shape

With the ruins of the Gaza Strip lying around him, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz last week renewed his push to set up illegal settlements in the battered territory’s north.

“I intend to establish three Nahal outposts, which is also a military entity, in those places that were in northern Gaza,” Katz told Channel 14, referring to bases that combine farming with an armed presence in a bid to consolidate control over a territory.

The minister said, in his view, establishing these settlements would enhance security – but execution would have to be “in the right way, at the right timing, while coordinating”.

It was not the first time the member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has made such remarks. In December, Katz said the Israeli military would “never leave all of Gaza” but “in due course” would establish Nahal posts despite a United States-brokered plan stipulating a full Israeli military withdrawal and barring the re-establishment of Israeli settlements.

His comments also echoed a recent statement by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that “the groundwork to establish three settlements in the North Gaza area” had been completed. Smotrich, who also holds the portfolio of “settlement administration” in the Ministry of Defence, has repeatedly called for the full occupation of the Gaza Strip.

Such a push has been central to the goals of Israel’s settler movement, which in January 2024 organised a conference attended by government ministers to advocate for the re-establishment of settlements in the Strip.

“This is their ideology. They want the Gazans out of Gaza and they want to settle there like they settle in the West Bank,” former Israeli diplomat Alon Liel told Al Jazeera.

All settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law, but settlement expansion and annexation have been a core objective of Netanyahu’s hard-right government. In recent years, it has carried out unprecedented settlement expansion, resulting in the forced displacement of dozens of Palestinian communities and the de facto annexation of land in the occupied West Bank.

Issam Younis, a prominent Palestinian human rights defender and director of the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, said he was not surprised by Katz’s latest comments. “It was very clear from day one in the genocide that the main goal was to make life impossible in Gaza by destroying everything,” he told Al Jazeera. “It’s a race for time – take over land, starve Gaza and deny it any chance at life, then expel the population and build settlements.”

Younis said Israel’s conduct during its genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza and the “ceasefire” agreed in October under the US plan clearly showed that expelling the population is the main objective of the Israeli government.

“Dehumanising statements by senior Israeli officials reaffirmed this: calling Palestinians in Gaza ‘human animals’, saying that there are no civilians in Gaza, then saying clearly that the objective was to expel the population and create settlements in the Gaza Strip,” Younis added.

Israel made no secret of that objective. In early 2025, the government announced it was setting up an agency to oversee the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from Gaza as part of a plan proposed by Katz.

The announcement drew widespread international condemnation. Experts warned that such a move would amount to a war crime. Last month, the Israeli government decided to rebrand the agency and replace talk of “voluntary migration” with the “free movement plan” while using “language deemed more acceptable internationally”, according to Israeli media.

The policy enjoys widespread support in Israel. A 2025 poll commissioned by the University of Pennsylvania found that 82 percent of Jewish Israelis support the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.

Meanwhile, nine months into a “ceasefire”, during which Israeli attacks have killed at least 1,127 Palestinians, conditions in Gaza remain unbearable.

The United Nations says at least 265 children have been killed during the period while hunger persists and the debilitated healthcare system continues to suffer acute medicine shortages.

“Only 20 percent of what Gaza needs has been allowed to enter – things related to water and health and to life in general,” Younis said, referring to Israeli restrictions on aid entering the Strip. “Gaza is being starved and parched for water.” For him, the aim is clear: expulsion, “even if they call it voluntary migration”.

Liel said Israel is doing the minimum on the humanitarian track to avoid upsetting US President Donald Trump, who has set up what he has named the Board of Peace to oversee the administration and reconstruction of the Strip.

“I don’t think that Israel wants Gaza to be reconstructed like Trump is dreaming,” he said.

Palestinians have been increasingly frustrated with the Board of Peace’s failure to pressure Israel or implement the recovery and construction plans outlined in Trump’s “ceasefire” plan, including the entry of critically needed assistance.

“The Board of Peace is complicit until it moves to rebuild Gaza immediately,” Younis said. “Otherwise, it would not be allowing Israel to create the conditions that make life impossible for Palestinians in Gaza, which will result in expulsion.”

Israeli forces have also expanded the “Yellow Line”, demarcating Israeli-controlled areas within Gaza, to encompass 70 percent of the Strip. “We are not retreating from the ‘Yellow Line’, unequivocally, as long as Hamas does not truly disarm, and even after that, we remain inside Gaza,” Katz told Channel 14 during his tour of northern Gaza, saying the destruction of the territory was “the result of a deliberate policy”.

The settlement push comes as Israel is gearing up for elections, which will be held on October 27.

According to Liel, Katz and other ministers are openly talking about building settlements in Gaza because their calculation is that it would boost their electoral chances amid a shift to the right by the electorate.

Many observers expected the weeks leading up to the polls to be accompanied by a serious escalation in Gaza, the West Bank and other Israeli “war fronts” without changing the political situation in Israel.

“The wish of this Israeli government was that as many [Palestinians from Gaza] will leave. Hopefully voluntarily. If not, Israel will help, and this is the reason you don’t want to rebuild Gaza,” Liel said.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Vice President JD Vance denied that there was an “intense rivalry” between him and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And yet, reports and speculations about tensions between them continue to emerge, with the Rubio camp allegedly spreading rumours that Vance was thinking about pulling out of the presidential campaign before it even starts

In response, perhaps, during the past two weeks, the vice president has stepped out of his routine public persona that usually avoids controversy to make bold statements critical of Israel. Rubio, on the other hand, has continued to hold the party line of unconditional support for Israel. While Vance has led efforts to negotiate a peace deal with Iran, which have rattled Israel, Rubio has spearheaded efforts to pressure the Lebanese government into an agreement on Israel’s terms.

By becoming the face of Republican scepticism of Israel and clashing with his likely presidential election rival Rubio, Vance appears to be charting his own way to the presidency – one that distances the vice president from what increasingly seem to be unpopular foreign policy positions.

Rubio, until recently, had been on the upswing, assigned ever-more important responsibilities by Trump. He has been a leading voice within the administration for a hawkish approach that has encompassed military action from Venezuela to Iran, outweighing the counsel of the more isolationist Vance.

When it comes to Israel, Rubio has made a point of being as public and proactive as possible in his support for that country and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supporting his appeal for the US to enter the war with Iran, and even going so far as to put his name on determinations leveraging claims of national security threats to deport foreign students critical of Israel.

While the bulk of his public statements have been directed at the Netanyahu government, it is hard not to read some of Vance’s recent comments as being directly responsive to Rubio’s actions not only abroad, but at home as well.

As Vance put it, “…pro-Israel people in the United States make two critical mistakes. One, on the one hand, is not delineating between America’s interest and Israeli interests because they’re not the same. But the second is always conflating criticism of a particular government with Jew hatred, because if everything is Jew hatred, then nothing is Jew hatred.”

But, if Vance is creating space between himself and Rubio (including, apparently, by eschewing the increasingly weaponised terminology of “antisemitism”), it must also be the case that there is a political case for his doing so. That case has yet to be tested on the Republican side, where the political elites well beyond Rubio continue to move in lockstep with Israel’s Netanyahu.

But Vance, as ever, is reading the base. The same polls that show an absolute collapse of Democratic grassroots support for Israel also show an unmistakable weakening of that support in the Republican base, with one recent survey finding that 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now hold negative views of Israel.

Despite the inability of Republican elected officials to rally support behind their criticism of Israel (neither of the two most visible examples, Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie will re-enter Congress next year), the demand signal for more frank conversation has propelled right-wing commenters like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to ever-greater prominence. Looking into the social media landscape, Republican questioning of the Israel relationship – particularly under the banner question of whether it represents “America First” or “Israel First,” is inescapable.

Which is not to say it will be an easy path. As sitting vice president, Vance must defer to Trump; while the latter is currently frustrated with Netanyahu, there are no guarantees that the relationship will not warm up between now and 2028 – or that if Israel elects a new leader this autumn, that that person would not be able to rebuild much of Israel’s political capital in Washington.

And similarly, if Vance’s stance on Israel helps him capture the “America First” – which is no easy task given the cohesion within that movement of the Christian Zionist camp that remains strongly pro-Israel – he may then have to contend with a Democratic competitor who seizes the Israel-sceptic mantle more credibly.

Or not. It is still early, but the favoured nominee on the Democratic side appears to be California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose few forays into commentary on Palestine and Israel have quickly been walked back to appease the pro-Israel backers of the party establishment. Indeed, the Democrats will have their own complicated, and likely ugly, battle to fight when it comes to Israel.

What does appear certain, however, is that Israel will be a wedge issue in the upcoming election – and in the wake of the failed Iran war and increasingly unpopular attacks on free speech, both greatly driven by the government of Israel or its aligned lobbies, there is an opening here that Vance, given his competition with Rubio, would have been foolish to ignore.

So is Vance’s public criticism of Israel – and pro-Israel voices within his own party genuine, or calculated? As Vance put it in his book Hillbilly Elegy, “I don’t believe in epiphanies. I don’t believe in transformative moments, as transformation is harder than a moment. I’ve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change only to lose their mettle when they realised just how difficult change actually is.”

Until now, little is harder in Republican politics than to go against the prevailing dogma on Israel. And while Vance has long demonstrated what might be termed isolationist tendencies, there is no reason to think that his recent comments represent an epiphany. Rather, like any politician, he is reading the tea leaves, and sensing an opportunity on the back of a change that is filtering across American public opinion.

Vance may not be committed to driving that change. But he may be smart enough to ride it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The U.S. military has released new details about the massive Fightertown Recapitalization (FTR) Program at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), in Anchorage, southeastern Alaska. This is a huge effort valued at approximately $7 billion that would effectively create an entirely new fighter hub to support future Air Force operations in the strategically important Arctic and Pacific regions.

The details emerged in a special notice announcing an upcoming virtual industry day, where government officials plan to brief contractors on the scope of the program and gather feedback on construction risks, industry capabilities, and acquisition strategies before moving toward a formal procurement process.

While the notice, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is intended primarily as market research, it offers one of the clearest looks yet at the scale and ambition of the Fightertown recapitalization effort.

According to the notice, existing airfield facilities cannot support the program’s requirements, prompting the selection of a new site to expand the current airfield infrastructure. Rather than a collection of isolated projects, the government describes the effort as a “complete campus approach” intended to synchronize facility construction with aircraft procurement, personnel movements, and logistical requirements.

The envisioned campus would include aircraft hangars, squadron operations facilities, corrosion control facilities, maintenance shops, and other aviation support infrastructure. Extensive airfield improvements are also planned, including new taxiways, aprons, shoulders, and specialized aircraft operating surfaces.

Highly likely to be included in the recapitalization efforts will be measures to help reduce vulnerability and ensure critical operations could continue in wartime. After all, in a potential fight against China or Russia, JBER would be high on the list of priority targets in the opening phases of a large-scale conflict. As we have repeatedly outlined in the past, aircraft shelters with varying degrees of hardening are suddenly very much back on the agenda in response to growing drone and missile threats. 

Beyond flight-line infrastructure, the project encompasses a substantial support ecosystem. Plans call for a munitions complex, petroleum operations facilities, warehousing and supply functions, dining facilities, visitor control infrastructure, firefighting facilities, training centers, simulators, and housing for unaccompanied airmen.

The government also notes that the campus design remains flexible and could ultimately involve modifications to, or demolition of, existing facilities as planning progresses.

Rather than relying solely on traditional military construction contracting approaches, the Army Corps of Engineers says the program intends to leverage authorities provided in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. Those authorities could allow the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA), Progressive Design-Build (PDB), and other alternative execution methods.

The notice explicitly states that the government intends to capitalize on private-sector innovation while avoiding what it describes as costly and time-consuming federal contracting burdens. It also emphasizes that the execution strategy will encourage industry partners to propose novel technical and construction solutions.

The scale of the investment underscores Alaska’s growing importance as a hub for U.S. airpower. JBER already serves as one of the Air Force’s premier fighter installations and occupies a critical geographic position between North America, the Arctic, a part of the world that has only grown in strategic significance in recent years, and the Indo-Pacific theater, where strategic planning is highly focused on a potential future conflict with China.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson hosts the headquarters of the 11th Air Force, the service’s top command in Alaska, and its 3rd Wing, which operates a mix of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning Control System (AWACS) radar planes, C-17 Globemaster III airlifters, and C-12 light utility aircraft. It is also home to the Alaska Air National Guard’s 176th Wing, which has additional C-17s, as well as HC-130 Combat King rescue aircraft and HH-60 rescue helicopters.

In addition, in 2023, the Air Force announced the creation of the 55th Operations Group, Detachment 1 at the base, as a detachment of the 55th Wing at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

“The new detachment will… serve as a strategic launch and recovery point for RC-135V/W Rivet Joint operations and exercises in the region,” according to the Air Force.

The move reflected increased demand for RC-135V/W Rivet Joint spy plane sorties in the Pacific, with JBER being well-positioned for these aircraft to gather intelligence on areas of interest in the northern end of the Pacific and the increasingly strategic Arctic region.

The arrival of the Rivet Joint prompted a previous reconstruction effort at JBER. In what the Air Force described as a “mega-project,” one of the two runways there was extended to help it better support operations involving larger aircraft like these.

In the future, the strategic location of JBER, as well as its current status as one of the few F-22 bases, suggests that it could eventually host the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter, the first of which is expected to make its first flight sometime in 2028. The F-47 could therefore well end up as the centerpiece of the Alaskan Fightertown, in keeping with the vision for the jet serving as a critical force multiplier that can bring together other crewed and uncrewed assets. With that in mind, at least some of the Fightertown Recapitalization Program may be specifically tailored to the requirements of the F-47.

Importantly, JBER also serves as the focal point for the Red Flag-Alaska and Northern Edge exercises.

The Red Flag-Alaska exercises can take place up to four times a year and mirror those flown over the Nellis Range Complex in Nevada, with some differences. Namely, the ranges in Alaska, many of which are instrumented, are enormous, and can include a more varied array of assets.

From JBER and other bases in the region, Red Flag-Alaska participants have access to the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). Covering an area of more than 67,000 square miles and providing 77,000 square miles of airspace above, JPARC is the “largest instrumented air, ground and electronic combat training range in the world,” according to the Air Force. It is regularly used to provide a realistic training environment for full-spectrum engagements, ranging from individual skills to large-scale joint engagements.

JPARC’s role could grow further in the coming years as the Air Force pushes large-scale exercises further and further out into the broad expanses of the Pacific. Other range complexes further down along the West Coast are seeing increasing use, as well. Even very large overland ranges, such as the sprawling Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) adjacent to Nellis Air Force Base, are increasingly constrained when attempting to replicate modern scenarios based on ever-growing adversary anti-access and aerial denial (A2/AD) bubbles.

Meanwhile, Northern Edge also occurs in and around Alaska every two years, with these large-scale events being used to test and evaluate new systems and capabilities from across the U.S. military.

In the past, the Air Force has described Northern Edge as a demonstration of “the U.S. commitment to the region by building interoperability, advancing common interests and a commitment to our allies and partners in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific,” as well as showcasing U.S. ability to defend the homeland from and throughout Alaska.

As planning advances, we will learn more about what this new Alaskan Fightertown will look like. What is already clear is that the Air Force and the Pentagon are preparing for a long-term expansion and modernization effort on a scale rarely seen at an operational fighter base.

More details could emerge during the industry day scheduled for June 30, when government officials will provide a comprehensive update on the program and solicit feedback from industry partners on how to execute one of the Air Force’s biggest military infrastructure projects.

Update: 3:45 PM ET –

“We are deliberately investing in Pacific Air Force’s critical infrastructure by replacing and upgrading operations and maintenance facilities in addition to making repairs to existing buildings and funding mission-ready materiel, storage, and sustainment necessary for homeland defense and Agile Combat Employment operations,” a U.S. Air Force official has now told us in response to our queries for more information about the Fightertown plan. “We are also extending the runway and building a Joint Integrated Test and Training Center at JBER.”

“We are in the design stage now and will have a better idea of timelines once we receive an appropriation,” they added.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The exotic planform configuration concept of Boeing’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) classified demonstrator aircraft that led to the F-47 looks indeed to have been hiding in plain sight on an F-47 Systems Management Office patch. The first actual imagery of this aircraft appears to have leaked this week. Interestingly enough, another exotic stealth demonstrator aircraft that was once also highly classified and directly related to the design of the F-47, Boeing’s Bird of Prey, also featured its planform cryptically on a patch in a very similar manner.

Inside the firebird motif of the F-47 patch, there is an exaggerated planform of what we see in Project Fear’s video of what is very likely Boeing’s NGAD demonstrator shot outside of Area 51. It also aligns with what we can extrapolate from the concept renderings of the F-47 that have been released.

Mainly, the design includes forward canard foreplanes with a tapered central fuselage, rear-set and highly-swept wings, and no traditional tails. The wings have a high dihedral before drooping toward their tips, creating an appearance akin to the Klingon Bird of Prey from the world of Star Trek. That reference isn’t just my own. Boeing’s Bird of Prey from the 1990s clearly shares design similarities, especially in the wing area, as we originally stated after the first official concept art’s release. The Bird of Prey’s patch also cryptically shared its basic planform.

On the Bird of Prey patch, we see a traditional Klingon knife, made famous by Star Trek, with the blade’s hilt making up the Bird of Prey’s planform. In fact, the only detail to throw it off is the t-guard at the bottom of the handle, which appears like canards. Even the cockpit is there. Of course, it isn’t clear at this time when this patch began to circulate in the public domain or if it was after the Bird of Prey was declassified in late 2002. Regardless, in the F-47’s case, the demonstrator’s exact features remain closely guarded secrets, at least officially.

Boeing Bird of Prey Technology Demonstrator

Attempting to decode or draw insights into the military’s notoriously cryptic classified program patches is hardly a new practice. Books like Trevor Paglen’s I Could Tell You but Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed by Me is an excellent example of this and the fascination around this unique blending of art, technology, and national security.

In years of reporting on these topics, I have been told multiple times that there is more in patches than many realize, including hints at designs of classified aircraft. This runs pretty counterintuitive considering the government’s extreme protocol for classification, but vague representations of general design concepts are far from giving up an actual blueprint of a classified aircraft. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to see the practice occur for two highly classified aircraft that are directly related, and it’s something we keep an eye on regularly, as well.

Still, with all this in mind, it may be time to take a look back at some of the most interesting patches floating around to see if an exotic planform of an aircraft could be hiding amongst their stitches.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com