Category World News

Montreal, Canada – For years, Pierre Poilievre has hammered home a simple slogan: “Axe the tax”.

The Conservative Party leader of Canada’s opposition coalition, who is slated to take the place of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, has pledged to repeal a carbon pricing policy.

As part of the nation’s efforts to lower emissions and address the climate crisis, the policy added a cost to fossil fuel products like gasoline.

Poilievre has attributed the environmental program to Canada’s “carbon tax,” despite research that shows that carbon pricing has had little to no impact on inflation. Additionally, he has pledged to “turn the tax on everyone forever.”

“We need a carbon tax election to fire them all and bring home a common-sense Conservative government”, he said in a recent video posted on social media, referring to the Liberals.

As Canadians continue to face high grocery and housing costs, the Conservatives are hoping that their anti-carbon tax approach will offset the upcoming federal election.

Even the frontrunners to replace Trudeau as head of the ruling Liberal Party are turning against carbon pricing, according to experts who are aware of the Tories’ campaign’s political difficulties.

“The Conservatives have made a lot of political hay by opposing carbon pricing,” the Conservatives claim. Axe the tax ‘ is now the central pillar of the federal Conservative campaign strategy”, said Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

“There’s certainly some political opportunism happening here. The Conservatives have doubled and tripled down on this controversial topic and made it into a contentious position.

However, according to Mertins-Kirkwood, the political discourse surrounding carbon pricing has “dramatically overblown” the problem in terms of both its impact on affordability and its significance in the climate fight as a whole.

The issue is that it has evolved into “this political football,” the “exegetical epitome of climate policy,” and the “representation of overreach” on the one hand. And I just think it’s neither of those things”.

What is a carbon price?

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which establishes the minimum national standards for carbon pricing in provinces and territories across Canada, was passed in 2018.

The federal government established two systems for Canadian consumers and large industrial polluters.

The consumer-level carbon price, which has attracted the most scrutiny and political ire, has imposed taxes on everyday purchases of fossil fuel fuel, such as diesel, gasoline, and natural gas.

Over time, these taxes have grown. The latest hike in April meant that the policy now costs $0.12 ($0.176 Canadian) more per litre of petrol, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (PDF).

Consumers in Canada are being forced to change their behavior and steer clear of products that increase greenhouse gas emissions, according to the theory.

The Liberal government’s overall plan to combat climate change is only one component of the plan.

“You’re making everybody pay a little bit all the time, and so it’s a highly visible policy”, Mertins-Kirkwood said. He noted that every time they use their gas tanks, pay for their natural gas, or visit the grocery store, Canadians experience the effects of carbon pricing.

“That’s just a recipe for unpopularity, even if it’s not a big price and even if — as is the case in basically the entire country — you get a rebate”, he explained.

“Psychologically, it’s just not a winning equation. I do think that’s an inherent problem with carbon pricing, independent of how it’s been handled politically. It’s not politically a winning policy”.

Poor communications

In an effort to help Canadian households offset the carbon price, the federal government established a rebate system.

Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter, professors at the University of Calgary, discovered in a December report that Canadian households received quarterly payments through the government’s rebate system that “frequently outweigh the additional expense caused” by the carbon price.

This means that many families, especially those on lower incomes, are protected from emissions pricing’ negative financial effects, and some families may receive a net financial gain, according to the professors.

They also pointed out that emissions pricing had a 0.5% increase in overall consumer prices in Canada since 2019.

According to them, “most of the price increases were caused by global factors, such as rising energy prices and supply chain disruptions.”

According to Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, the government’s failure to clearly explain how the system operated, which gave the Conservatives the power to “poison the water.”

They responded with, “Trust us,'” which is what they had to say. We’re smart economists. ‘ It hasn’t been well communicated”, he said.

The Canadians’ compensation under the carbon rebate also wasn’t clearly labeled. Funds were deposited into people’s accounts without being marked as part of the policy, fuelling confusion.

Stewart, however, cautioned against “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” in the fight to end carbon pricing in Canada.

The industrial carbon pricing scheme could still be strengthened, he said, even if the consumer price is cut. It will perform the same task without igniting the same resentment.

He also rebuffed the Conservatives’ claim that their “axe the tax” is in opposition to their party’s wider-ranging plan to reduce climate change and boost fossil fuel production.

Canada is home to one of the world’s largest oil deposits, in the western province of Alberta. Poilievre has pushed for new fossil-fuel infrastructure, such as pipelines, and opposed a Liberal proposal to cap pollution by Canada’s oil and gas sector.

“Right now, the Conservatives have proposed eliminating not just the carbon tax but also the clean fuel standard, the electric vehicles mandate”, Stewart added. That “axing the tax” has a much bigger impact than how they say.

Liberals break with policy

Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said some Canadian politicians have been “scapegoating carbon pricing” as part of an “effort to limit all climate action”.

She added that, so far, the Conservatives haven’t “presented any constructive proposals or climate plans.”

In the face of one of the most pressing crises that the constituents he’s competing to serve are in, Mr. Poilievre only comes to the conclusion that he will only be telling us what he will be doing less of.

Before the upcoming election, which must occur by October 20, Canadian political parties should be outlining what they intend to do to address both climate and economic issues.

Instead of starting a race to the bottom, “we are hoping to see these candidates engage in a constructive conversation about what they are proposing to address the climate and affordability issues together,” she said.

In the meantime, the Liberal Party will elect a replacement leader for Justin Trudeau in the first few months, and the two candidates’ early campaign promises include eliminating consumer carbon pricing.

Let’s take a new approach to fighting climate change. https: //t. co/KRLQbGjigL pic. twitter.com/wFcUETlH6E

Former governor of the Bank of Canada and front-runner in the race, Mark Carney, announced last week that incentives would be used to “reward people for making greener choices.”

Those choices include “buying a more efficient appliance, driving an electric car or insulating your home”, Carney said. “The truth is, the consumer carbon tax isn’t working. It’s become too distracting and too divisive. That’s why I will cancel it”.

Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s longtime deputy and former finance minister, said she plans to abolish the carbon price for Canadians, as well as his rival for the leadership position.

“Where people have a consumer-facing price on carbon, they’re saying, ‘ You know, we don’t like it, ‘” she said in a recent interview. “So we have to listen, and at the same time, we do need a strong plan to fight climate change”.

“Force behavior changes,”

Ultimately, Mertins-Kirkwood said the debate over carbon pricing has, in part, served to distract Canadians “from talking about what would actually be effective climate policy”.

He claimed that putting in place regulations that would make climate change a requirement rather than a suggestion would be more effective.

Mertins-Kirkwood pointed to the mandated phase-out of coal-fired electricity as one such example, as well as a plan to ban the sale of new vehicles with internal-combustion engines by 2035.

“These are hard regulations. These are hard tactics that cause behavior change, he said, in contrast to things like carbon pricing or incentives for electric vehicles, where you’re incentivising and hoping that people will do that.

According to Stewart of Greenpeace, Canada should be looking to develop “a green industrial strategy” that will lead to better investments and jobs.

The exceptional immunity that Israel has enjoyed for decades has placed international law and its institutions&nbsp, at a knife’s edge. Israel has&nbsp, killed UN workers, &nbsp, banned UNRWA, &nbsp, barred UN representatives from entry, and repeatedly&nbsp, insulted the UN&nbsp, and&nbsp, its officials.

Israeli governments that have followed in the past have used every means to pressure the International Criminal Court (ICC) to not investigate crimes against Israel, from direct threats of physical assault to defamation and sanctions. The court’s attacks on both Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have only grown since it issued arrest warrants.

Trump, the US president, has already ratified an executive order that would resettle ICC employees. This is in addition to other choices he has made, including the US’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, which are direct threats to international multilateralism. The US president declared his intention to “take over” Gaza and “own it” on Tuesday, flaunting his total disregard for international law.

These developments raise the question of whether the UN’s current global system has no hope of being saved.

The UN has largely failed to prevent and stop conflicts despite being established in 1945 to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Its creation marked the start of a “peace for some” era for economically advanced states that wage proxy wars in previously colonized nations. So, do we give up on the idea of an international legal order altogether?

It is obvious that we do need a system that brings people together under the ideal of justice as we face the imminent threat of climate change and the rapid escalation of militarisation. Diverse thinkers have already suggested the creation of an international legal framework that dissipates power.

A well-known Chilean lawyer Alejandro Alvarez, for instance, made the suggestion of a “new international law” some 70 years ago. He argued that the European legal tradition, which predominated in international law, was insufficient to address legal issues in places like the Americas during his tenure as a judge of the International Court of Justice (1946-1955).

Alvarez argued for a “new international law” that reflected the interests and positions of decolonized states in a number of cases where he deliberated on behalf of the parties.

There was a&nbsp, clear attempt&nbsp, at that time by states of the Global South to claim international law to its benefit. Nevertheless, economically advanced states used their influence to eradicate such attempts.

If the concept of an international legal order is to survive, these efforts must now be renewed at a historic moment. The motivation may be inaction against Palestine, as the genocide in Gaza exemplifies larger patterns of oppression and exploitation that define the world system today.

Global South countries are already attempting to deport Israel from the UN. A petition signed by&nbsp, 500 legal scholars&nbsp, has also called on the UN General Assembly to unseat Israel in order to preserve its legitimacy.

In response, the US Congress threatened to withdraw US funding if a vote were to occur in a letter to UN Secretary Antonio Guterres. While the US lobby at the UN has no secret power, a public threat to revoke funding from the organization if it performs its normal tasks publicly defies international law’s authority and principles.

There is a simple solution if the US decides to cut funding for the UN altogether: relocate the UN to a global south base. Moving the UN Headquarters to a different location would significantly lower its costs, boost its support, and boost its greater participation. It would eliminate the predicament of an international legal system with a state that has demonstrated to be the most effective offender of crimes it was intended to stop.

On a institutional level, the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank are all examples of institutional structures that imperial power must be eliminated. Calls for the abolition of these institutions were spearheaded by leading figures of the decolonisation movement like&nbsp, Thomas Sankara&nbsp, and&nbsp, Amilcar Cabral. The Algerian Judge, Mohammad Bedjaoui, has repeatedly argued that the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice must have more authority as platforms for the Global South. Additionally, this might represent a time for swift international lawmaking that builds on previous efforts to establish a new international legal order. Pacific islands are already&nbsp, challenging&nbsp, the limitations of international law by asking the ICJ to role on state responsibility towards climate change.

A coalition of progressive organizations from all over the world recently launched a project to create a framework for the new, new international economic order, Progressive International. People of the Global South are united in their experience of economic and physical dominance and subjugation, and there is power in the unison of voices. The political tides must align, even for a fleeting moment, for such change to occur.

The current moment of genocide, neocolonialism, climate crisis and sickening impunity imposes on us the duty to reimagine the status quo. We can’t afford cynicism. A new international legal system that values virtue over power must be laid the groundwork.

Donald Trump’s proposal to “own” Gaza after Palestinians are forced out of the area, which according to Palestinian rights advocates, is gaining praise and rebuke in the US capital.

Among Trump’s Democratic rivals, the president’s remarks have spurred bewilderment and criticism, with some accusing him of threatening the stability of the entire Middle East.

His Republican allies have rushed to defend and applaud Trump, as has been the case with many of his controversial positions over the years.

Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday afternoon, Trump said the US would “take over” a depopulated Gaza and have “long-term ownership” of the Palestinian territory.

Al Jazeera examines the remarks made by US politicians regarding the proposal here.

Democrats

Richard Blumenthal

The proposal, according to the Connecticut senator, has “crazy implications for diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab countries.”

“In consequences for all sides, it’s deeply destructive – indeed, just to suggest it – threatening progress toward peace &amp, stability, sustaining &amp, expanding the Abraham Accords, &amp, returning hostages”, he wrote in a social media post.

Mike Quigley

The congressman from Indiana said he was “appalled” by Trump’s proposal, saying that the president is driven by the possibility of “real estate development” in Gaza.

“Make no mistake: This is a call for ethnic cleansing. Trump and Netanyahu’s best interests are the end of the Gaza war, Quigley wrote on social media.

Eric Swalwell

The California congressman reacted to Trump’s remarks, noting that the US president, who had campaigned for the end of all wars, has stated in recent weeks that he wants to acquire the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada.

“Wait what? The U. S. is going to occupy Gaza? No more endless wars were promised to us. By my count we are occupying Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, and now…Gaza”? On X, Wallace said.

Judy Chu

Californian congresswoman criticised the proposal while also criticizing Elon Musk, a billionaire, as the Trump administration’s influence is growing.

“What the people of Gaza, Greenland, Panama, Canada, and whatever other area of the world Trump learns about next DON’T need: American troops to invade their homes”, she wrote.

Unelected billionaires must stop stealing our personal information and tax dollars, the people of America DO need.

Chris Murphy&nbsp,

The Connecticut senator dismissed Trump’s proposal, suggesting it may be a distraction.

“I have news for you – we aren’t taking over Gaza”, he said in a social media post.

Trump will have succeeded in detracting everyone from the real story, which is the billionaires seizing the government to steal from regular people, according to the media and the chattering class, for a few days.

Rashida Tlaib

Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in the US Congress, pleaded with other lawmakers who claim to support the two-state solution to speak out against Trump.

“Palestinians aren’t going anywhere”, the congresswoman, who represents a Michigan district, wrote in a social media post. Because of Congress’ bipartisan support for funding genocide and ethnic cleansing, “this president can only spew this fanatical bull***t.”

Republicans

Marco Rubio

Despite the destabilizing effects and outcry it would cause in Middle Eastern nations, the US secretary of state characterized Trump’s plan as a push for peace there.

“Gaza is beautiful once more and the United States is ready to lead.” The top US diplomat wrote on X that our goal is to achieve lasting peace in the region for everyone.

Rick Scott

The Florida senator falsely claimed that Trump’s proposal encouraged Hamas to burn alive children. That claim, related to the Palestinian group’s October 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, has been widely debunked.

“Thank God we finally have a president who is determined to stand with Israel and work with Netanyahu to promote their efforts to expel terrorists from Gaza and return every hostage,” Scott said.

Brandon Gill

Trump’s push was seen as a diplomatic effort, according to the Texas legislator.

“President Trump is bringing peace to the Middle East, just as he promised”, he wrote on social media.

“PROMISES KEPT”.

Darrell Issa

The California congressman, who is of Lebanese descent, lauded Trump’s “vision” for the region.

According to him, “President Trump has the right perspective for the Middle East’s future.” He once more opens the door for modern peace.

Beth Van Duyne

The US president, according to the congresswoman from Texas, is relying on the US president to bring “lasting” peace, despite the country’s largely demonizing Trump’s proposal.

“Today’s announcement put Hamas, Iran, and all our enemies on notice — the US will NOT continue the status quo that has empowered terrorists and created a humanitarian disaster”, she said on X on Tuesday.

Rand Paul

The libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator provided some rare Republican criticism of Trump’s remarks, noting that GOP voters wanted a foreign policy that prioritises US interests.

“The pursuit for peace should be that of the Israelis and the Palestinians”, Paul wrote on X.

After US President Donald Trump agreed to hold off on a 25% tariff for 30 days, a major trade war between the US and Canada was avoided. But anger has erupted in Canada, with people calling for a boycott of US products, and some even calling to stop the export of oil to the country’s southern neighbour.

However, preventing Canada from moving its nearly all of its crude oil to the US via a network of pipelines could result in significant economic costs.

Additionally, Canada’s exports would need to diversify after decades of close trade ties spewed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump renegotiated during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.

Thus, in theory, Canada could use its tariff threats to pressure Trump into back down on the oil flow into the US. However, as the pipelines pass through US territory, doing so would cause disruption to the supply of crude to refineries in Canada’s east.

How does Canada’s oil pipeline work?

The main criticism is regarding the construction of Canada’s pipeline infrastructure. It travels through the US to reach Canada’s eastern side, where the majority of the oil is produced, but it starts in western Canada.

Most of the oil is produced in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), which comprises the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

The crude oil is carried through pipelines passing through the US to reach Canada’s east coast provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, where it is refined. So the network of pipelines, some of which were constructed in the 1950s, serve both the refineries in the US and Canada.

“Canada and the US made a conscious decision to integrate their energy infrastructure”, Gitane De Silva, former CEO of government agency Canada Energy Regulator (CER), told Al Jazeera. “It’s been that way for a really long time”.

The US, Canada, and Mexico ratified the NAFTA Agreement in 1994, which eliminated the majority of tariffs and established conditions for energy cooperation.

“When the agreement was ratified, there was a desire in the US for Canada to export as much energy as possible”, De Silva said. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA under Trump in 2020, maintains most of NAFTA’s provisions regarding energy.

The construction of pipelines is also influenced by geography.

The continental shield and the Great Lakes pose a challenge for pipeline construction from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec, according to De Silva. Nearly half of Canada’s landmass is composed of extremely old and hard Precambrian rock.

Canadian oil flows to parts of the US, such as the Midwest, where some of the refineries are located. Eastern provinces are farther away from the US refineries than eastern US ones. For instance, British Colombia’s oil region is more similar to California in the United States than Ontario, a province in Canada.

What is the oil export volume to the US from Canada?

Almost all of Canada’s crude oil exports – about 97 percent – were exported to the US in 2023, according to CER.

In 2022, 60 percent of US oil imports were from Canada, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

In 2024, Canada produced 5.7 million barrels of oil per day, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Every day, US exports total 4.3 million barrels of petroleum products.

Could Canada stop importing US crude oil?

Theoretically yes, but it is unlikely, experts say.

The federal government does, in theory, have the authority to stop the exports. But De Silva said that would be complicated, as Canada is a confederation, which means the federal government and provinces share power. The provinces are in charge of oil production.

“There are definitely legal questions there, because Canada’s never done it before”, De Silva told Al Jazeera, adding that disagreements could cause a “domestic constitutional crisis”.

De Silva added that after turning the tap off, there is also the question of where the oil will be kept. It will be difficult to locate additional 4 million barrels per day when pipelines are full.

De Silva added that if Canada’s government decides to stop producing oil in the US, there would be a question mark over how Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick would get their oil. It raises the question of whether the US would stop the flow of oil to eastern Canada by passing through US control.

According to the 1977 US-Canada transit pipelines agreement, no public authority in the US or Canada shall institute measures “which are intended to, or which would have the effect of, impeding, diverting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit”.

While breaches of the treaty can be challenged in court, “with the Trump administration, I don’t know if they are that focused on those international treaties”, De Silva said.

Last month, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said “We don’t need their]Canada’s] oil and gas. We have more than anybody”. In order to make up for a potential Canadian oil stoppage, he has pledged to drill more well.

There are other ways to transport crude oil from the west of Canada to the east, including by rail, truck, marine, and tanker. However, said De Silva, “pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas. They are also the most efficient and most cost-effective, so it would not be a complete solution, it would not be an ideal solution, but it would be an option, if needed”.

According to 2024 data from CER, pipelines exported 89.6 percent of Canada’s crude oil. The remainder was sent via other networks and by rail.

De Silva stated that Canada has been looking for new export markets for its oil. However, there is no overnight solution for this, she added.

Concerns were raised about the need for Canada to overhaul its pipeline strategy even during the previous US president Joe Biden’s administration. Due to concerns about climate change, Biden abruptly terminated the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline from Canada to the US on his first day in office.

In a report released in 2021 by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), economist Miguel Ouellette wrote, “We see that now, with the new administration, it can become very dangerous for us to have only one client for our exports.”

Deliveries to Asia are likely to rise if Trump implements tariffs, according to Trans Mountain, a Canadian pipeline operator, according to a report released on Tuesday by Reuters. Oil was moved to the Pacific coast of Canada last year, where it is transported on tankers to China, Japan, and South Korea.

De Silva argued that Canada’s economy would suffer as a result of a US ban on oil exports. “The oil sector is the largest driver of our economy”, she said. The federal government should consider this because the US is our largest export market, and that would have an impact on domestic trade that would be nearly as significant or significant as the US’s.

What else is at stake?

In 2022, 79.2 percent of Canada’s refined oil came from the US, according to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

The US imports Canadian crude oil, which is refined in the US’s Midwest before being exported back to Canada and the rest of the world.

De Silva argued that one of the ways Canada is preventing tariffs is that it “exports affordable, reliable, secure energy produced with high standards for human rights and] and sells that to the US at a discount.” Then, at a significant price, the US refiners purchase that, refine it, and return it to Canada and the rest of the world.

The higher tariffs could make fuel expensive, pushing up inflation. They could also impact export-oriented sectors, leading to job losses – which would negatively impact Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, facing an election later this year.

Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House, United States President Donald Trump said Palestinians have “no alternative” but to leave Gaza. Trump stated that the US would “take over” after Palestinians from the Gaza Strip were relocated to a different country when the two leaders met in the Oval Office. The president also expressed his desire to establish the “Riviera of the Middle East” in the area of Israeli occupation.

As Palestinians across the Gaza Strip are inundated with the remnants of unprecedented destruction left behind by the Israeli army, these unbelievable statements were made on Tuesday. Many people who have been displaced and have been able to return to their homes in the last two weeks have only discovered ruin. According to the United Nations, the Israeli army has bombed 90 percent of all&nbsp, housing units in the Gaza Strip, leaving 160, 000 units destroyed and 276, 000 severely or partially damaged.

It has become clear that the genocidal violence that Israel used in Gaza was intended to kill, displaced, and destroy as well as undermine the Palestinian people’s right to remain as the dust settles and images of the extent of the destruction become widely known. The Trump-Netanyahu duo is now intent on preventing this right by examining the possibility of securing it.

Remaining as a right

Refugees who have fled their country and are permitted to remain in a host country while seeking asylum are typically associated with the right to remain, which is not explicitly stated in the human rights canon. In response to pressure from powerful actors pushing for gentrification and redevelopment, it has also been used in the context of so-called urban renewal projects where mostly underprivileged and insecure urban residents demand their right to remain in their homes and among their neighbors. In settler-colonial settings where colonisers actively retake the place of the Indigenous population with settlers, the right to remain is especially urgent. Native Americans have been denied this right by settlers who have used genocidal violence in Australia, including Native Americans from First Nations in North America and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

The right to remain, however, is not merely the right to “stay put”. Rather, to enjoy this right, people must be able to remain within their community and have access to both material and social “infrastructures of existence”, including water and food, hospitals, schools, places of worship and the means to a livelihood. Without these infrastructures, the right to remain becomes impossible.

Beyond just having physical presence, the right to remain includes the preservation of both historical and contemporary narratives and interconnected histories. Because the settler-colonial project aims to physically remove and replace Indigenous people with new ones, as well as any attachments to land, this is a crucial component of this right. Finally, it is unacceptable to allow it to continue to exist as an occupied occupier within a besieged territory. A person’s ability to choose their own destiny is a part of their right to remain.

A history of permanent displacement

Palestinian cities were depopulated during the 1948 war, and about 500 villages were destroyed as a result of the majority of the population’s displacement. In total, about 750, 000 Palestinians out of a population of 900, 000 were displaced from their homes and ancestral lands and were never allowed to return. Since then, the Palestinian experience has included displacement or the threat of displacement. Palestinian communities are still forcibly displaced from their lands and prevented from returning throughout the occupied West Bank and even within Israel in places like Umm al Hiran.

The Gaza Strip’s continued denial of the right to remain in the country is worse because many communities are refugees, and this is their second, third, or fourth displacement, as well as because displacement has now evolved into a genocide tool. As early as October 13, 2023, Israel issued a collective evacuation order to 1.1 million Palestinians living north of Wadi Gaza, and in the following months, similar orders were issued time and again, ultimately displacing 90 percent of the Strip’s population.

In addition to allowing them to relocate from warzones to safe areas, international humanitarian law requires warring parties to protect civilian populations. These provisions, which assume that populations have a right to remain in their homes, require that evacuees be permitted to return when the fighting ends, making any form of permanent displacement prohibited. A “humanitarian camouflage” must be used to cover up the widespread destruction and destruction of Palestinian spaces, as Israel has done and Trump’s recent comments reinforce. It cannot be used for protection or humanitarian relief.

The right to remain and self-determination

Palestinians who have been displaced by the declaration of a ceasefire can now return to their former homes. However, their right to remain is in no way satisfied by this movement back. In 15 months of conflict, Israel has been aiming to eradicate the ability to remain, which is no coincidence.

The razing of hospitals, schools, universities, mosques, shops and street markets, cemeteries and libraries alongside the destruction of roads, wells, electricity grids, greenhouses and fishing vessels was not only carried out in the service of mass killings and the temporary cleansing of areas of their inhabitants but also to create a new reality on the ground, particularly in northern Gaza. Therefore, Palestinian homes have been destroyed, and the population’s very existence will also be in jeopardized for years to come.

This is not a new thing. Over time, how settlers permanently displaced and eliminated Indigenous populations from their territories has been a reality. In light of these tales, we are aware that financial investment in rehabilitating homes and infrastructure won’t, by itself, guarantee the population’s survival. Remaining requires self-determination. Palestinians must finally be granted their right to remain in order for them to be able to exercise their right to remain.

Palestinians are denied the right to remain in Israel for more than 75 years. It is high time to set things straight. The aspirations and claims of the Palestinian people must be the guiding principles for any discussion of Gaza’s future. Except in writing that they are directly related to Palestinian self-determination, foreign countries’ promises of reconstruction and economic prosperity are unimportant. Only decolonization and the liberation of the Palestinians can guarantee the right to remain.