Israel Plans Internment Camp With Facial Recognition at Rafah, Cementing Genocide Against Palestinians

Reports on Rafah camp

Multiple outlets report that retired Israeli military figures told Reuters that Israel has cleared land in Rafah, southern Gaza, to build a large organized camp that could hold hundreds of thousands.

The proposed camp would use ID checks and facial recognition to track Palestinians entering and leaving.

Al Jazeera cites a retired Israeli general and satellite imagery showing systematic levelling next to Israeli posts.

The outlet reports analysts calling the site a controlled holding pen or a human-sorting mechanism.

Ukrainian outlet UNN and Arabic صدى نيوز similarly report the Reuters sourcing, stressing modern surveillance, capacity for hundreds of thousands, and that the cleared area is described as free of Hamas tunnels.

These reports present a consistent claim across multiple sources that land has been prepared in Rafah and that the project would involve surveillance-based entry and exit controls.

Camp entry surveillance measures

All sources describe biometric and identity controls at camp entrances, including ID checks and facial-recognition screening to monitor who enters and leaves.

Israeli reservists' representatives and Israeli outlets report that Israeli personnel would conduct the tracking, and Avivi (speaking privately, not for the army) is quoted describing the site as in an area cleared of tunnels and able to host people who might travel to Egypt or remain.

Al Jazeera’s investigation adds satellite imagery showing land levelling next to Israeli military posts and interprets the site as designed for control rather than humanitarian shelter.

Those reporting these technical details consistently emphasize that surveillance is central to the project's function.

Rafah crossing and displacement concerns

Reporting from Rafah camp is framed by a limited reopening of the Rafah crossing and the aftermath of the latest ceasefire.

Outlets say the area appears largely emptied after the ceasefire and has been cleared of tunnels.

Reuters sources note Israel prefers more people to exit Gaza than enter as the crossing partially reopens under tight Israeli security conditions.

Israeli officials declined to provide details of the plan, and the Jerusalem Post highlights denials about the presence of foreign troops or the creation of a Palestinian state.

Other sources emphasize international concern that identification and surveillance measures could deter returns and cause forced displacement or further depopulation of the Gaza Strip.

Gaza camp controversy

Humanitarian actors and Gaza analysts warn the camp's design could lead to humiliating screening, interrogation and arrests and could be used to effect forced displacement.

Critics say facial-recognition technology and checkpoints will deter returns and could further depopulate the Strip.

Al Jazeera reproduces analysts' comparisons to Nazi-era selection points, while UNN and صدى نيوز echo warnings from Palestinians and international humanitarian groups about the danger of displacement.

Sources quoting Avivi and Israeli reservists present the camp as a place for those who 'choose' to leave or remain, portraying it as voluntary.

This creates a stark divergence between security-driven justifications and widespread humanitarian alarm.

Reports on forced displacement

There are clear contradictions and gaps across these reports.

None of the provided snippets includes an Israeli government policy document or an explicit, detailed order authorising forced displacement.

Key Israeli offices reportedly declined to comment, while former officers speaking privately to Reuters described plans and security rationales.

The sources differ sharply in tone: West Asian outlets (Al Jazeera, Al-Jazeera Net) and UNN foreground control, surveillance and warnings of depopulation, whereas Israeli outlets (jpost, صدى نيوز) foreground "choice" and logistical need.

The snippets do not themselves use the term "genocide"; they record analysts' comparisons to Nazi-era selection points and humanitarian warnings about forced displacement.

Therefore labeling the project a "genocide" is not directly supported by the text provided here, though many critics raise the risk of systematic dispossession and depopulation.