Executive Summary

On November 13, a chartered plane originally bound for Nairobi arrived in Johannesburg carrying 153 Palestinians from Gaza, many of whom lacked documentation. An anonymous passenger reported being charged $1500 to $5000 per person to leave Gaza, allowed to take only a phone, pocket money and one bag. This movement was reportedly coordinated by the Israeli-backed organisation Al-Majd Europe. The group has allegedly used unofficial channels to relocate Palestinians; however the group behind its operations remains undisclosed (Sharma, 2025). 

Upon arrival in South Africa, border officials were bewildered regarding the plan of action. As a result, the plane remained on the runway for 12 hours while authorities attempted to determine how the passengers arrived without exit stamps, passports, or slips from their departure in Gaza. Many of the passengers were unsure which country they were landing in, as communications had been conducted without their knowledge (Staff, 2025). 

This action was heavily criticised by activists like Na’eem Jeenah, who mentioned the humanitarian crisis at hand and urged South Africa as an authority on genocide and displacement, to take these factors into account (Kampmark, 2025). President Cyril Ramaphosa stated to the press that it appeared Palestinians were being “flushed out” of Gaza: this very statement calls into question Israel’s assurances that it has no intention to cleanse Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank (Sharma, 2025).

 This instance marks a shift in how displacement from active conflict zones can occur through paid exit schemes operating within political grey areas. It raises urgent questions for international organisations regarding responsibility, exploitation, and human trafficking.  

Introduction

In mid-November 2025, Johannesburg Border Security were faced with an unexpected arrival when an aircraft carrying 153 Palestinians from Gaza landed in South Africa. The flight, purportedly scheduled to arrive in Nairobi, instead diverted and terminated in South Africa where border officials discovered that most passengers were not in possession of passports, exit records, or other documentation validating their departure from Gaza. As authorities attempted to clarify the status of the passengers and circumstances regarding the flight, their uncertainty left the aircraft grounded for several hours, during which babies cried, sweated, and screamed onboard  (Egbejule, 2025). 

Information from passengers disclosed that the departure from Gaza was mediated by paid arrangement, with individuals reportedly charged from USD 1,500 up to USD 5,000 to exit the territory. On board, individuals were instructed to travel with minimal personal belongings and were directed by an organisation operating under the name Al-Majd Europe. It has been described by some sources, namely anonymous Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, as Israeli-backed, however, details of the organisation’s structure, funding, and founding remain broadly undisclosed (Staff, 2025). As Al-Majd Europe is reliant on unauthorised and informal channels, this renders the situation separate from established humanitarian evacuation or resettlement procedures. In their case, utilising private channels of ‘evacuation’ largely weaponises fear and vulnerability against victims of genocide (Müller-Funk et al., 2020). 

Without documentation, South African border authorities were placed in a difficult predicament. Migration systems are designed around prior registration and verification checks at multiple stages of travel, and these signposts were entirely absent in this case. The receiving state was left to mollify humanitarian considerations, deciding what should prevail given the well-known state of destruction and civilian harm in Gaza.

The case unfolded amidst South Africa’s heightened diplomacy regarding the conflict, providing more weight to President Ramaphosa’s statement that those on board seem to have been “flushed out” of Gaza (Sharma, 2025). Such phrasing frames this as a coerced incident; as South Africa is a Party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Sagoo, 2024), this intensifies scrutiny of claims that forced displacement from Gaza and the West Bank is not being intentionally pursued, which could be brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

The circumstances integral to the flight protract beyond an isolated incident of border management as it points to a burgeoning pattern in which displacement from active conflict zones is facilitated through paid arrangements that operate in political grey zones. These grey zones blur efforts to establish accountability, and raise risks of exploitation and human trafficking, challenging international refugee and migration governance (Müller-Funk et al., 2020). It remains a question as to who assumes responsibility for the displaced, and this speaks specifically to international organisations and the wider international community, who are tasked with safeguarding protection in a developing landscape of conflict-related mobility. 

Analysis

The arrival of Palestinians in Johannesburg via undocumented flight highlights the use of unauthorised displacement pathways that sit on the fence of established legal and humanitarian frameworks. Previously established international systems are centred around distinctions between voluntary migration or immigration, humanitarian evacuation, and forced displacement, where each triggers a disparate set of protections and responsibilities (Hattem, 2024).  Paid exit schemes in active conflict zones complicate such matters. Whilst passengers may have consented to leaving, the conditions under which such agreement was obtained, through civilian harm, siege, and restricted mobility, underscore concerns about the extent to which such movement can be considered voluntary (Brown, 2018). The ambiguity exposes critical gaps in current displacement governance. 

The involvement of a middleman, Al-Majd Europe, further muddies the efforts to assign responsibility. With little public information about the organisation’s leadership and origin, funding, or mission, it remains unclear who accepts responsibility for decision-making on passenger selection, financial criteria, and travel arrangements. This non-transparent operation diffuses accountability across private companies and sovereign states, enabling plausible deniability whilst displacement prevails. Without formal humanitarian oversight, these arrangements undermine systems and charters, such as UNHCR’s 1951 Convention, designed to ensure protection and address refugee situations (UNHCR, 1951). 

The financial aspect of the issue raises additional concerns. Mandating individuals pay substantial sums to exit a conflict zone reflects the marketisation of mobility under difficult conditions. Petersohn and Dunigan describe this as a “privatisation revolution” based on the ideology that the efficiency of the market could be measured by a decline in military personnel as they are replaced by private actors of the state (Petersohn et al., 2014). When access to safety becomes dependent on financial capacity, displacement risks reinforcing inequality and creates the probability of exploitation. High prices, lack of documentation, and limited transparency, are red flags as internationally recognised indicators of trafficking and coercion, and where, in this case, criminal intention cannot be conclusively deduced. 

The response of South Africa, where Palestinian arrivals were admitted “out of sympathy”, illustrates the asymmetric burden placed on receiving states when displacement is forged through secrecy. Border security was forced to navigate humanitarian obligations alongside domestic legal requirements related to documentation, all without prior notice. Such cases pressure receiving states into reactive governance, where responsibility is transferred away from conflict parties (Cournoyer et al., 2025). However, such governance can establish itself as a threat to state sovereignty. 

Furthermore, the Johannesburg case signals risks for international refugee and migration governance. Should displacement through pay-to-exit schemes become normalised, existing protections such as non-refoulement and access to asylum may be questioned and weakened (UNHCR, 2025). A lack of assuming responsibility threatens to fragment international responses to conflict-related mobility, leaving affected populations exposed to harm and states ill-equipped to support. The case, therefore, underscores the urgent need for renewed attention to displacement practices that lapse traditional frameworks. 

Conclusion/Policy Recommendations

International organisations and responding states should intensify coordination for displacement emerging from active conflict zones, especially in cases where mobility is organised through informal channels. Multilateral bodies dedicated to refugee protection and migration governance, such as the UNHCR, should develop structured guidance for responding to suspected cases of displacement pay-to-exit schemes, ensuring that protection can be administered without defaulting to prolonged observation. 

Transparency should be a requirement for intermediaries facilitating civilian departures from conflict zones. As Al-Majd Europe comes under increasing scrutiny from international media, new regulatory mechanisms should be implemented to prevent the large-scale and unaccountable displacement of the Palestinian population. International organisations could play a supporting role by monitoring, collecting, and sharing information on displacement pathways, allowing states to locate patterns and respond accordingly. 

Finally, international actors should regard paid exit schemes from conflict zones as an emerging governance and ethical challenge requiring immediate investigation, as such schemes threaten to dismantle established systems and protection charters. Integrating these practices into existing frameworks on forced displacement and trafficking risk would allow for earlier identification of absences in protection procedures. 

Bibliography

Al Jazeera Staff (2025). Man says shadowy group sending Palestinians out of Gaza has Israeli support. [online] Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/16/man-says-shadowy-group-sending-palestinians-out-of-gaza-has-israeli-support [Accessed 12 Jan. 2026].

Brown, C. (2018). Understanding International Relations. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Cournoyer, J., Badri, L., and Messmer, M. (2025). Conflict Prevention Under Pressure: How Effective are the Most Common Interventions, and are they Fit for Future Conflicts? [online] Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2025-04-01-conflict-prevention-cournoyer-badri-messmer.pdf.

Egbejule, E. (2025). South Africa to investigate ‘mysterious’ arrival of 153 Palestinians on plane. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/14/anger-south-africa-plane-palestinians-held-12-hours.

Hattem, J. (2024). Is the Humanitarian Protection System Falling Apart or Quietly Evolving? [online] Migration Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/humanitarian-protection-evolution.

Kampmark, B. (2025). Clandestine Cleansing: Al-Majd Europe, Gaza and Israeli Policy. [online] CounterPunch.org. Available at: https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/11/24/clandestine-cleansing-al-majd-europe-gaza-and-israeli-policy/[Accessed 12 Jan. 2026].

MüllerFunk, L., Fröhlich, C. and Bank, A. (2020). Drivers of Forced Migration Governance in Most of the World.[online] German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). Available at: https://pure.giga-hamburg.de/ws/files/21197506/wp323_mueller_funk_froehlich_bank.pdf.

Petersohn, U. and Dunigan, M. (2014). The Markets for Force: Global Variation in the Trade of Military and Security Services. Philadelphia: De Gruyter.

Sagoo, R. (2024). South Africa’s Genocide Case Against Israel: The International Court of Justice Explained. [online] Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-international-court-justice-explained.

Sharma, Y. (2025). What’s the shadowy organisation taking Gaza Palestinians to South Africa? [online] Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/16/whats-the-shadowy-organisation-taking-gaza-palestinians-to-south-africa.

UNHCR (1951). The Refugee Convention, 1951. [online] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ca34be29.pdf.

UNHCR (2025). Civilian and Humanitarian Character of Asylum. [online] Available at: https://emergency.unhcr.org/protection/legal-framework/civilian-and-humanitarian-character-asylum.