and courage—remains unable to reclaim its lost territories through force alone. However, in its fourth year of war, Ukraine boasts one of the world's most advanced drone warfare capabilities despite war fatigue and apparent fissures in Zelesnkyy's popularity. Then there is Europe. Unable to play a decisive role initially, Europe's unprecedented transformation to ramp up its defence spending despite fragile solidarity and resilience to stay united behind Ukraine has been surprising. While the UK and France have maintained consistent strategic positions, Germany's rearmament and Poland's resurgence have been pivotal. As Trump took office, Poland, as EU Council chair, championed security and defence as core priorities—driving a difficult but essential enabler toward military modernisation. Chancellor Merz's constitutional changes, boosting Germany's defence spending, complemented Poland's leadership in steering structural reforms for a good six months within a traditionally geo-economic EU. They reshaped Europe's strategic focus toward security preparedness, and in the process, accorded the EU undeniable agency as a bloc. Today, it is Europe that provides more support to Ukraine, not the US. Even the American weapons for Ukraine are purchased by Europe. Therefore, Europe and Ukraine's agencies are crucial. There is credible evidence to show that if the Alaska talks are steered bilaterally between the US and Russia, the diffused power differential among key stakeholders will foil the outcomes before they even start taking effect. Also read: Asim Munir wants to be guardian of the Middle East. He's fated to fail at home The Trump carrot Promising to give Ukraine some due, Trump is dangling eye-popping offers to Russia. The list includes mineral access in Russian-occupied Ukraine, lifting sanctions on the aviation sector, and even letting Russia develop Arctic resources in the Bering Strait—an area holding an estimated 13 per cent of the world's oil. For a man who once almost convinced the world about taking Greenland militarily, this is counterintuitive. The US has carefully guarded its Arctic dominance for decades; handing any of that to Moscow would be a seismic policy shift—that is, if Trump means it. If, against all odds, Alaska produces even a partial step toward peace, India could quietly position itself yet again for a role in Ukraine's reconstruction—bridging American, European, Russian, and Ukrainian interests. Is it a risk-averse approach? Yes. Is it aspirational? Also yes. Where Trump is involved, anything is possible—from a headline-grabbing 'deal' announced beamingly on Truth Social to a total flop, with fighting resuming. The most probable scenario, however, would be a ceasefire immediately and then steps toward discussing the quid pro quo on territories and guarantees. India should keep hedging to avoid the fate of being collateral damage in someone else's great-power drama. But as Alaska looms, one thing is clear: the real battlefield is as much about leverage, resilience, and perception as it is about territory and capabilities. On that front, the safest strategy for India is to translate its potential into leverage. And that is no easy feat. Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
