Controversial proposal aims to confine Palestinians in Rafah under international control, drawing fierce criticism at home and abroad
Despite mounting condemnation from legal experts, military leaders, and international officials, Israel is advancing a controversial plan to establish what critics have labelled a “concentration camp” for Palestinians in southern Gaza.
Originally proposed by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz, the plan envisions the creation of a so-called “humanitarian city” on the ruins of Rafah, designed to initially house 600,000 displaced Palestinians, with the aim of eventually accommodating Gaza’s entire pre-war population of approximately 2.2 million people.
Under the plan, the area would be governed by international forces and would exclude Hamas. Crucially, Palestinians confined within this enclave would not be permitted to relocate elsewhere in Gaza. Instead, they would be encouraged to “voluntarily emigrate” to unspecified countries abroad — a proposition widely condemned as both unethical and illegal.
Criticism has been swift and widespread. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the plan as a “concentration camp,” while senior Israeli lawyers have declared it unlawful. Even within the military, skepticism is growing. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir reportedly dismissed the proposal as “unworkable,” likening it to “cheese with more holes than substance.”
Internationally, the backlash is escalating. A British minister voiced being “appalled,” while Austria and Germany’s foreign ministers expressed “deep concern.” The United Nations firmly rejected the idea, reinforcing the global community’s opposition.
Yet, the Israeli government appears undeterred. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have asked for a version of the plan that is faster and cheaper than the one presented by the Israeli army. Meanwhile, leaks from within the cabinet reveal ongoing debates as the government pushes ahead.
The proposal, if implemented, would mark a profound shift in Israel’s policy in Gaza and set a dangerous precedent, say critics — potentially transforming a humanitarian disaster into a long-term crisis of displacement and human rights violations.