Title: “Temporary Shelter or Permanent Displacement? The Proposed Israeli Camp for Palestinians in Southern Gaza and the Politics of Humanitarian Containment”
Abstract
This paper examines the reported Israeli plans to construct a large-scale camp for Palestinians in Rafah, southern Gaza, as disclosed by retired Brigadier-General Amir Avivi in January 2026. Drawing on official statements, geopolitical context, humanitarian concerns, and historical precedents, the study analyzes the proposed camp not merely as a logistical response to displacement but as a strategic instrument embedded in broader narratives of population control, territorial reconfiguration, and the erosion of Palestinian sovereignty. The integration of surveillance technologies such as facial recognition at the camp’s entry points underscores its potential function as a mechanism of digital governance and exclusion. The paper argues that while the Israeli government frames the initiative as voluntary and humanitarian, it aligns with long-standing settler-colonial logics and raises serious legal and ethical concerns under international humanitarian law. The discourse of “choice” masks structural coercion amid a devastated Gaza Strip, where mass displacement has already occurred due to over 15 months of conflict. This analysis situates the proposed camp within the larger framework of forced displacement, the politics of return, and the implications for regional stability and human rights.
- Introduction
On January 27, 2026, retired Israeli Brigadier-General Amir Avivi revealed plans for a large-scale camp in Rafah, southern Gaza, designed to house Palestinians who may wish to leave the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. According to Avivi, the camp would accommodate hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians and be equipped with advanced surveillance systems—including facial recognition technology—administered by Israeli personnel to monitor entry and exit. Though Avivi emphasized that participation would be voluntary, the announcement has reignited debates over Israel’s intentions regarding the demographic future of Gaza.
This paper critically assesses the implications of the proposed camp within the context of the ongoing Gaza war (2023–2026), Israeli security doctrine, and international law. Situated in the historically sensitive and politically contested area of Rafah—a city already decimated by months of military operations—the plan has been denounced by Palestinian officials as a guise for forced displacement. Given Israel’s refusal to confirm or deny the plans officially, the analysis relies on strategic discourse, historical patterns of population management, and the evolving conditions on the ground in Gaza.
The central argument of this paper is that the Rafah camp, regardless of its stated humanitarian intent, functions as a techno-political infrastructure of containment that advances a de facto policy of population transfer without formal annexation. Its design—integrating surveillance, controlled mobility, and extraterritorial governance—reflects a broader trend in modern warfare and refugee management: the transformation of humanitarian aid into instruments of state control. Furthermore, the timing of the announcement, coinciding with renewed U.S.-led peace overtures and the partial reopening of the Rafah crossing, suggests strategic coordination aimed at reshaping Gaza’s demographic and political landscape.
- Context: The War in Gaza and the Crisis of Displacement
Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza, more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health (as cited by UN OCHA, 2026), and over 90% of Gaza’s population—approximately 2.1 million people—have been internally displaced. Entire urban centers, including northern Gaza City, Khan Younis, and Rafah, have been reduced to rubble. By December 2025, satellite imagery and on-the-ground reports confirmed that southern Gaza, particularly Rafah, had become a zone of near-total destruction (UNEP, 2025; Reuters, Dec. 8, 2025).
Rafah, previously one of the last refuge zones for displaced civilians, fell under full Israeli military control following a fragile ceasefire in October 2025. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted extensive operations to dismantle tunnel networks believed to be used by Hamas for command and logistics. As part of these operations, Israeli forces implemented mass evacuation orders, compelling hundreds of thousands to flee northward to areas nominally under Hamas control—an impossible demand given the lack of habitable space and collapsing infrastructure.
The humanitarian crisis has been described by the United Nations as “the most severe since World War II” (UN Secretary-General, January 2026). Access to food, clean water, medical care, and shelter remains critically limited. In this context, the proposal for a “temporary” camp in southern Gaza must be viewed not in isolation but as part of a broader strategy of managing—and potentially expelling—Gaza’s population.
- The Proposed Camp: Design, Capacity, and Surveillance Infrastructure
According to Avivi, the camp would be built on land cleared of Hamas tunnels in Rafah and would potentially host “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians. The facility would serve dual functions: as a processing center for those wishing to emigrate through Egypt and as a holding zone for those choosing to remain under Israeli oversight. Entry and exit would be monitored by Israeli personnel using biometric identification, including facial recognition and digital ID verification.
This represents a significant departure from traditional refugee camp models, which, while often militarized, have typically been administered by international humanitarian agencies such as UNRWA or the UNHCR. In contrast, the proposed camp in Rafah appears to be under de facto Israeli administrative and technological control, despite its location within Gaza—a territory still recognized under international law as occupied (ICJ, 2024 Advisory Opinion).
The use of facial recognition technology at a refugee facility raises profound ethical and legal questions. Such systems have been criticized globally for racial bias, data privacy violations, and their use in population control (Amnesty International, 2023). In the context of Gaza, where Palestinians have no formal citizenship rights and limited legal recourse, the deployment of surveillance tools at a transit camp risks normalizing digital apartheid. Moreover, the data collected could be integrated into Israel’s vast security databases, potentially affecting future access to movement, residency, or asylum claims.
- The Discourse of “Voluntary Migration” and the Shadow of Forced Displacement
Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have previously spoken of creating “conditions for voluntary emigration” from Gaza. In July 2025, Katz ordered the military to prepare infrastructure for a large camp in Rafah, though no official follow-up was issued. The current announcement revives these plans amid renewed U.S. diplomatic efforts led by President Donald Trump, who has proposed a “limited reopening” of the Rafah crossing as part of a broader ceasefire framework.
The term “voluntary” is highly contested. International law distinguishes sharply between voluntary migration and forced displacement. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers” of protected persons from occupied territory. However, as scholars such as Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini (2020) have argued, states often circumvent this prohibition through indirect coercion—creating conditions so dire that populations “choose” to leave.
In Gaza, the concept of choice is rendered illusory by the near-total destruction of housing, healthcare, and economic systems. As Ismail Al-Thawabta, head of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, stated, the camp plan is “a cover for forced displacement.” This view is echoed by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Al-Haq, which warn that even if emigration is formally voluntary, the asymmetry of power renders it coercive in practice.
Historical precedents, including the 1948 Nakba and the displacement of Palestinians from the Sinai Peninsula in the 1970s, demonstrate how infrastructure projects—camps, transit centers, resettlement zones—can become permanent fixtures of dispossession. The proposed camp risks becoming a new node in what some scholars term the “architecture of exile” (Weizman, 2023).
- Legal and Ethical Implications
The legality of the proposed camp hinges on several key principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law:
Prohibition of Forced Displacement (GCIV, Art. 49): Any action that coerces Palestinians to leave Gaza—even under the guise of improved living conditions—violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories that displacement for security or political reasons constitutes a grave breach.
Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: The Rafah crossing has historically been governed by agreements between Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. A unilateral Israeli camp project in Gaza without Palestinian consent undermines Palestinian territorial sovereignty and contravenes the principle of self-determination.
Surveillance and Privacy Rights: The use of facial recognition in humanitarian settings violates the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is a party. Data collected from vulnerable populations without informed consent constitutes a form of digital exploitation.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P): While Israel asserts a right to self-defense, it also holds the legal status of occupying power under the Hague Regulations. This entails the duty to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. Converting humanitarian aid into instruments of control may constitute a violation of the duty of care.
Legal scholars such as Philip Alston (former UN Special Rapporteur) have warned that the blurring of humanitarian and security agendas in conflict zones often results in the instrumentalization of aid. The Rafah camp, designed and policed by a belligerent party, risks becoming a model of what Alston terms “security humanitarianism”—a fusion of aid and surveillance that prioritizes state security over human dignity.
- Strategic and Geopolitical Dimensions
The timing of the announcement is significant. It follows months of diplomatic pressure from the United States, particularly under the Trump administration’s revived Middle East peace initiative. Trump’s plan reportedly includes incentives for Egypt and Jordan to accept Palestinian migrants, financial aid packages, and the promise of normalized relations with Israel.
In this context, the camp may function as a logistical solution for managing outflows while absolving Israel of long-term responsibility for Gaza’s reconstruction. By framing migration as “voluntary” and facilitated through a “humane” facility, Israel may seek to deflect accusations of ethnic cleansing while achieving demographic objectives.
Furthermore, the camp could serve as a buffer zone along the Gaza-Egypt border, enhancing Israel’s control over cross-border movements. Past Israeli operations in Rafah have focused on dismantling underground tunnels, but the new camp could institutionalize a permanent Israeli security presence in the area, undermining the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which mandates demilitarization in parts of southern Sinai.
- Palestinian and International Responses
Palestinian leadership, across Fatah, Hamas, and civil society, has uniformly rejected the camp proposal. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah called it a “flagrant violation of international law,” while Hamas labeled it a “Zionist plot to erase Palestine.” Grassroots movements in Gaza have organized protests against the plan, despite ongoing communication blackouts and movement restrictions.
The international response has been cautious. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement calling for transparency and adherence to IHL. The European Union urged Israel to “refrain from any actions that could alter the demographic composition of Gaza.” The United States has not formally commented, though senior officials have acknowledged “humanitarian solutions are being explored.”
Critically, the lack of official Israeli confirmation—coupled with reliance on a retired general’s remarks—suggests a deliberate strategy of plausible deniability. By allowing influential reservists like Avivi to float the idea, the government can gauge domestic and international reactions without committing politically.
- Conclusion: Toward a Framework of Accountability
The proposed camp in Rafah is more than a logistical project; it is a political statement about the future of Gaza and its people. Framed as a humanitarian solution, it operates within a longer history of spatial management, displacement, and technological control in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether intended or not, the camp risks becoming a permanent fixture of containment—a liminal space where Palestinians are neither citizens nor fully recognized refugees, but subjects of biometric surveillance and conditional mobility.
The integration of digital surveillance tools underscores a shift in the mechanisms of control: from walls and checkpoints to algorithms and databases. In this new paradigm, humanitarianism is redefined not as protection but as governance.
To prevent the erosion of international norms, the international community must act decisively. This includes:
Launching an independent UN investigation into the legality of the camp proposal;
Conditioning aid and diplomatic relations on compliance with international law;
Supporting Palestinian-led reconstruction and self-determination initiatives;
Regulating the use of AI and surveillance in conflict zones.
Without such measures, the Rafah camp may become not a path to peace, but a blueprint for permanent exile.
References
Al-Haq. (2025). Forced Displacement and the Right to Return: Gaza Under Siege. Ramallah: Al-Haq Publications.
Amnesty International. (2023). Faces of Surveillance: Biometric Technologies in Asylum Systems.
Gordon, N., & Perugini, N. (2020). Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire. University of California Press.
ICJ. (2024). Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories. The Hague.
OCHA. (2026). Gaza Humanitarian Situation Report – January 2026. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Reuters. (2026, January 27). Israel plans large camp for Palestinians in southern Gaza, retired general says. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com
UNEP. (2025). Environmental Assessment of Gaza: Destruction and Recovery Prospects.
Weizman, E. (2023). Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. Verso Books.