Israel steps up nighttime bombardment of Gaza
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still in Washington on a nearly week-long visit, and with ceasefire talks possibly arriving at a breakthrough, Israel has stepped up its nighttime bombings, leaving almost 100 Palestinians dead every day in the strip.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
33 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
'Concentration camp': Israel's planned new city in Rafah, explained
Israel Katz is calling it a 'humanitarian city', from which Palestinians will be encouraged to 'voluntarily emigrate' out of Gaza. But analysts believe the Israeli defence minister, who unveiled plans this week to confine over two million Palestinians into a small area in southern Gaza, is using distorted language. Experts in genocide and international law say the 'humanitarian city' is more akin to a concentration camp. And any talk of 'voluntary emigration', they told Middle East Eye, should actually be read as forcible displacement. The proposals are not fringe discussions. They were revealed by Katz, and appear to have the backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Here, we break down what we know about the plan, how it relates to months-long US and Israeli rhetoric of ejecting Palestinians from Gaza, and what the international legal implications are. What do we know about the 'humanitarian city' plan? New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Katz said the plan would initially involve the ejection of 600,000 displaced Palestinians currently living in camps and makeshift homes in the al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza to an area in the ruins of Rafah city. Once they arrive in this new zone, security screenings would take place. They won't be allowed to leave once they've entered, Katz said. Eventually, the entire civilian population of over two million in Gaza would be confined to this small 'city'. Four aid distribution centres are to be established within the area. The defence minister initially said that Israeli forces would secure the perimeter of the site, but would not run it. He said Israel was seeking international partners to manage the city. However, an Israeli official told Haaretz that Israel may run the area 'for the time being'. The official said that Netanyahu thinks that if Israel doesn't manage the zone in the short term, 'no one will volunteer on their own accord to take control over the humanitarian matter, and Hamas will simply continue to rule'. Netanyahu 'backs Gaza concentration camp' plan, reportedly says 'feed them Ben & Jerry's' Read More » The source added that the prime minister believed that countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE would then be incentivised to take over Israeli control of the area, 'without being considered collaborators with Israel'. There is no evidence that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or any other country in the region has expressed a desire to be involved in the plans. Katz said that once concentrated in the new city, Palestinians would be encouraged to 'voluntarily' leave the Gaza Strip for other countries, as part of an 'emigration plan' he said 'will happen'. He added that Netanyahu was leading efforts to find countries to take in Palestinians from Gaza. There is not yet a clear indication as to when construction for such a new city would begin, or if it could go ahead without international backing. Katz envisaged that if conditions permitted, the city would be built during a two-month pause in hostilities. Such a ceasefire is being negotiated between Israel and Hamas, via intermediaries, but is far from being agreed. What does international law say? The planned city will violate multiple provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL), according to Eitan Diamond, a Jerusalem-based senior legal expert at the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre. He said that in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, populations in occupied territories 'shall at all times be humanely treated', and may only exceptionally be placed under assigned residence or internment when there are 'imperative reasons of security'. 'A blanket decision to enclose hundreds of thousands of people in a concentration camp or zone clearly falls well outside the lawful exception and would entail an unlawful deprivation of liberty in breach of IHL and of human rights law,' Diamond told Middle East Eye. The Fourth Geneva Convention also states that mass transfers of people from an occupied territory are prohibited. 'Third countries that willingly take part in the crime would be complicit in the violation of the law' - Neve Gordon, Israeli expert on international law 'Compelling residents of the occupied territory to move from their homes to another part of the occupied territory would constitute a prohibited act of forcible transfer,' said Diamond. In relation to Katz's 'emigration plan', Diamond added that compelling the population to leave the occupied territory altogether to move to another country 'would constitute an act of deportation'. 'Both are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, implicating those responsible in the commission of a war crime.' He added that when such acts are committed as part of a systematic attack against a civilian population, which appears to be the case in Gaza, it implicates those responsible in the crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer. IHL permits warring parties to temporarily transfer civilian populations for humanitarian reasons, however they must be allowed to return to their homes. 'These are often called 'safe zones', 'safe areas', 'buffer zones', and 'safe humanitarian zones',' Neve Gordon, an Israeli professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University of London, told MEE. 'What Katz is proposing is a 'humanitarian concentration camp', which is a very different story.' Diamond said that a warring party cannot move a population to avoid risks being caused by that same warring party. As such, he said, Israel's plan to displace hundreds of thousands of people into a very tight area could not be characterised as a lawful evacuation. 'On the contrary, such actions would almost certainly amount to an act of ethnic cleansing.' Is the emigration plan really 'voluntary'? The short answer is no. Katz's 'emigration plan' is a manifestation of US President Donald Trump's proposal to ethnically cleanse the enclave. Trump said in February that Washington would 'take over' the Gaza Strip and eject the Palestinian population to other countries. In the meantime, the enclave would be turned into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'. Katz has been a cheerleader for these plans for months. In March, he announced a new government agency set up to oversee "voluntary departures" in compliance with Trump's proposal. 'Concentrating the civilian population in the way Israel proposes is clearly an act of genocide' - Martin Shaw, sociologist 'The phrase 'voluntary emigration' has long been used in Zionist ideology as a euphemism for expelling the Palestinian people from their homeland, including by creating coercive conditions that compel the natives to leave,' Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian academic in public law at Soas University in London, told MEE. Sultany noted that Katz had long threatened Palestinians with another Nakba, having made such remarks in 2022 before the ongoing war. The Nakba, or "catastrophe", refers to the forced displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homes in 1948. 'There is nothing voluntary about any emigration scheme that Israel devises in these circumstances,' Martin Shaw, a prominent sociologist and author of several books on the subject of genocide, told MEE. 'The people of Gaza have been bombed out of their homes, lost their loved ones, starved and shot at when they try to get food. 'Israel will be using all this cruelty to force people to leave, and to remove their right to return as they have from previous generations of Palestinians.' Tony Blair Institute linked to Gaza plan condemned as ethnic cleansing: Report Read More » Diamond said that it is well established under IHL that forcible displacements can be brought about by a coercive environment. 'When a party creates conditions that compel people to move to avert conditions that threaten their lives or wellbeing, their decision to move is not a genuine choice,' he said. 'This is no more voluntary than the decision of a person who hands over their wallet to a gun robber saying 'your money or your life.'' So far, Israel has failed to find any countries willing to take displaced Palestinians from Gaza. 'Given that Israel's actions and future plans are blatantly illegal and constitute war crimes, third countries that willingly take part in the crime would be complicit in the violation of the law,' said Gordon. The UN said on Wednesday that it stood firmly against any such plans to forcibly displace those in Gaza. How is the 'city' being described by experts? Many legal experts, including one of Britain's most distinguished human rights lawyers, have said the plans are synonymous with concentration camps. Sultany noted that the plans involve a starving population being 'concentrated' into a tiny site and being prevented from leaving. Baroness Helena Kennedy labels Israel's Gaza campaign a genocide Read More » 'In other words, the civilian population has no choice, and they will be placed in a prison or a ghetto that Israel controls,' he stated. 'This is the definition of a concentration camp.' He said that Israel had already concentrated Palestinians in less than 20 percent of Gaza, and imposed conditions on them 'that bring about their physical destruction'. 'The evidence that Israel has been committing a genocide is overwhelming,' Sultany said. Shaw, author of War and Genocide, What is Genocide and Genocide and International Relations, agreed. 'Concentrating the civilian population in the way Israel proposes is clearly an act of genocide,' he said. He added that Katz's proposal was designed to 'consolidate the results' of Israeli killings over the past 21 months by heading towards 'removing the survivors so as to complete the destruction of Palestinian society in Gaza". 'The destruction of a society is, of course, the very meaning of genocide.'
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
The Jewish diaspora must confront what Israel is doing in our name
Israel's minister of diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, is worried about the Jews in Britain. In the aftermath of the hyperbolic media and political reaction to pro-Palestine chants at the Glastonbury music festival, Chikli posted on X that the Jewish community must "leave the country". His reasons? The supposedly ubiquitous antisemitism across Britain, from the BBC to music fans, was threatening the "blood of Jews and Israelis living in Britain". He added: "I am deeply disturbed by what is happening in Britain. In a place where antisemitism flourishes, society sinks into dark and dangerous a conservative revolution, this country is lost." Chikli has spent years building close alliances with some of Europe's far-right parties, many of whom maintain ties with actual neo-Nazis, because he sees them as useful allies in his dream of building a global ethno-nationalist movement led by the master of the model, Israel. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters This is Israel in 2025 - pursuing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, implementing a grotesque system where Palestinians seeking aid are gunned down, and smearing any criticism as akin to Nazism. Messianic vision Israel's messianic extremism is too rarely interrogated in the West, but it is a frightening phenomenon that threatens the lives of Palestinians, less dogmatic Jews and the entire Middle East. Judaism is not Zionism, and those who argue they are one and the same are being fundamentally dishonest An influential segment of the Israeli Jewish population views Iran's Islamic Republic or the Taliban's Afghanistan as ideal models to follow - fundamentalist, theocratic states that accept nobody who does not conform to their vision - Jew, Christian, Muslim or atheist. As a Jewish journalist who has been writing about Israel and Palestine for over 20 years, I sometimes hesitate to centre uncomfortable Jewish feelings in the face of horrors in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond. While it is vital to focus principally on Palestinian lives, suffering and resistance, it is impossible to ignore the moral, political and practical culpability of the organised Jewish community in the UK, US and much of the western world. None of this would be happening if more Jews had refused to partake in anguished silence or acquiescence over endless occupation and deprivation in Palestine; refused to lobby their governments for yet more money and arms for Israel; and resisted pressuring media outlets to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli actions. Collective silence "Why should any Jew feel obligated to perform emotional penance for the actions of the Israeli government?" one Australian Jewish writer recently asked. It is a fair question - until you recognise the inherent dishonesty in its premise. When every major (and mostly self-appointed) representative Jewish organisation in Australia, the UK, US and Europe uncritically endorses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war aims in Gaza, backs Israel's illegal military strikes against Iran, and says nothing about daily settler-led pogroms in the West Bank, it is reasonable to ask: what kind of Judaism is being supported, and in whose name? Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Judaism is not Zionism, and those who argue they are one and the same are being fundamentally dishonest. Yet collectively, Jews are often held responsible when the world's only Jewish state claims to act in our name. Jewish critics are shunned and blacklisted from Jewish organisations for any deviation from the party line of "Israel, right or wrong". This leaves no room for disagreement or robust debate. War on Gaza: After Palestinians, Zionism's next victim is the Jewish faith Read More » Unsurprisingly, many citizens in democracies cannot tell the difference between Israel and Judaism - the latter's "official" spokespeople insist there isn't one. Many of these Zionist organisations have long been right-wing, but the 21st century has seen a rapid shift towards a more authoritarian stance on Israel, Palestinians, Islam and immigration. It is why a growing number of American Jews voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election (even though a majority still supported former Vice President Kamala Harris). The American Jewish writer Peter Beinart argues in his new book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, that conflating Zionism and Judaism certainly does not make Jews any safer, nor does a "Free Palestine" sign inherently endanger Jews. "But if conflating Israel and Zionism is a terrible way to defend Jews," he writes, "it's an effective way to discredit Palestinians because it turns Palestinian opposition to Zionism from a natural response to oppression into a form of bigotry." For many Jews in the diaspora - and I was instructed to follow these dictates when growing up in Melbourne, Australia in the 1970s and 1980s - Israel was framed as a beacon of freedom, a place of refuge in the event of pogroms or genocide. But what if the victims of the Nazi genocide are now perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinians? Zionist conflation The global Jewish population is around 16 million, with nearly half living in just two places: Israel and the US. A live and necessary battle is now under way for the soul of this community. What does it mean to be Jewish in the 21st century? As a secular, atheist Jew myself, I would argue it means reckoning with the catastrophic actions of the Jewish state, supported by much of the diaspora. We must build something more humane and robust - a vision that upholds the concept of a multiracial world. We as Jews urgently need to challenge the Jewish mainstream's embrace of Jewish supremacy in Israel and its increasing lip-service to multiculturalism at home - in London, New York or Sydney. These are inherently contradictory ideologies, and yet Jews are rarely held to account for them. How is it acceptable to romanticise West Bank settlers, whose vision is exclusionary and violent, while embracing the diverse cultures, foods and religions in your own backyard? To be clear, Jews outside of Israel are not all personally responsible for the actions of the Israeli state - no more than Muslims were responsible for the crimes of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or Catholics for the sins of paedophile priests. But many Jews have allowed themselves to be represented by the most militarised - and frankly racist - elements within their communities, under the delusion that this is what will keep us safe in the century after the Holocaust. Moral reckoning At a time when real antisemitism is rising in many parts of the world, the pro-Israel lobby and the loudest Zionist voices are singularly ill-equipped to respond. The hardline thinking was perhaps best articulated by former Netanyahu spokesperson Eylon Levy, who posted on X in 2024 after Israel had assassinated an "enemy" leader: "Not your grandparents' Jews anymore" - an apparent reference to decades of defenceless Jews killed without revenge or punishment. In this worldview, Israel is the protector of Jews - and without its "live by the sword, die by the sword" approach, we would all be quivering Jews on the cattle train to Auschwitz. The Jewish community is undergoing a long-overdue moral reckoning with its identity, role and responsibility Only the most blinkered would look at the Middle East today and conclude that Israel is more secure for Jews than it was before 7 October 2023. It is not. It remains more unsafe to be Jewish in Israel than in almost any other part of the globe. The Jewish community is undergoing a long-overdue moral reckoning with its identity, role and responsibility. Only some are meeting the moment. As Phil Weiss, Jewish founder of the US news website Mondoweiss, recently wrote: "This is a vulnerable time for American Jews, as [New York mayoral candidate] Zohran Mamdani says. Overwhelmingly, our community is identified with a brutal aggressor." This is our challenge in the 21st century. And it is also a choice. Do we continue to associate with a fascistic Israel, or build inclusive communities in the diaspora? For me, the decision is clear. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
US sanctions UN expert critical of Israel's war in Gaza
The United States said on Wednesday it was imposing sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, who has been very critical of US ally Israel's war in Gaza. "Today I am imposing sanctions on UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt (International Criminal Court) action against US and Israeli officials, companies, and executives," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. In a post on X late on Wednesday, Albanese wrote that she stood "firmly and convincingly on the side of justice, as I have always done," without directly mentioning the US sanctions. In a text message to Al Jazeera, she was quoted as dismissing the US move as "mafia style intimidation techniques." Albanese, an Italian lawyer and academic, has called on states at the UN Human Rights Council to impose an arms embargo and cut off trade and financial ties with Israel while accusing the US ally of waging a "genocidal campaign" in Gaza. Israel has faced accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the ICC over its devastating military assault on Gaza. Israel denies the accusations and says its campaign amounts to self-defense after a deadly October 2023 Hamas attack. In a report published earlier this month, Albanese accused over 60 companies, including major arms manufacturers and technology firms, of involvement in supporting Israeli settlements and military actions in Gaza. The report called on companies to cease dealings with Israel and for legal accountability for executives implicated in alleged violations of international law. Albanese is one of dozens of independent human rights experts mandated by the United Nations to report on specific themes and crises. The views expressed by special rapporteurs do not reflect those of the global body as a whole. Rights experts slammed the US sanctions against Albanese. Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy think tank, labeled them as "rogue state behavior" while Amnesty International said special rapporteurs must be supported and not sanctioned. "Governments around the world and all actors who believe in the rule-based order and international law must do everything in their power to mitigate and block the effect of the sanctions against Francesca Albanese and more generally to protect the work and independence of Special Rapporteurs," Amnesty International's Secretary General Agnes Callamard, a former UN special rapporteur, said. Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has stopped US engagement with the UN Human Rights Council, extended a halt to funding for the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA and ordered a review of the UN cultural agency UNESCO. He has also announced US plans to quit the Paris climate deal and the World Health Organisation. His administration imposed sanctions on four judges at the ICC in June in retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan. Reuters
