Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has issued a scathing critique of the Israeli government’s proposal to establish a “humanitarian city” in Rafah, southern Gaza, asserting that it amounts to a de facto concentration camp and amounting to ethnic cleansing. Olmert, who led the country from 2006 to 2009, raised his concerns in recent interviews, underscoring the controversial plan's implications for Gaza Palestinians.
Olmert’s objections are grounded in how the city would operate: vaguely bounded, severely restricted, and likely to prevent free movement. Clearing over half of Gaza’s population into this closed compound, with only limited avenues for external relocation, echoes some historical precedents that Israel repeatedly condemns. He emphasized the distinction between relocation for protection and relocation aimed at permanent removal, framing the current plan in the latter category.
He also emphasized the backdrop of rising extremist rhetoric from Israeli officials—public calls to “cleanse Gaza” and build permanent settlements in the Strip—suggesting the “humanitarian” justification may be a facade for deeper political goals. With rhetoric intensified by comparison rhetoric to genocide, Olmert has called for urgent international intervention, including oversight by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
Israeli critics, including human rights lawyers and international observers, have echoed Olmert’s sentiment, warning that the proposal breaches international humanitarian law. The sentiment has rippled abroad: in the UK, nearly 60 members of the Labour Party called for formal recognition of Palestinian statehood and issued warnings about state-sanctioned ethnic separation.
Despite denials from Israeli authorities who frame the initiative as necessary for civilian protection amid military operations, many analysts question whether a population so constrained can function with adequate access to services and rights amid ongoing hostilities.
Olmert’s condemnation of the Rafah “humanitarian city” adds a repeat Israeli voice to international alarm that the plan may serve as forced displacement rather than relief. Protecting civilians during conflict is critical, yet measures with no clear end-state raise concerns it may solidify depopulation. Safeguards, independent oversight, and transparency must guide any plan to ensure protection rather than segregation. How Israel frames and executes the proposal will determine whether it protects or isolates Gaza’s people.