"The safe passage" is a term intended to denote displacement and the erasure of the Palestinian presence

Talal Abu-Ghazaleh

The concept of the "safe passage" is not seen as a humanitarian gesture, but rather as a mechanism to perpetuate injustice and erase the Palestinian presence from their homeland, as part of a malicious systematic effort to fragment Palestinian territories and control them, further solidifying Israeli occupation and depriving Palestinians of all their rights.

The idea that displacement, destruction, and killing can be considered acceptable when covered with the language of humanity and international law challenges traditional concepts of war and justice. This is inherent hypocrisy in dealing with the Palestinian cause, where major powers manipulate legal frameworks and discourse to justify their actions, regardless of the human cost.

In light of the presented context, President Biden's call for the establishment of a safe passage before any military operation in Rafah seems to indeed facilitate the process of displacement. It carries an implicit acknowledgment that the firepower and destructiveness will be stronger than what the occupation forces experienced in the north and the center of the Gaza district.

Furthermore, President Biden's affirmations to Netanyahu that the shared goal of defeating Hamas and ensuring long-term security for Israel remains a mutual priority reaffirms the ongoing partnership between the United States and Israel. Here, attention must be drawn to the decisions of the International Court of Justice as a significant mechanism for holding countries accountable for their support of Israeli actions. The judgments of the International Court of Justice are  vital tools to ensure accountability for those involved in acts that may contribute to human rights violations or atrocities

In recent developments, Israel obtained conditional approval from both the United States and Egypt for its planned military operation. The United States, in particular, emphasized the importance of imposing restrictions on the operation and called for careful definition of a specific timeframe and geographic scope. This strategic approach aims to prevent the recurrence of crimes that have provoked international outrage and condemnation.

The American stance reflects sensitivity towards the potential repercussions of military operations, especially amid the alarming images often circulated in the media. There is a clear concern within American circles about the impact of such images on public opinion, particularly following recent rulings issued by the International Court. Despite these concerns, Washington's position does not explicitly oppose the attack on Rafah; rather, it focuses instead on ensuring that any military action adheres to standards that minimize humanitarian consequences and reduce the risk of further escalation.

At the same time, Israel's objectives in the operation extend beyond mere military engagement, primarily focusing on reinforcing the blockade on Gaza Strip. This reflects Israel's broader strategic goals aimed at asserting its control over the territory.
In conclusion, I say that the safe passage is a crime that reminds us of the ongoing shocks and injustices that continue to define the oppression imposed on the Palestinian.

And this reminds me of what one Western official said: "Kill them, but without violence, starve them to death, but with tenderness, and destroy everything they have to protect their future from the extremists among them”.