Occupied Jerusalem – Israeli leaders from both the government coalition and opposition have refrained from publicly and directly criticizing Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, and his statements in which he once again called for encouraging Palestinians in Gaza to “voluntary migration”. However, they criticized him and his statements from the perspective of harming relations with the United States.
Israeli leaders unanimously agreed that his statements affect relations with the American administration, undermine Israeli strategies and national security and target its international standing, undermining its future military efforts.
Contrary to the double standards of Israeli politicians in dealing with Ben Gvir’s statements, Israeli analysts agreed that the idea of “voluntary migration” is unrealistic and detrimental to Israel. It exposes Israel to international human rights institutions’ scrutiny and lays the groundwork for legal action against Israel, especially regarding suspicions of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Ben Gvir’s statements to the “Wall Street Journal” come at a time when Israel is preparing to submit its first report to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The court requested Israel to specify measures to prevent suspicions of genocide and avoid targeting Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and ensure the entry of humanitarian aid into the sector.
An elderly Palestinian in Gaza experiences the bitterness of displacement twice (social media)
Timid Criticisms
Opposition leader Yair Lapid criticized Ben Gvir’s statements, writing on his “X” account, saying, “Ben Gvir’s interview with the Wall Street Journal is a direct assault on Israel’s international standing. It also harms Israeli military efforts and security.”
The same position was expressed by the head of the “National Camp,” the minister in the War Council, Benny Gantz, who condemned Ben Gvir’s statements, saying, “Disagreements may occur, even with our largest and most important ally, but they must be conducted through relevant institutions, not through irresponsible statements in the media that harm Israel’s strategic relations, state security, and military efforts at this time.”
Contrary to expectations, the leader of the “Shas” party, Ariel Deri, broke his silence and indirectly criticized Ben Gvir, choosing to thank the US administration for its support and solidarity with Israel in the war on Gaza, saying, “Even among friends and acquaintances, there are differences of opinion and perspectives.”
Regarding these criticisms from the opposition and the coalition directed at Ben Gvir, the Prime Minister had to comment during the weekly government session, saying, “I don’t need help in managing our relations with the United States and the international community, while steadfastly protecting our national interests.”
Israel’s Predicament
Contrary to the Israeli politicians’ position of not directly criticizing Ben Gvir’s statements about “voluntary migration,” Bernit Jorn, the editor of the “Zman Yisrael” website, criticized Ben Gvir, describing him as the “minister of international damage.” Jorn pointed out that Ben Gvir’s statements about “voluntary migration” come at a time when international forums and The Hague court continue to address suspicions attributed to Israel of committing violations suggestive of genocide, saying, “These statements and the silence about them further implicate Israel.”
She explained that since October 7th of last year, Israel has been dealing with several fronts alongside military arenas, with increasing hostility in diplomatic arenas and real threats in the field of international law.
Despite that, Jorn believes that “Ben Gvir insists, apparently not alone, on the plan aimed at encouraging residents of Gaza to migrate voluntarily to other parts of the world” in return for fees, describing it as the “real humanitarian solution.”
The same editor believes that in the next session of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the interview with Ben Gvir and his statements about “voluntary migration” will be presented to the plaintiffs against Israel. This will serve as further evidence of suspicions of genocide and that Israel has not taken measures to avoid affecting civilians in the sector.
Itamar Ben Gvir lights a Hanukkah candle in the Western Wall square before becoming a minister (social media)
International Accountability
Political science and international relations professor, Dr. Or Lavie, commented on the Israeli calls to encourage Palestinians in Gaza to undertake “voluntary migration,” saying, “These calls harm Israel and expose it to international accountability in various international forums, especially regarding suspicions of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
He believes that the problem with this idea, which seems very attractive on paper, is that its chances of realization are zero or even less. Because it’s a populist and attractive idea, it occupies a leading position in Israeli discourse and perhaps a consensus among politicians.
Currently, 2.2 million Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip. Lavie said, “The head of the Religious Zionist alliance, Bezalel Smotrich promised that Israel will achieve a situation where only 100-150 thousand Palestinians will remain in the sector. This is a number that Israel can live and coexist with.”
The mass deportation of the population against their will, adds the Israeli lecturer, “is an action that will be met with harsh international backlash, including economic sanctions and loss of US support. This is also clear to Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and their likes, and that’s why none of them speaks of such deportation but of ‘voluntary migration’.”
Lavie recalled the “voluntary migration” project after the June 1967 Six-Day War, which ended in failure and effectively left Israel in full control of the residents of Gaza. At that time, 450 thousand Palestinians lived in the sector.
Lavie noted that the main idea at that time was to encourage the migration of Gaza residents to other countries and then annex the sector to Israel. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol proposed drying up the sector to the point of humanitarian distress and the collapse of the remaining few agriculture, a step he thought would force some residents to migrate to other countries.
