Connect with us

Middle East

Israel details plan for ‘humanitarian zone’ in Rafah, called a ‘concentration camp’ by critics

Published

on

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced that a plan is being developed to relocate the entire civilian population of the Gaza Strip to a closed “humanitarian zone” to be built on the ruins of Rafah. However, experts describe this plan as a “concentration camp” for all Palestinians in Gaza.

Katz stated that he has instructed the Israeli army to prepare a plan for establishing a “humanitarian zone” on the ruins of Rafah, adding that the ultimate goal of this artificial settlement is to house the entire population of the Gaza Strip.

According to Katz, approximately 600,000 Palestinians, primarily from the Al-Mawasi area, will be transferred to this zone in the first phase after security screenings. The defense minister also explicitly stated that the relocated civilians will not be permitted to leave the area.

Under the plan, security for the zone will be provided by the Israeli army, but military forces will not govern the area or distribute humanitarian aid. Katz noted that they are seeking international partners to manage the zone. The plan is being coordinated by Amir Baram, the Director-General of the Ministry of Defense and former Deputy Chief of the General Staff.

Message of an ‘impending migration plan’

In a briefing with journalists, Defense Minister Katz outlined Israel’s strategy to weaken Hamas, listing key objectives such as targeting the organization’s leadership, seizing territorial control, demilitarizing Gaza, and what he described as a “migration plan that will be implemented.”

Katz stated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the process of identifying countries willing to accept Gazans.

However, according to an official who spoke to Haaretz, the Israeli government does not consider the population transfer plan to be realistic, and no preparations are currently underway to facilitate a mass migration from Gaza. Israel has reportedly offered to send Palestinian refugees to several countries, but none have accepted.

A crime against humanity

Michael Sfard, one of Israel’s leading human rights lawyers, said Katz’s plan violates international law.

“He (Katz) has laid out an operational plan for a crime against humanity. It is nothing less than that,” Sfard said. “This is nothing short of preparing for the transfer of the population to the southern tip of the Gaza Strip and their expulsion from the Strip,” he added.

Speaking to The Guardian, Sfard explained, “To expel someone from their homeland is a war crime in the context of war. If it is done on a mass scale, as he plans, it becomes a crime against humanity.”

Professor Amos Goldberg, a Holocaust historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, also stated that the defense minister has put forth clear plans for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the establishment of “a concentration camp or transit camp before deporting the Palestinians.”

Professor Goldberg noted that Katz’s plan raises the question of what will happen to Palestinians who refuse to comply with Israel’s order to move to the new settlement. “What will happen if the Palestinians, not being completely helpless, do not accept this solution and revolt?” he added.

Contradiction with the General Staff’s statement

On the morning of the same day, the Israeli General Staff informed the High Court that the army was not carrying out forced population evacuations within or outside of Gaza. A statement from the office of Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir claimed that objectives such as “displacing the population or concentrating them in specific areas” were not part of their operational plans.

However, this statement contradicts the “Gideon’s Chariots” operational order given to the army in May. According to this document, previously revealed by the Haaretz newspaper, one of the operation’s goals was explicitly stated as “managing and displacing the civilian population.” The Israeli army confirmed the details in the report but did not issue an official statement.

Meanwhile, speaking at the White House on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the US and Israel are working with other countries that will offer Palestinians a “better future.”

As he prepared for dinner with Trump, Netanyahu said, “If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.”

Concentration camps under GHF’s purview

Separately, Reuters reported that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US and Israeli-backed aid organization, has proposed the construction of camps described as “Temporary Humanitarian Settlement Areas,” which could be established both inside and outside of Gaza.

The relationship between this proposal and the plan announced by Katz is unclear, but Israel is known to be involved in the establishment and activities of the GHF.

The plan, uncovered by Reuters, aims to “end Hamas’s control over the population” by placing the people of Gaza in these areas.

This nearly $2 billion plan was presented to the Trump administration and was recently discussed at the White House. The presentation document, which is undated but contains photos from February 11, states that the GHF is trying to secure over $2 billion to build large-scale “Temporary Humanitarian Settlement Areas” inside and outside Gaza.

The plan reportedly began at the end of May with the GHF opening food distribution points in Gaza, with these camps being the second phase.

According to the document reviewed by Reuters, the camps are described as “voluntary areas” where the people of Gaza can “be temporarily housed, de-radicalized, reintegrated into society, and prepared for resettlement if they wish.”

The presentation file obtained by Reuters delves into technical details, including how these camps would be built and their costs. According to a timeline in the presentation, a camp project would become operational within 90 days of its launch and would house 2,160 people, along with a laundry, showers, toilets, and a school.

A source involved in the project said this presentation is part of a planning process that began last year and envisions the construction of eight camps, each capable of housing hundreds of thousands of people.

However, the plan does not provide clear information on how or by what means Palestinians would be moved to these camps. It is also unclear where the camps might be established outside of Gaza. On a map, arrows pointing to Egypt and Cyprus, along with the phrase “other possible destinations,” are noteworthy.

The document states that these large-scale facilities will be used to “build a relationship of trust with the local population” and to “realize President Donald Trump’s vision for Gaza.”

The GHF has denied submitting such a proposal, stating that the slides in the document are not theirs and that they were only “exploring theoretical options for safely delivering aid to Gaza.”

However, the cover of the presentation features the GHF’s name, and some slides mention SRS (Safe Reach Solutions), a company founded by former CIA agent Philip Reilly that provides logistics and security services for the GHF.

A source working on the project indicated that the plan has not progressed due to a lack of funding. Reuters previously reported that the GHF wanted to open a bank account in Switzerland to collect donations, but banks such as UBS and Goldman Sachs refused to work with the GHF.

On February 4, Trump publicly announced for the first time that they “want to take over Gaza and turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East,” which would require the relocation of 2.3 million Palestinians.

Tony Blair’s team also involved

Meanwhile, the Financial Times recently reported that the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), the think tank of former British Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair, is pursuing a project led by Israeli businesspeople that includes a manufacturing zone named after Elon Musk.

It was revealed that this project is the same plan that the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) worked on and presented to Trump, which envisions de-Palestinizing Gaza and redeveloping it as the “Middle East Riviera.” The TBI is reportedly partnering with BCG on this project. Both TBI and BCG have denied the allegations.

A spokesperson for Tony Blair said the former prime minister has not spoken with the planners and has not commented on the plans.

“The TBI team is in discussion with many different groups and organizations with ‘post-war plans’ for Gaza, but it has no involvement in the writing of this plan,” the spokesperson said.

A BCG spokesperson denied the claims, stating: “We completely deny this work. BCG has not received any payment for this work.”

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey