In an interview with Al Jazeera on 11th July 2025, Daniel Levy — president of the US Middle East Project and former Israeli peace negotiator — expands upon what he describes as a systematic plan by the Israeli government to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza.

Satellite imagery, leaked documents, and government statements all point to the creation of a ‘concentration zone’ in southern Gaza.

Levy draws disturbing parallels to past ethnic cleansing events, calling this a “second Nakba”. 

During the interview, he said:

{T}he idea of displacing Palestinians, removing them from the geographical expanse is not a new one. We are witnessing, it seems, a second Nakba. The intention is for this to be more comprehensive than the original ethnic cleansing from [1945 to 1947] and the attempt subsequently to displace Palestinians.

He also stated:

What we are being exposed to here is the criminal genocidal intent of a government that must be held to accountability. A state that must be held to accountability, otherwise it will continue with these schemes.

On the so-called ceasefire, Levy noted:

Of course, we know that this isn’t really a war against Hamas. This is a war against the Palestinian people and therefore Netanyahu is intentionally setting the bar at an unreachable [height} in terms of what he’s demanding from this ceasefire.

A video of the interview with Daniel Levy by Al Jazeera’s Nastasya Tay can be viewed here.

An edited transcript of the interview has been produced below.

Exposing Israel’s Gaza Plan – Interview with Danial Levy
Interviewer: Nastasya Tay, Al Jazeera
Published: 11th July 2025
Abbreviations: NT = Nastasya Tay and DL = Danial Levy

NT – Well, let’s bring in Daniel Levy. He’s the president of the US / Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator. He joins me now from London. Daniel, from the looks of those satellite images we just saw, this plan has been in place for some time now …

You said we’re watching the execution of something that has been in place for some time – a plan that appears to have been in place for some time – especially when you look at the pattern of destruction that we’re seeing in Rafah.

DL – Indeed, and what you are now sharing with the public is something that has been kind of leaked in drips and drabs. Let’s take one step back if we can, Nastasya.

First of all, the idea of displacing Palestinians, removing them from the geographical expanse is not a new one. We are witnessing, it seems, a second Nakba. The intention is for this to be more comprehensive than the original ethnic cleansing from [1945 to 1947] and the attempt subsequently to displace Palestinians.

We know that already in December 2023, plans were circulating in the prime minister’s office for something called the Gaza Rehabilitation Authority, which was designed to – and this was the word in the document – rebuild Gaza from nothing. So, the intention was to reduce Gaza to nothing.

We know of plans that circulated in Israeli government ministries to push Palestinians into the Sinai, into Egypt.

We then know that Israeli ministers openly talked about ethnic cleansing and pushed Palestinians from as much of Gaza as possible, trying to kettle them into the southern areas.

And then in February of this year, as Israel prepared to resume its onslaught and to break the ceasefire that was in place then, Israel actually created what they called a directorate for the “voluntary” transition of Gaza residents. There’s nothing voluntary about pushing people out when you’ve destroyed all the homes, the infrastructure, you’ve starved the population.

And now we see … a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – and the word ‘humanitarian’ is being abused here beyond what the English language can stretch to. But this foundation was set up, and it was positioned, so that Palestinians would have to go to these areas.

Those became slaughter zones. And Defense Minister [Israel] Katz has openly now acknowledged what the plan is.

And we’ve seen the documents of the GHF, of the Boston Consultancy Group, even putting a price tag on how much it would cost to remove each Palestinian. The Israeli Hebrew University Holocaust historian, Amos Goldberg, has called this [a] concentration camp.

NT – Daniel, as you say, there appear to be several strands to this plan. I mean [there were] for instance four GHF sites initially. None of them in the north now. All of them have been closed except ostensibly for this one in the south. The UN says that the Israelis were weaponising aid – that it’s been used as a tool of mass force transfer. But the GHF is also backed by the US and US contractors helped to run it. How much is the White House in on this plan?

DL – I think we have to assume that there is a great deal of complicity, certainly [by] elements of the private sector and that has been exposed. But also [by] governmental elements, not just in Israel but beyond Israel. America has now committed funding to the GHF …

[T]oday we commemorate the Srebrenica genocide – that’s what the official day is called. It’s 30 years. You know, at the close of the last century, you had Srebrenica, you had Rwanda. We saw the failings of the international community.

But at the close of the first quarter of this century, we’re seeing not just the failing, but as this is much more available to us on our screens, on our devices, we are seeing the active complicity, the active enabling of this genocide by Western states.

You’ll have a meeting of states – mostly from the global south, a smattering from Europe – in Bogotá next week of the Hague Group who are saying we have to take measures against this genocide. But in the West, what you have is continuing to arm Israel, especially by the US, continuing to trade, normal trade, normal sporting relations as this goes on.

And we’re watching this in real time. And what you have instead is in the US, in the UK, in Germany, people being prevented from protesting and taking action against these crimes.

NT – Daniel, is this proposed 60-day ceasefire part of the plan? Stop fighting long enough to force masses of people to move and then trap them there and perhaps give the Israeli military a break from fighting to build this concentration zone in the south.

DL – You know, you raise a really important issue, Nastasya. I’ve just been going through the Israeli press from this morning and it’s fascinating that in some of the coverage, they are actually saying what is holding back a deal.

One of the reasons that Netanyahu will not agree even to this 60 days [ceasefire] is he doesn’t want these plans for kettling people into the south to be upended by the provisions of any ceasefire arrangement.

They are saying that his insistence on where Israel [troops] will continue to be deployed, even during what he considers a temporary pause, is because he doesn’t want to lose what you have exposed this morning – the preparations for putting people in this tiny area.

And I think we can take [that] very seriously because we saw it already in the last ceasefire – the idea that even a pause will be used to further cement who will fund how will we build.

Who are the donors going to be who could perhaps take in the Palestinians? Because the idea, as I think you’ve mentioned, Nastasya, is you kettle people into this tiny area. It’s unliveable already in broader Gaza, let alone squeezing people into a smaller zone.

And then you remove them from the territory entirely. And don’t imagine for one moment that what begins in Gaza ends in Gaza. The intention is to model this for the West Bank.

And of course, the horrors that we are seeing in Gaza, the abuse of humanitarian aid is something that could well be coming to a neighbourhood near you, wherever you are in the world, as long as Israel is allowed to get away with these war crimes.

NT – Daniel, one of the things that Israeli media has been reporting about as a sticking point, or a contentious issue, is this idea that Israel wants to keep troops in the Morag Corridor, essentially cutting off the southern part of Gaza and if they are able to do that, that also seems to tally with this plan.

DL – That’s precisely what I was referring to Nastasya. You have commentators today saying it’s the Morag Corridor. It’s this area that divides off the majority of the north from the south.

Israel has tried to remove Palestinians from 75% of the territory. They will try and force them into an even smaller closed area.

And that’s one of the big questions because you’ll remember these remarkable pictures of resilience when we had that hiatus when people in Gaza, of course, didn’t return to anything like normality. But they were able to go back to mostly destroyed homes – but nonetheless this is where their homes used to be – to go back to those places across different parts of the Gaza Strip. And now the intention is to make that as hard as possible.

Of course, we know that this isn’t really a war against Hamas. This is a war against the Palestinian people and therefore Netanyahu is intentionally setting the bar at an unreachable [height} in terms of what he’s demanding from this ceasefire.

He has managed to leave Washington DC, wheels up, just a few hours ago without being pinned down on a ceasefire. And he wants that room for manoeuvre not only politically, not only because of his court trial, not only with Trump, but because he has an ideological goal here, vis-à-vis the removal of Palestinians. And it’s well past time that people not only recognize all this evidence that we now see, but they [act] on it.

NT – Well, Daniel, let’s talk then about the practical next steps here. Israel is calling [Rafah] a humanitarian city. What is the into this tiny area, the ruins of Rafah with, as we saw from those satellite images, no infrastructure, no services left? I see they want international organizations to run it. But from the sounds of things, the UN hasn’t even been approached. And whether they want to be complicit in this is another question.

DL – I think this is where I would also kind of urge people to step back. What we are being exposed to here is the criminal genocidal intent of a government that must be held to accountability. A state that must be held to accountability, otherwise it will continue with these schemes.

But when it comes to the practicalities, I do think that that is where they are going to hit a wall. I don’t think you have the money to be poured into this. It already has apparently been exposed that Israel is having to fund a lot of this. This isn’t necessarily something the Israeli taxpayer is going to stand behind indefinitely.

I don’t think you will get other state actors, other major actors, who will come in and do this. GHF, this foundation, has been largely a failure. You’ve seen the Boston Consultancy Group walk away from it. This kind of stuff is very expensive.

Other third countries are saying no, we are not going to take in people in order to further your genocidal goals.

You have the steadfastness, the resilience in the most impossible of circumstances, of the people on the ground. Of course, they need more support. Of course, more needs to be done. But we should also acknowledge that these schemes, as horrendous as they are – that anyone could even dream them up – are most unlikely to be implemented.

NT – Daniel, you mentioned that third countries there are saying no. This has been obviously a red line for many, many countries in the region who’ve said that they want no part of this. Is there a any kind of scenario where they yield under pressure from the US and we do see some forced displacement of people? What would that result in in the region? Presumably a huge amount of instability?

DL – So first I would draw [a] distinction between [countries] having been very weak – and I have used the words enablers, facilitators, complicit – by not challenging Israeli impunity, by not sanctioning.

I would draw a distinction between that and going along and being active participants in this forced removal – taking people in, funding, being part of that happening.

Even with Israeli pressure, US pressure, I think that is going to be a step too far for most actors …

NT – Daniel, you mentioned the word criminality there. Obviously, we’ve been saying that the Israelis are trying to call this concentration zone a humanitarian city. Is this potentially about international law and providing what appears to be a false choice to make displacement beyond Gaza’s borders sound voluntary?

DL – No, international law is very clear on this. And unfortunately, international law has been – I wouldn’t call it the first victim because the Palestinians are the first victim – a victim of what we’ve seen.

Not only riding rough shod through international law, violating it in the ways that we’ve seen, but also the way that others especially – again I would have to say in the global west, America and its allies, [who have] claimed to stand up for these things – have been so brutally exposed in their indifference, in their willingness to indulge, when it’s an ally of theirs that is committing these crimes.

So the question in international law is very clear.

There’s a genocide case at the International Court of Justice. There’s already been a ruling of the International Court of Justice as to the illegality of the entire occupation.

You have International Criminal Court arrest warrants against Netanyahu. You now have the Americans going after those very institutions.

You had 17 Israeli legal scholars come out in the last day saying that these are flagrantly criminal orders. They break law. They break international law.

So the issue in international law is settled. The question I think is – is there any basis on which to rebuild some kind of international legally based architecture after what Israel has done?

That’s why I referred earlier to this this Hague Group. South Africa and Colombia are the co-chairs. You have only eight members but 25 plus are likely to be in this next meeting of the group. You’ve got to build from these small foundations to try and restore some kind of basis.

But in the failure to uphold international law, I think you also have to look at how people, just ordinary people, are unwilling to put up with this and the kinds of protest movements that we’re seeing. The kind of shifting cultural zeitgeist. People do not want to see their governments remaining enablers and indifferent. They don’t want to be bystanders – there’s a movement ‘Bystanders No More’.

So I think you are going to see – and unfortunately it’s not happening quick enough for the people who are impacted by this – but you are going to see that this does get challenged and it is unfortunately going to be a blight on the landscape of the 21st century.

NT – Daniel Levy there, the president of the US Middle East project and a former Israeli negotiator. Great to get your insights on Al Jazeera. Thank you for joining us again, Daniel.

DL – Thank you, Nastasya.