Removing Palestinians from the Gaza is not a plan. It is a crime against humanity – Ejil: talk!

The relocation of the Palestinians from Gaza is regularly charged by Israel according to the Riviera plan by Outlandish Trump. In February 2025, the US President proposed a dystopic project to let the Palestinians in neighboring countries back in and transform the enclave into a luxurious coastal town. A month later, the Israel Security Cabinet founded a new agency within the Ministry of Defense to “enable the safe and controlled passage of the residents of the Gaza Strip for their voluntary departure to the third countries”. This led to the condemnation of many countries and a warning of the UN Secretary General António Guterres that “it is important to avoid any form of ethnic cleaning”.

The reference to ethnic cleaning can be politically appealing and, given the controversy that surround this term, can raise more questions than answers from a legal point of view. An uncomplicated more normative framework is banned in the violent transmission under the international humanitarian law (IHL), which is based on common law and is confirmed in the generally ratified fourth Geneva convention of 1949.

The prohibition anchored in Article 49 (1) of the Geneva Convention is clear and categorical: “Individual or mass transmissions as well as deportations of protected persons from the occupied area to the area of ​​the occupation powers or that of another country are occupied or not, are independent of your motifs.” Therefore, all transfers of Palestinian civilians are strictly prohibited inside or outside the Gaza Strip. This should be the end of the matter. However, the new Netanyahu plan is to displace the Palestinians in order to store them in a small and strongly controlled area of ​​the Gaza Strip and at the same time induce their exit abroad.

The forfeiture of Palestinians not only violates Article 49 and represents as such war crimes. It is also a crime against humanity. From this point of view, the underlying crime of the transfer as a result is defined by three cumulative conditions: 1) the forced nature of the measure; 2) the lawful presence of the displaced people; 3) The lack of a soil under international law (Article 7 (2) (D) Rome Statut). The second component is undisputed: the lawful presence of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has been recognized by the international community for more than 75 years. I will concentrate on the other two components and the context element of a widespread or systematic attack.

Is leaving Gaza a question of choice?

The core of the matter is whether the departure from the Gaza is forced or voluntarily. At first glance, the answer should be uncomplicated: to leave a country in the war is no choice; This is a flight because this is a question of survival. And if such a flight is organized by a warrior, this is an illegal transmission.

Peace now an Israeli NGO agreed: “If life in a certain place becomes impossible through bombing and siege, there is nothing” voluntarily “to people who go.” On the contrary [is] according to the Israeli and international law. “However, according to IHL, the distinction requires compulsive transfer from the voluntary departure to a content and context -specific assessment of its mutual nature.

According to a long -term case law, “the forced character of the shift by the lack of a real decision by the victim is determined in his shift” (Icty, prosecutor against Radovan Karadzić, process chamber, §489; StakićAppeal Chamber, §279). It is simply not sufficient to express his will to drain: “An obvious consent that is caused by violence or threat to violence should not be regarded as real consent.” (Icty, prosecutor against Blagoje Simić, process chamber, §125). Accordingly:

“While people who remove or apply for the insurance or apply for their application to be able to agree or even have to be agreed or even requested as a result of the free will of the individual, they must be evaluated in view of the surrounding circumstances of the respective case” (ICTY, prosecutor against Milomir Stakić, Appeal, Section 279).

By assessing the circumstances of the case, the compulsory form of shift is understood in the broad material sense. Coercion means not only physical strength, but also:

“Threat of violence or compulsion, such as those through fear of violence, compulsion, detention, psychological suppression or abuse of power against such a person or person or another person or by using a compulsory environment” (elements of crime, 11; icy ,, by using a compulsory environment that exploits, icy, icy, Stakić§281).

The ICC continued significantly Muthaura et al. That the destruction of houses in residential areas, the murders and injuries of civilians and public announcements on the effect that “everyone” is a violent transmission (ICC, PTC II, public prosecutor against Muthaura et al., §244). The parallel to the situation in the Gaza is striking. The predominant compulsory environment cannot be refused. The ICJ observed the “catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip”, the “large number of deaths and injuries as well as the massive destruction of houses” and “the persistent and widespread deprivation of food and other staple” (preliminary measures, May 2024, §§27-29).

The fact that Gaza has become uninhabitable due to the Israeli military operation remains irrelevant. According to a well -established case law, the shift is not justified if the humanitarian crisis, which has caused such a shift, results from the perpetrator's action (ICTY, ICTY,. Prosecutor v. PopovicTCII, §903; Stakić appellate judgment, §287). Even an agreement among representatives of the parties in a conflict or the participation of an international or non -governmental organization in the facilitation of the shift cannot make it lawful (Popovic§897).

Is there a permissible basis under international law?

The violent character of the shift is sufficient to determine the lack of such a reason. This is not only a violation of Article 49, but also a violation of the Human Rights Act and in particular the right to freedom of movement in accordance with Article 12 of the ICCPR, which is considered an employment power for Israel (ICJ Reports 2004 (I), 191-192, §134).

A counter argument would be to rename the Israeli plan as an evacuation, which under very specific circumstances is permitted as a temporary measure of the last way out. Article 49 (2), however, makes it clear:

“Such evacuations cannot include the shift of protected persons outside the borders of the occupied area, unless it is impossible for material reasons to avoid such a shift.”

There is absolutely no such material reason. As the ICJ emphasized, “evacuations of a permanent or indefinite character violate the ban on violent transmission” (Advisory Opinion 2024, §146).

In fact, the Israeli army has ordered many evacuations within the Gaza Strip since October 2023 that more than 90 percent of the population have been sold. Several inorganization (including the independent International Investigation Commission and the High Commissioner for Human Rights), special rapporteurs and NGOs have reported that most evacuation orders were actually displaced by postponement arrangements that violate Article 49.

A widespread or systematic attack?

The last crucial consideration is whether violent transfers are part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. This context -related element captures the essence of crime against humanity, which, due to its large -scale or massive nature, criminals the most serious violations.

The attack does not have to be a “military attack” (elements of crimes, 3); This means a behavior in which the multiple exemption of an underlying crime (Article 8 (2)) (a) Rome statute) is involved. While such an attack in the large number of transfers and other related crimes is inherent in, it must be widespread or systematic. According to the ICC, the term “widespread” refers to the great nature of the attack and the number of victims, while the term “systematically” concerns the organized nature of the acts of violence and the weirdness of its random event (ICC, PTC I, Prosecutor against Al Bashir§81).

Forced transmission are clearly no random or isolated actions. They take place within a broader military operation. The widespread – if not systematic – character of the attack is clearly evidenced by the indiscriminately bomb attacks, the destruction of most civilian infrastructures, the disability of humanitarian aid and the extensive number of victims with more than 61,000 deaths and 111,000 injured people, most of them are women and children further and here and here).

Diploma

The emigration plan to remove Palestinians outside the Gaza Strip as well as the evacuations carried out in this occupied area are an obvious violation of Article 49. This is not only a war crime, but also a crime against humanity. Forced prison is an integral feature of the current conflict in Gaza. Oddly enough, it is not properly integrated into the current procedure before the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. Further investigations are clearly necessary before the domestic courts in accordance with the principle of universal responsibility.

The story reminds us that postponement is not an indolently side effect of warfare. It is often a strategy for itself and even the goal of many wars. Thirty years after Srebrenica, it is more important than ever to remember the suffering of the displaced persons when:

“In July 1995, the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica was not confronted with a real decision whether it should go in the region or stay in the region. The shelling of Srebrenica … and the burning of Bosnian Muslim houses was calculated in order to scare the population and make them from the area without hope.[D]VRS's attempts to make it look like a voluntary movement did not work out the Srebrenica Bosnian Muslims, but reactively reacted to the certainty that their survival depends on their flight ”(ICTY, Krstic Case 2001, §147 & 530).