Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Scarfe, Lecturer in Economics, University of Stirling

After the resignation of Angela Rayner, the UK government faces an urgent question: what will happen to its flagship employment rights bill? The former deputy prime minister was an important champion of the bill – and businesses have seized an opportunity to call for it to be diluted. At the same time, unions are pressing hard in the opposite direction.

Shortly after Labour won office in 2024, prime minister Keir Starmer described the bill as “the biggest levelling up of workers’ rights in a generation”, adding it was designed to give people “security, dignity and respect at work”.

In its manifesto, Labour had promised to “make work pay” – so the ambitious draft bill introduced in October 2024 contained 28 reforms to employment rights. These include requiring employers to guarantee workers a minimum number of hours; strengthening redundancy rights; rights to parental leave and protection from unfair dismissal from a worker’s first day; and expanding trade union rights.

Not only are the changes wide-ranging, they also affect a very large number of workers. There are, for example, nine million people in the UK who have been in their job for less than two years and who will gain the right to claim unfair dismissal.

The bill passed the House of Commons in March 2025. The House of Lords made some important amendments, giving workers a “right to request” rather than a “right to have” guaranteed working hours, increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to six months (rather than one day), and reinstating the previous 50% turnout threshold for a trade union to vote for industrial action.

The planned legislation addresses a clear problem in the UK. In-work poverty and precarious work (characterised by low wages, uncertain income and insecurity) have been increasing. More and more people do not earn enough to make ends meet – between 1996 and 2024 the proportion of people in poverty who lived in families with at least one person working increased from 44% to 65%).

This is expensive – benefits paid to working people cost the government around £50 billion a year.

Introducing the bill, Rayner described it as “pro-growth, pro-business, pro-worker”. The UK’s slow productivity growth has been a problem since the financial crisis, and the government hopes that the better retention and higher job satisfaction that the bill could bring about will increase productivity. This view is broadly supported by academic research.

What do its critics say?

The government estimates that the bill will cost businesses between £900 million and £5 billion annually. This seems small, especially in comparison to total wage costs in the UK of more than £1.3 trillion.

However, it was introduced at a time when employers’ costs were already increasing. In April 2025, employers’ national insurance contributions increased from 13.8% to 15% of earnings, and the threshold for paying contributions fell from £9,100 a year to £5,000.

The minimum wage increased from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour for those over 21 and from £8.60 to £10 per hour for 18 to 20-year-olds. These changes hit sectors with lots of young, low-paid workers – hospitality and retail, for example – hardest. Employers in these sectors often use flexible working (such as zero-hours contracts) to offset the costs of higher minimum wages.

If this becomes more difficult because of restrictions imposed by the bill, employers can attempt to pass increased costs on to customers by raising prices. But if food prices increase, for example, this will hurt lower-paid workers (who spend a high proportion of their income on food) – the very people the bill is intended to help.

Of course, not all employers can pass on higher costs. Universities, for instance, have already estimated that national insurance increases cost them £430 million per year.

Restrictions to “fire and rehire” (where employers fire employees and rehire them under different terms, such as less generous pensions) may affect employers looking to restructure. In such cases, employers may instead cut jobs. With the number of UK vacancies falling for three years, this could accelerate the decline.

The UK’s new business secretary, Peter Kyle, has taken over the role of supporting the bill through parliament. He has previously supported it, although he has also committed to lowering regulation, which is seemingly at odds with this bill.

Both business and union leaders are lobbying hard ahead of the Commons debate on September 15. Unions are demanding Labour MPs be whipped to oppose the Lords’ amendments, and some have threatened to disaffiliate from the party if not. For now, the government insists it will pass the bill and reject the amendments. But businesses will hope that new ministers will be more sympathetic to their concerns.

There are still lots of details to be worked out. For example, the bill does not define what counts as the “minimum hours” workers would be guaranteed. With the timeline for introducing all the changes stretching to 2027, business leaders will have plenty of time to lobby for delayed implementation or to reduce its coverage.

Rachel Scarfe is a member of the Labour Party

– ref. After Angela Rayner’s exit from government, what’s the future for employment rights in the UK? – https://theconversation.com/after-angela-rayners-exit-from-government-whats-the-future-for-employment-rights-in-the-uk-265141

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

The line between pulling off a diplomatic masterstroke and setting up an accident waiting to happen can be a fine one. In the seven-month fable of Peter Mandelson’s UK ambassadorship to the US, the crossing of that line has created a political polycrisis for which it is hard to think of a parallel.

In the week after the prime minister, despite his efforts, lost his deputy, and the week before the American president arrives in the UK for an unprecedented – and unpopular – second state visit, Keir Starmer, despite his efforts, has lost the person he controversially personally appointed to the UK’s highest diplomatic post. Worse, over a matter that also happens to implicate Donald Trump – a matter journalists could conceivably raise at the president’s and prime minister’s press conference during the forthcoming state visit.

The risk in the main was in the ambassadorship itself. The US is the UK’s closest and most important international ally and the Washington ambassador is the lynchpin of that relationship. They are the UK’s eyes and ears, permanently operating at the centre of the political and social life of the US capital in the way that no other country’s ambassador has been, is, or could be.

But the risk was also in the man. Prince of Darkness, Third Man, (only last week: “my familiar role as professional villain”), possessed of a public career already involving two high-profile reputation-wracking resignations, Mandelson has always been weapons-grade Marmite.

It was a reflection of post-Brexit British weakness, rather than strength – the desperate need for a trade deal – that Starmer turned to him. Yet personal relations being so important with this president, it can now be seen to have made less sense to have replaced a scandal-free ambassador – Karen Pierce – who was on the best possible terms with Trump and his people. She may return.

Its prominence is why, perhaps, DC is usually the only British ambassadorship that is ever “political” – that is, that a prime minister personally chooses someone who isn’t a diplomat. And even then, it’s rare. One may now see now why. The previous political appointment – in the 1970s – also ended inauspiciously, in a welter of recriminations over nepotism and extra-marital affairs resulting in best-selling novelisation and a hit movie.

The main grounds for Mandelson’s appointment were his public prominence (his “weight”), his experience as an EU trade commissioner, and his almost preternatural networking skills. The latter has been his undoing, given that for years he networked with the man who was to become the world’s most infamous sexual abuser of children.

To describe the appointment as high risk and high reward matters because of the supreme importance of the office and the singular character of the officer. If one can screen the Epstein stain momentarily, the widespread frustration in government was that Mandelson had been justifying that risk.

He was clearly an effective ambassador. Only the week before he delivered a trenchant statement of the contemporary special relationship; the day before he was sacked he had spent an hour with Trump. Ambassadors tend not to have meetings with presidents.

Fundamentally this falls on the fallen. Mandelson knew of the Epstein material that has come to be made public, knowing that it might be made public. He admitted only this week that even more was likely to come after the initial, highly embarrassing, disclosure.

Mandelson took the UK’s most important diplomatic post knowing he was sitting on a ticking bomb. Given the precise nature of the explosive, the political obituary can certainly now be written about one of the most vivid public figures of the past 30 years.

But the more consequential damage will be to the man who appointed him. Downing Street’s statement that security vetting took place without its involvement is not credible.

Much may hinge on what the vetting files reveal – if they are revealed. The decision on whether to release them is a matter for MPs, and how Labour backbenchers choose to vote will be a significant indicator as to the mood in the party.

A crisis from Hades, replete with shadowy associations of global elites and paedophile rings; a hot buffet for online conspiracists, who may be more numerous and prominent in the US, but are far from reticent in the UK. And so the political class undergoes another detention.

The political damage to the government in general and to the prime minister in particular is hard to overstate. That is in part a matter of misfortune: that this particular major crisis comes a week after the previous one. But it has nevertheless provided the leader of the opposition with the most palpable success of her own benighted tenure. Seldom can a relaunch have relapsed so quickly.

However hapless he may increasingly appear, it’s too early to write Starmer’s political obituary. The election may be over three years away, his parliamentary majority is unassailable, and his party – unlike that of the leader of the opposition – has no culture of regicide (although mayor Andy Burnham, observing and pronouncing from Manchester, seems increasingly prepared to test that). Yet the very size of that majority, and the near certainty that many Labour MPs will be one-term, makes public expressions of discontent consequence-free, and consequently freer.

It’s more than curious that so innately risk-averse a person as Keir Starmer appointed so risk-taking a person as Mandelson to his country’s highest-profile international office. That misgivings were aired at the time, including in these very pages, is the least of it.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Peter Mandelson was always a high risk appointment – his departure will not end the matter for Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/peter-mandelson-was-always-a-high-risk-appointment-his-departure-will-not-end-the-matter-for-keir-starmer-265159

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Darling, Professor in Human Geography, Durham University

Over recent weeks, the interim injunction to halt the housing of asylum seekers at the Bell hotel in Epping has thrown government plans into crisis. The Home Office has now successfully appealed this judgment but does still need to come up with another plan for housing asylum seekers in the longer term.

The case has highlighted the need to rebuild relationships with local government. In trying to stop the Bell hotel from housing asylum seekers, Epping Forest district council argued that an initial ruling in its favour was an important step in “redressing the imbalance” between the priorities of the Home Office and the interests of councils and residents. Long-standing concerns about a lack of consultation over where, and how, asylum seekers are housed suggest we should expect to see further legal challenges in places where these hotels are located.

The lack of communication with communities over the hotels has generated fertile ground for anti-migrant protests. The outcome has been an accommodation model that works for no one and increasingly fraught relationships between central and local government.

Hotels are used as emergency accommodation because the last government failed to process asylum claims, leaving a backlog of people trapped in the asylum system. They are unable to work or secure their own housing.

The Labour government has made a commitment to end the use of hotels by 2029 and has made some progress in reducing hotel use since its peak in 2023. But there are no easy alternatives.

It has tried to use former RAF bases and military barracks as sites for mass accommodation but conditions are extremely poor. The short-term holding facility at Manston has seen outbreaks of disease, severe overcrowding, and accusations of racism by contracted staff. Accommodation at RAF Wethersfield in Essex has been likened to a prison by those housed there with charities warning of a mental health crisis unfolding as a consequence of insufficient support. And the costs of running these sites are greater than hotels.

Alternatives

The government could instead look to European neighbours like Germany and Sweden, where asylum seekers are able to work after set periods in the asylum system. This means a reduced reliance on the state for housing and greater pathways to integration. Despite campaigns to support the right to work for asylum seekers, the UK continues to deny such a right. This limits the ability of asylum seekers to secure their own housing. In the current political climate, willingness to change course and grant asylum seekers the right to work seems unlikely.

The Epping Forest case should force the government to rethink. The immediate priority must be to work closely with local government to provide safe and secure community-based housing for people seeking asylum.

Achieving this will require ending the privatisation of asylum accommodation and returning control to local authorities. Empowering councils to have a stake in the future of asylum accommodation will mean that the asylum system can benefit from the knowledge and expertise of local government on housing conditions, markets and standards.

Moving asylum accommodation back under public control means an end to the excessive profiteering of private contractors. It can also offer scope for experimenting with housing models that have been ignored by profit-driven housing providers.

For example, approaches to co-housing show how investments in accommodating asylum seekers can be shared with other groups in need of housing. In Amsterdam, co-housing projects have provided accommodation for young refugees alongside Dutch students who choose to live in specially designed housing units with shared facilities and social spaces. In Berlin, co-housing accommodates asylum seekers alongside residents with German citizenship and dedicated community hubs. These models show that alternatives can both involve the local community and deliver dignified housing.

Respecting refugee rights

This summer the government has shown no leadership on asylum. Reform UK and an increasingly radical Conservative party have promised simplistic and hardline policies that show no respect for the lives and rights of asylum seekers.

In response, the government should be bold. To change the failing asylum accommodation system the government needs to make a public case for why housing asylum seekers with dignity matters. The government should communicate the importance of respecting international law and the right to asylum. That means defending the 1951 Refugee Convention against those who are seeking to remove protections for people fleeing conflict and persecution.

It also means rejecting the idea that those seeking asylum in Britain are “illegal” – a term that has become mainstream. Asylum seekers have a legal right to seek safety and their actions in doing so are not illegal. Calling asylum seekers “illegal” makes it easier to dismiss their need for protection and to justify their poor treatment.

Leadership involves challenging the divisive language used to describe asylum seekers, rather than allowing terms such as “invasion” to remain uncontested. Divisive language pits vulnerable groups in society against one another.

Legally, and morally, the state has responsibilities to support all those facing homelessness. Denying these responsibilities and restricting the rights of asylum seekers will not advance the rights of others. Instead, focus should be on developing public housing options that combine resources for all those who are homeless.

Innovative and inclusive ways to provide safe, secure, and dignified accommodation to asylum seekers and other people are available. The Epping Forest case should give the government the imperative to explore them.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Jonathan Darling has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is affiliated with the No Accommodation Network as a trustee.

– ref. After the Epping Forest case, the government needs to be bold and build asylum housing that works – https://theconversation.com/after-the-epping-forest-case-the-government-needs-to-be-bold-and-build-asylum-housing-that-works-264060

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicole Bulawa, Lecturer in Marketing, Lancaster University

Charging your electric car for the first time can seem confusing. The whole process just isn’t very intuitive. There are different plug types and charging speeds, plus various ways of charging at home, at motorway stations or in car parks.

Despite how complex it may seem at first, most people find it pretty straightforward once they get used to it. One reason for this is explained in my research which shows how imitation helps people get to grips with new technology. In this case, electric car charging copied the well-known: refuelling a car.

That might seem obvious, but not all countries opted for a recharging infrastructure. China, for example, is focusing on battery swapping. As the name suggests, the battery in your electric car is swapped for a charged one. So, while imitation is not the only option, it is the approach that has made the UK’s electric vehicle infrastructure feel less alien to us.

As a result, large charging stations in the UK could easily be mistaken for petrol stations simply because of their design. They are located on or near motorways, are often sheltered, and have rows of parking spaces. Not to mention, there is usually a shop, as one would expect at any typical petrol station. Rapid chargers also resemble their petrol counterparts. These are the ones that can charge an electric car up to 80% in just 20 to 60 minutes and look like a fuel pump with their boxy, towering design and cable connections.

The basic principles of charging and refuelling are also very similar.

To refuel your car, you drive to a petrol station, park next to a fuel pump, connect the nozzle to the car, pay and drive off again. Now, imagine swapping the petrol station for a charging station and replacing the fuel nozzle with a plug. Nothing much has changed except you are now charging an electric car instead of filling a tank with petrol – apart from the environmental impact perhaps.

Inspiration for designing charging stations was taken from more than just the car industry. When it comes to payment options, you can still make one-off card payments, just as you would at any petrol station. Or, to save on charging costs, you can use one of the many charging apps and subscriptions. We often use these in everyday life, so they make the whole process of electric car charging a bit more familiar.

The limits of imitation

But new technologies also bring change and change means that we can’t just copy everything. One of the main points of difference is that charging takes longer than refuelling.

Since changes, especially those involving longer waiting times, are not very well received, something had to be done. Spoiler alert: it was not done by imitating something. Quite the opposite, in fact.

While navigation maps showed petrol and charging stations along the route, information on charging station availability had to be added to avoid electric car drivers arriving at a particular station to find it full, with hours of waiting time ahead. This allows people to see how many chargers are being used in real life. So, it shows that certain adaptations are needed for technology to be integrated into everyday life effectively.

These add-ons are usually introduced to address hiccups caused by unexpected consumer behaviour, such as blocking charging stations even when the car is nicely charged. Originally, the rules for charging were very similar to those for refuelling (as a reminder: you park your car, fill it up, pay and leave).

But since charging an electric car typically takes longer than refuelling, drivers took the liberty of overstaying their welcome. In other words, drivers failed to return to their electric car once it was charged, causing a bottleneck of frustrated drivers. As a result, new rules were introduced to specify how long an electric car can remain at a bay once charging is complete, particularly for rapid charging.

We usually think of innovations as being new and exciting. However, many innovations, from Thomas Edison’s electric lightbulb to the modern circus, contain features that we have seen or used before. The traditional circus tent, for example, is still used in modern circuses, but theatrical and acrobatic performances have replaced animal shows, which was a novelty at the time. While the concept of imitation may not always have the best reputation due to its apparent lack of originality, it has played a significant role throughout history and will probably continue to do so in the future.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

The study was supported by ERF funding from ESCP Business School. The funding body did not exert any influence over the study or its subsequent dissemination.

– ref. Similarities between recharging and refuelling make the switch to electric cars an easier choice – https://theconversation.com/similarities-between-recharging-and-refuelling-make-the-switch-to-electric-cars-an-easier-choice-262000

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rafeef Ziadah, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Public Policy (Emerging Economies), King’s College London

Entire neighbourhoods in Gaza lie in ruins. Hundreds of thousands are crammed into tents, struggling for food, water and power. Despite this devastation, a leaked 38-page document from Donald Trump’s administration – the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation (Great) Trust – proposes to “fundamentally transform Gaza” folding it into the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (Imec).

While framed as a reconstruction plan, it outlines “massive US gains,” Imec’s acceleration, and consolidation of an “Abrahamic regional architecture” – a term that refers back to the 2020 Abraham Accords, US-brokered agreements that normalised relations between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain.

In many respects, the document echoes the “Gaza 2035” plan promoted by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was the 2024 proposal that envisioned Gaza as a sanitised logistics hub linked to Saudi Arabia’s Neom mega-project and stripped of meaningful Palestinian presence.

As my co-authors and I trace in a recent book Resisting Erasure: Capital, Imperialism and Race in Palestine, this continues a pattern of policies that deny Palestinians political agency and reduce Gaza to an investment opportunity.

Imec was launched at the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi. Signed by the US, EU, India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, it was billed as a transformative infrastructure project. It comprised a chain of railways, ports, pipelines and digital cables linking South Asia to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel was not formally a signatory, but its role was implicit. The corridor runs from Indian ports to the UAE, overland through Saudi Arabia and Jordan to the Haifa Port in Israel, then across the Mediterranean to Greece and Europe.

Like many such mega-projects, Imec is marketed in the language of efficiency – faster trade times, lower costs, new energy and data corridors. But its deeper significance is political. For Washington it serves as a counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) while binding India into a US-led system. Europe views it as a hedge against the Suez Canal and Russian pipelines.

The Gulf monarchies see a chance to position themselves as the region’s main centre for trade and transport. Israel promotes Haifa as a gateway for Euro-Asian trade. India, meanwhile, gains quicker access to Europe while tightening its ties with both Washington and the Gulf.

Gaza as obstacle and gateway

The plan casts Gaza both as an Iranian outpost undermining Imec and as a historic crossroads of trade routes linking Egypt, Arabia, India and Europe.

By invoking Gaza’s history as a trading route, the plan presents the territory as a natural logistics gateway poised to “thrive once again” at the centre of a “pro-American regional order”. The blueprint proposes extending Gaza’s port from Egypt’s al-Arish, integrating its industries into regional supply chains, and reorganising its land into “planned cities” and digital economies.

What is being imagined is not recovery for its residents, but the conversion of Gaza into a logistics centre serving Imec.

Perhaps the most radical element of the Great Trust is its model of direct trusteeship. The plan envisions a US-led custodianship, beginning with a bilateral US–Israel agreement and eventually expanding into a multilateral trust. This body would govern Gaza, oversee security, manage aid and control redevelopment. After a “Palestinian polity” is established, the trust would still retain powers through a Compact of Free Association.

Even the most ill-fated US occupation plans in Iraq and Afghanistan did not so openly imagine territory as a corporatised trusteeship for global capital.

‘Voluntary’ relocation

Another striking feature of the plan is its provision for “voluntary relocation.” Palestinians who leave their homes in Gaza would receive relocation packages, rent subsidies and food stipends. The document assumes a quarter of the population will depart permanently, with financial models showing how the scheme becomes more profitable the more people leave.

In reality, the notion of voluntary departure under siege and famine is not voluntary at all. Israel’s blockade has produced what UN officials describe as engineered mass starvation. To frame out-migration as a choice is to sanction ethnic cleansing.

The plan also shows how the language of the Abraham Accords has been grafted onto Gaza’s imagined future. Nearly every element is dressed in “Abrahamic” branding: an Abraham gateway logistics hub in Rafah, an Abrahamic infrastructure corridor of railways, even new highways renamed after Saudi and Emirati leaders.

Techno-futurist gloss is added through smart manufacturing zones, AI-regulated data centres, luxury resorts and new digital-ID cities, planned “smart cities” where daily life, from housing and healthcare to commerce and employment, would be mediated through ID-based digital systems.

Saudi Arabia and the fig leaf of Palestinian statehood

A central ambition of the Great Trust is to channel Gulf capital into Gaza’s redevelopment under its trusteeship. The plan forecasts US$70–100 billion (£50-£74 billion) in public investment and another $35–65 billion from private investors, with public–private partnerships financing ports, rail, hospitals and data centres.

Saudi Arabia, though not formally part of the Abraham accords, signalled its acceptance of the overall framework when it backed Imec. For Washington, Gaza’s reconstruction is imagined as the final step in persuading Riyadh to make normalisation official – a prize that would anchor the “Abrahamic order”.

The Trump plan is designed to smooth this path, offering Saudi Arabia a custodial role in Gaza’s redevelopment and lucrative stakes in Imec. To make the deal more palatable, it even floats the idea of a Palestinian “polity” – a limited governance entity under trusteeship.

While such an arrangement may be billed as a step towards Palestinian statehood recognition by Saudi Arabia, this is precisely why any future gestures of recognition must be treated with caution. The real question is what, exactly, is being recognised, and in whose interest.

The Great Trust is, at its core, an investment prospectus. The document values Gaza today at “practically $0” – but projects it could be worth $324 billion within a decade.

Gaza is described less as a society than as a distressed asset to be flipped. This is disaster capitalism at its sharpest. It is devastation reframed as the precondition for speculative profit.

Yet visions of free-trade zones and futuristic cities quickly collide with reality. Palestinians have consistently rejected such schemes. What this leaked document makes clear however, is that Gaza’s future is being framed within this broader US effort to reshape the region.

Rafeef Ziadah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Donald Trump’s vision for Gaza’s future: what a leaked plan tells us about US regional strategy – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-vision-for-gazas-future-what-a-leaked-plan-tells-us-about-us-regional-strategy-264899

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Silver, Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sheffield

The US and Israel have sparked international condemnation over their leaked vision for the reconstruction of a shattered Gaza. The urban development plan seems to have evolved since its emergence earlier in the year. It now includes economic drivers such as blockchain-based trade initiatives, data centres and “world-class resorts”.

And its alignment to the proposed regional logistical network, the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (Imec) aims to put it at the centre of a pro-American regional architecture.

The images and details that have emerged in the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation (Great) Trust blueprint indicate a vision that clearly pays homage to Gulf urbanism. Similar mega-projects, towers and speculative real estate ventures have driven the transformation of Dubai and other Gulf cities since the 1980s.

The 38-page document, initially published in the Washington Post, is an architectural fantasy of a hyper-modern, coastal enclave. Its planning origins seem twofold. First, it’s rooted in the libertarian ideologies of what’s known as a charter city – urban development spaces with different laws and institutions than the jurisdiction they sit within, such as Prospera in Honduras.

Second, it appears to take inspiration from the authoritarian control of oil-rich monarchies such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. These states are now intimately aligned with US president Donald Trump and Israel itself.

The plan was reportedly aided by the Boston Consulting Group, with staff from the Tony Blair Institute apparently privy to previous discussions. Boston Consulting Group has since said that two of its former partners took part in the work without its knowledge. The Tony Blair Institute has also distanced itself, saying it has never “authored, developed or endorsed” plans to relocate residents from Gaza.

The US$100 billion (£74 billion) investor-led plan has all the standard ingredients of a new city. This includes prestige waterfront developments for the international elite. It envisages apartment blocks owned by international real estate developers, whether Saudi state-owned funds or US corporate trusts.

Special economic zones with favourable tax conditions supposedly promise advanced manufacturing potential. And various kinds of green and sustainable technologies are also proposed – potentially greenwashing the massive carbon footprint of the conflict.

Gaza is unlikely to be the next Dubai though. The plan includes massive Israeli security buffer zones, suggesting the likelihood of resistance from Palestinian militant groups to occupation. In all likelihood, it would also finally extinguish any prospect of a two-state solution.

The risks for financial investors will be massive. These include possible legal liabilities around land theft and potential incorporation into court proceedings on genocide at the International Court of Justice should these happen. It’s no wonder the plan has been described as “insane” by a senior associate at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, and opposed by some parts of the Israeli media.

Understanding the urban dimensions of the “Gaza Riviera” plan needs more than a planning lens though. It involves placing its development within the wider history and geography of Palestine. Doing so arguably positions the initiative less as a reconstruction effort and more as the next step towards the erasure of the Palestinian presence in the territory.

Scholars of settler colonialism have shown that its logic is one of elimination. This, it’s explained, is to enable territorial control and to establish a new settler society on the land. As Theodor Herzl, founding father of Zionism and held in high regard by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argued: “If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct.”

Israel has previously asserted territorial control over Gaza, including the forced transfer of Palestinians to the territory in 1948, which they refer to as the Nakba (the catastrophe), as well as with illegal settlements between 1967 and 2005, and the blockade of the strip from 2007. All these forms of control should be understood within the logic of elimination. The most recent military onslaught in Gaza demonstrates the latest phase in this process.

The plan is reliant on two on-the-ground factors beyond the financial and geo-political – urbicide and expulsion. First, establishing this new society involves demolishing centuries of historical built environment and the support networks of urban life. This urbicide of Gaza is the deliberate destruction of its civil infrastructure, built environment, roads and hospitals, removing its physical character and functionality as a settlement.

What the plan would mean for Palestinians

Forensic Architecture is a group of researchers who use architectural techniques to investigate state violence and human rights abuses. Its Cartography of Genocide database has documented that the Israel Defense Forces’ spatial violence has been nearly complete in many areas of Gaza. This sets the necessary conditions for the plan to proceed.

The plan has little space for the 2.3 million Palestinians living in Gaza. There are reports of residents being offered up to US$5,000 to make way for the “Riviera”, supposedly on a temporary basis.

Meanwhile the Israeli military continues killing Palestinian civilians and pushing massive displacement within Gaza itself, while far-right Israeli politicians make public their desire to remove Palestinians from the territory.

Claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza – including from the International Association of Genocide Scholars – are becoming more widespread. Israel’s actions have resulted in death and injury to tens of thousands of Palestinians. The plan for the redevelopment of Gaza can also be understood within this settler colonial logic: an urban idea that, in order to be achieved, necessitates the erasure of all that stood before through the expulsion of the population and urbicide of the built environment.

Jonathan Silver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The ‘Gaza Riviera’ is a fantasy plan that relies on urbicide and expulsion – https://theconversation.com/the-gaza-riviera-is-a-fantasy-plan-that-relies-on-urbicide-and-expulsion-264811