Arab League Denounces Israeli Scheme for Displacement in Southern Gaza
The Arab League has issued a forceful condemnation of reported Israeli plans to establish what it calls a humanitarian city or temporary camp to relocate Palestinians in the southern Gaza Strip. In a statement released Tuesday the Arab League described the plan as inhumane deceptive and part of a broader effort to forcibly displace the Palestinian population under the guise of humanitarian relief.
According to the League's General Secretariat the proposal being circulated by Israeli sources would effectively confine Palestinians to a narrow enclosed area in southern Gaza under Israeli control. Far from being a genuine humanitarian initiative the Arab League argues the plan constitutes a violation of international law and a dangerous precedent in the ongoing conflict.
The statement stressed that this so called city bears no resemblance to anything civil or humane and instead signals a deepening of what the League referred to as Israel's moral and ethical decline. It warned that the move reflects clear intentions to continue policies of ethnic cleansing and potentially prepare Gaza for a new phase of occupation or even settlement expansion.
The Arab League further appealed to the international community to take a strong and united stand against such inhumane schemes which evoke dark chapters of twentieth century history that the world had hoped were left behind. The Secretariat called for immediate pressure on Israel to cease actions that undermine efforts toward a ceasefire and to stop manufacturing obstacles that prevent progress on peace negotiations.
The statement emphasized the urgent need for a lasting ceasefire and demanded that Israel stop dragging its feet and deliberately creating delays in order to evade its obligations under international agreements and humanitarian standards.
read more
Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685
NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria
Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO
Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided
News
Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks
News
Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank
News
Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region
News
One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid
News
Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters
News
China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier
Sports
Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer
Videos & Features
Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall
Lifestyle
Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt
News
"Tensions Escalate: Iran Probes Allegations of Indian Tech Collaboration with Israeli Intelligence"
News
Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks
Arts & Culture
Hawass Foundation Launches 1st Course to Teach Ancient Egyptian Language
Videos & Features
Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream
Technology
50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al-Ahram Weekly
19 minutes ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Local factions to secure Syria's Sweida after army withdrawal - Region
The Syrian government announced Thursday that local leaders would assume control over security in the city of Sweida in an attempt to end violence that has claimed hundreds of lives amid Israeli military intervention. Syrian forces had deployed to Sweida with the stated aim of overseeing a truce, following days of deadly clashes between Druze fighters and local Bedouin tribes that a war monitor said left more than 350 people dead. But witnesses said government forces had joined the Bedouin in attacking Druze fighters and civilians. Israel responded by carrying out strikes on Syrian forces, including its army headquarters in Damascus, and said it would intensify its attacks if they did not withdraw from the south. Syria said Wednesday its army was withdrawing from Sweida and the United States -- a close ally of Israel that has been trying to reboot its relationship with Syria -- said an agreement had been reached to restore calm in the area, urging "all parties to deliver on the commitments they have made". Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa said in a televised address Thursday that "responsibility" for security in Sweida would be handed to religious elders and some local factions "based on the supreme national interest". "We are keen on holding accountable those who transgressed and abused our Druze people, as they are under the protection and responsibility of the state," he said. - 'Unknown fate' - Before the government intervention, Druze areas were mainly controlled by fighters from the minority. Addressing the Druze, Sharaa said the community was "a fundamental part of the fabric of this nation... protecting your rights and freedom is one of our priorities". Syria's Islamist authorities, who toppled longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December, have had strained relations with Syria's religious and ethnic minorities, and have been accused of not doing enough to protect them. March saw massacres of more than 1,700 mostly Alawite civilians in their coastal heartland, with government affiliated groups blamed for most of the killings. Government forces also battled Druze fighters in Sweida province and near Damascus in April and May, leaving more than 100 people dead. Sharaa said "outlaw groups", whose leaders "rejected dialogue for many months" had committed "crimes against civilians" in recent days. He said the deployment of defence and interior ministry forces had "succeeded in returning stability" despite the intervention of Israel, which has bombed the country's south and the capital Damascus. Israel, which has its own Druze community, has presented itself as a defender of the Syrian minority, although some analysts say that is a pretext for pursuing its own military goal of keeping Syrian government forces as far from their shared frontier as possible. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had expressed concern on Wednesday about the Israeli bombings, adding "we want it to stop". Rubio later announced on X that all sides had "agreed on specific steps that will bring this troubling and horrifying situation to an end". "This will require all parties to deliver on the commitments they have made and this is what we fully expect them to do," he wrote, without elaborating on the nature of the agreement. Sharaa hailed US, Arab and Turkish mediation efforts for preventing the conflict from spiralling. "The Israeli entity resorted to a wide-scale targeting of civilian and government facilities", he said, adding it would have sparked "large-scale escalation, except for the effective intervention of American, Arab, and Turkish mediation, which saved the region from an unknown fate". He did not specify which Arab countries had mediated. Turkey is a key backer of Syria's new authorities, while Arab states including Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also shown support for the new government. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Al-Ahram Weekly
19 minutes ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
US sanctions UN rapporteur in ‘mafia style' - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
US sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, are unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese has become the face of resistance to Israeli-US-led efforts to undermine global justice and international law. On 9 July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed US sanctions on the 48-year-old Italian legal scholar and human rights expert. The move, unprecedented in the history of the UN, put Albanese under the global news spotlight, expanding her global profile to audiences who were previously unfamiliar with her work as solidarity campaigns ensued in response. Rubio's statement in justifying the sanctions led with the accusation that Albanese 'directly engaged' with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024 for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The sanctions include financial restrictions, travel bans, and asset freezes, targeting her ability to continue her advocacy and work. As UN special rapporteur, she will not be permitted to visit UN headquarters in New York. In a podcast interview in July, Albanese said she had woken up to the news and 'needed some time to realise what it was.' 'But then I had my cup of tea, I had my shower, I spoke with my kids and went on with my life. While, again, dozens and dozens of Palestinians were killed yesterday alone. And this is every day in Gaza. People are being starved. I'm so exhausted to see the bodies of dying kids in the hands or arms of their moms.' 'What member states should be doing is sending their navies with doctors, nurses, and real humanitarian aid, everything that is needed to overcome the tragedy… This must stop. So, this is my priority, and this is why, no, I'm not even thinking of the sanctions and impact they will have on me,' Albanese said. Observers say the US is reacting to a report issued by the UN special rapporteur earlier this month on the economy funding both Israel's genocide in Gaza and its occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The document titled 'From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide,' released in a press conference on 3 July, investigates the 'corporate machinery sustaining Israel's settler-colonial project of displacement and replacement of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.' The situation is Gaza 'apocalyptic,' Albanese said in an address to the UN Human Rights Council on the report. She urged member states to impose an arms embargo and cut off trade and financial ties with Israel, which she said 'is waging a genocidal campaign' in Gaza. The report named several US giants among 48 corporations aiding Israel's occupation and war on Gaza. The report named US companies Microsoft, Alphabet – Google's parent company – Amazon, IBM, Chevron, and among an extended list that also included powerful entities owned by other countries such as the UK, China, Mexico, and South Korea. Critics argue that the measures against Albanese and previous sanctions on the ICC are politically motivated and aimed at silencing dissenting voices against Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories. Rubio's statement accused her of 'unabashed antisemitism' and supporting terrorism, in reference to her work documenting abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. 'As a member of the UN, the US should respect my work, should engage with my work, instead of engaging in senseless, senseless attacks,' Albanese said. 'But it's clear I've touched a nerve. A nerve that resonates with Palestinians, that alerts consumers, that may ignite litigation, civil suits and other criminal proceedings against these companies.' The report argues that decades of occupation have transitioned into a systematic 'economy of genocide,' where Israel's policies of settlement expansion, resource exploitation, and the blockade of Gaza amount to collective punishment and ethnic cleansing. Albanese highlights how economic policies are used as tools of oppression and examines the role of international complicity in sustaining this system, calling for accountability through mechanisms like the ICC. The report has been described as groundbreaking in its framing of Israel's occupation as a genocidal project, moving beyond the traditional discourse of occupation and human rights violations. By introducing the concept of an 'economy of genocide,' Albanese shifts the focus to structural and systemic policies that aim to erase the Palestinian presence and identity. Its other remarkable achievement, observers say, is that it reinforces the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement by providing evidence, in an extensive document produced for the first time under the UN's banner and available on its websites, of how Israel's economic policies are tied to human rights abuses. The report gives BDS advocates concrete data to argue for targeted economic measures against Israel. Israel's economic policies in the Occupied Territories are viewed as tools of domination. They include restrictions on Palestinian industries, high tariffs on imports, and control over natural resources like water and land. The report emphasises how these policies have impoverished Palestinians while benefitting Israeli companies and settlers. It details the destruction of Palestinian agricultural land, homes, and infrastructure as part of a broader strategy to undermine Palestinian livelihoods. By limiting economic opportunities and access to resources, Israel has created a dependency on aid and perpetuated a cycle of poverty. Albanese said the report is the outcome of an investigation that started eight months ago. It led her to collect information from various sources, including submissions by investigative journalists, forensic experts, economists and lawyers, about 1,000 entities operating in the Occupied Territories. They include a broad range of entities from arms manufacturers and tech companies to construction machinery manufacturers. 'By looking at this puzzle and organising the elements, Israel has maintained what scholars have already called an economy of the occupation. Each sector is advancing the displacement and replacement of the Palestinians,' Albanese said in an interview with US journalist Glenn Greenwald earlier this week. For Israel to seize land and to empty it of Palestinians, it uses weapons, bulldozers and other machines. It uses surveillance technology to segregate the Palestinians and make sure their life will grow increasingly constrained to benefit the expansion of Israeli colonies. This, Albanese explained, would be the realisation of the second pillar of the Israeli economy – 'the replacement of the Palestinians through the construction of colonies on their land with water, an electricity grid, rails, and roads. And then the installation of companies to produce and sell goods such as dates, wines, and beauty products from the Dead Sea. Israel's economy is inseparable from that of the occupation.' While the Israeli economy has been nosediving over the last 21 months, the Israeli Stock Exchange has kept on rising, amassing $220 billion, Albanese said. 'An increase of 170 plus per cent. How is that possible? Because there are companies that have been profiteering from the escalation of genocidal violence in Gaza such as tech companies and arms manufacturers.' Albanese was appointed as UN special rapporteur in April 2022, becoming the first woman to take up the prestigious role. Her appointment was supported by a coalition of states and civil society organisations that recognised her expertise in international law. She was reappointed for a second time on 4 April at the UN Human Rights Council 58th Session in Geneva, extending her mandate through April 2028. The special rapporteur mandate was established in 1993 by the UN Commission on Human Rights, which appointed former Swiss President Rene Felber to hold the post. Special rapporteurs are independent human rights experts with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. They are unpaid and their tenure is limited to a maximum of six years. The US has a history of targeting international legal and human rights bodies that it perceives as threatening to its allies or its sovereignty. In February this year, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on the ICC. The move echoed decades of American hostility towards the court, which exists to prosecute individuals for war crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. The US considers the court to be a threat to its national sovereignty and rejects its jurisdiction over US personnel and allies. During the 2017-2021 Trump administration, sanctions were imposed on the ICC and its officials, including then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, for investigating alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Israeli forces in Palestine. Similarly, the US has been critical of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its rulings accepting South Africa's case against Israel for violating the Genocide Convention in 2024 and other decisions instructing Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories, compensate the Palestinians, and allow their right of return. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN for settling disputes between states. Last year, the ICJ found Israel guilty of apartheid against the Palestinians. The US has also targeted former UN special rapporteurs on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as Richard Falk and Michael Lynk, accusing them of anti-Israel bias. Albanese is an international lawyer and human rights expert specialising in refugee law and the rights of Palestinians under occupation. She holds degrees in law from the University of Rome and international law from Georgetown University in the US. Before her appointment as special rapporteur, Albanese built a distinguished career in international law and human rights. She worked as a legal officer for the UN refugee agency UNRWA, where she focused on the plight of Palestinian refugees. She also co-authored the book Palestinian Refugees in International Law, considered a seminal work on the subject. The US sanctions on Albanese were met with broad condemnation across the UN system, human rights organisations, and international legal bodies as a direct affront to the rule of law and the independence of international justice. UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric described the sanctions as unacceptable and 'a dangerous precedent.' Amnesty International's Secretary General Agnes Callamard slammed the US measures as 'shameless' and 'vindictive.' Albanese said the 1946 Convention on Private Privileges and Immunities of the UN prohibits the US from imposing sanctions on her. 'It would make total sense for me to start advocating for member states [to] take the United States before the ICJ because enough with this mafia style, intimidation techniques. This is unsustainable, not just for me, but for the system. We need to protect the multilateral arena.' * A version of this article appears in print in the 17 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Al-Ahram Weekly
19 minutes ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Fluid borders - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
When American officials invoke the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement — whether it is contextually justified or not — they are doing two things. First, they are recalling a traumatic historical episode marked by the arbitrary partitioning of the region's lands and peoples to serve the imperial designs of early 20th-century France and Britain. Secondly, they are issuing a veiled warning, framed as historical reflection. No state in the region has called for dismantling the Sykes-Picot framework. Yet when US officials speak of the 'injustice' it inflicted, their rhetoric hints at disruption. Then as now, a familiar pattern emerges: a dominant power seeks to reshape the region according to its own strategic and ideological aims. Though increasingly criticised by US diplomats, the Sykes-Picot order shaped the modern Middle East — a region still burdened by structural crises. But undoing this legacy, however flawed, risks exacerbating instability rather than resolving it. Since May 2025, Tom Barrack, the billionaire real estate developer and longtime ally of Donald Trump, has served concurrently as US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Lebanon. In this dual role, Barrack has repeatedly invoked the legacy of Sykes-Picot as the deepest root of the region's upheavals. He made his first explicit reference to this on May 25, shortly after his appointment, in a post on X: 'A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain—not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again.' He added: 'The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions.' In a June 2025 interview with Turkish media outlet NTV, Barrack again referenced the historical roots of regional instability, commenting on the stalled negotiations between Syria's interim government and Kurdish representatives over integration into state institutions: 'I think all these borders go back to Sykes-Picot, to the Sèvres Agreement, to all the failed lines. It's time to redraw and reach a new agreement.' On July 11, in an interview with The National, the official media outlet of the Abu Dhabi government, Barrack returned to the same theme — this time more implicitly. He invoked the term Bilad Al-Sham, a historical designation for Greater Syria prior to the 20th-century colonial partitions, warning that Lebanon could lose its autonomy if it failed to act decisively regarding Hizbullah's military arsenal: 'If Lebanon doesn't move, it's going to be Bilad Al-Sham again… Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort,' Barrack said. He stressed that Lebanon faces an 'existential threat' if it does not disarm Hizbullah and reassert state sovereignty. Bilad Al-Sham historically refers to a vast area in the Arab Levant encompassing modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan — territory that was fractured by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Barrack's remarks provoked a sharp backlash across Lebanon's political spectrum. Many factions denounced his comments as an unacceptable intrusion into Lebanon's internal affairs and a direct challenge to its sovereignty. Ibrahim Al-Moussawi, a Hizbullah MP and member of Lebanon's Foreign Affairs Committee, called Barrack's remarks 'deeply troubling,' framing them as evidence of a broader US geopolitical agenda. In response to the growing controversy, Barrack attempted to clarify his comments in a follow-up post on X, claiming his remarks were meant to praise Syrian reforms, not threaten Lebanon. He reiterated Washington's commitment to fostering balanced and respectful ties between Beirut and Damascus. Notably, Barrack was not alone in challenging the permanence of the Sykes-Picot borders. On 3 July, Israeli outlet i24 News cited a source close to Syrian interim President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, who spoke in a startling manner about security and political arrangements between Israel and Syria that embrace a land swap including even Lebanon, within the framework of a vision that can be summarised as 'fluid borders,' where borders can be modified and lands exchanged in order to achieve 'peace,' 'stability,' and 'cooperation.' 'There is no such thing as peace for free,' the Syrian source told i24, outlining two main scenarios reportedly under discussion. In the first, Israel would retain a third of the Golan Heights, return another third to Syria, and lease the remaining third for 25 years. The second scenario would see Israel keeping two-thirds of the Golan while handing back the final third, potentially under a lease agreement as well. Intriguingly, this plan might also involve transferring the Lebanese city of Tripoli, along with areas in the north and the Beqaa Valley, to Syria. According to the source, Syria views Tripoli as a lost part of Greater Syria, one of five regions detached during the French Mandate to form modern Lebanon. The ambitions don't stop at redrawn borders. The vision includes a sweeping regional agreement involving Israel, Syria and Turkey, centred on water sharing, possibly even a pipeline connecting the Euphrates to Israel. And, in a similar way to the wave of anger Barrack's statements about Bilad Al-Sham prompted in Lebanon, these statements sparked outrage, but Damascus distanced itself from them. It's difficult to determine the seriousness of these proposals. Many consider them 'trial balloons.' An Arab diplomat based in London told Al-Ahram Weekly that Barrack's persistent references to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Bilad Al-Sham are causing increasing alarm in the region. 'The frequency and consistency of these remarks,' the diplomat noted, 'are far from coincidental; they appear as calculated signals. The US, Israel, several Gulf states, and political factions in Lebanon appear to be exerting intense pressure for the swift disarmament of Hizbullah. They have elevated this objective above all else,' he added, 'even concerns about rekindling internal strife or provoking another civil war in Lebanon. 'Why this urgency? Maybe because negotiations between Israel and Syria's transitional government have reportedly reached advanced stages. Washington seeks to normalise relations with both Syria and Lebanon in tandem. Hizbullah's political and military influence renders that impossible. Hence, the push to neutralise it,' he argues. The paradox lies in the fact that while the US claims to oppose colonial-style interventions like the Sykes-Picot Agreement, its support for Israeli territorial ambitions in Palestine, Southern Lebanon, and parts of southwestern and southern Syria undermines this stance. Critics argue that the US message — promoting non-interference and respect for self-determination — is contradicted by its actions. Moreover, many interpret Barrack's criticism of the Sykes-Picot Agreement as part of a broader realignment in US Middle East policy. Rather than rejecting the logic of the 1916 agreement outright, Washington may instead be seeking to replace it with a framework more closely aligned with its contemporary strategic goals—and those of Israel. In this context, Barrack's remarks on Sykes-Picot, Bilad Al-Sham, and the 'New Syria' as a regional model may point to a deeper ambition: the gradual unravelling of the century-old state system in the Middle East. Undoing Sykes-Picot, when deemed necessary, would involve more than just redrawing borders; it would signify the dismantling of the centralised, nationalist state structures that have shaped the region for generations. It is precisely this state-based order that remains the final obstacle to realising the vision of Greater Israel. Furthermore, the concept of 'fluid borders' in the Middle East — promoted subtly through US and Israeli strategic thinking — has become an increasingly evident tool for territorial manipulation under the guise of security. Rather than respecting the internationally recognised borders drawn during the Sykes-Picot era, which, though colonial in origin, still serve as a framework for sovereignty, the new strategy exploits Israel's security anxieties to justify de facto annexations and military buffer zones. This shift towards 'security geography' enables Israel, with US backing, to establish temporary or permanent military control beyond its recognised borders, particularly in areas like Gaza, where the ongoing genocidal war on the Palestinians has resulted not just in military incursions but in the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the depopulation of large parts of northern Gaza. These actions raise credible concerns about long-term demographic engineering and the creation of a strategic 'security belt' similar to the one previously attempted in Southern Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. In Syria, Israel has increased its military footprint in the Quneitra Governorate near the Golan Heights — an area long coveted for its strategic depth and water access. Since early 2025, Israeli strikes and covert operations have extended deep into Syrian territory, capturing Mount Hermon and parts of Daraa, reinforcing the notion of a shifting border under military logic. In doing so, Israel has positioned itself as a permanent security actor in southern Syria, creating facts on the ground that undermine Syrian sovereignty and suggest the transformation of temporary military actions into long-term territorial control — an echo of the occupation of the Golan Heights, which was similarly justified as a security necessity before its de facto annexation. Meanwhile, the Israeli military's increasing activity along the Lebanese border, especially in Southern Lebanon around Marjayoun and Bint Jbeil, reflects a renewed interest in buffer zones reminiscent of the pre-2000 occupation. Following heightened clashes with Hizbullah since late 2023, Israeli shelling and displacement of border villages have prompted fears that Israel is once again attempting to push the frontier northwards. In this context, the rhetoric of 'defensive measures' cloaks a strategy that erodes state borders to secure territorial depth against asymmetric threats. This undermines Lebanon's sovereignty and supports the broader theory that the principle of 'fluid borders' is being implemented as part of a US-Israeli effort to reorder the region. Thus, by challenging the validity of the Sykes-Picot framework, the United States is not promoting justice or local autonomy, but rather redrawing lines of influence to serve hegemonic and expansionist interests. * A version of this article appears in print in the 17 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
