If they were babies who were going to be adopted by Israelis, then calling it ‘trafficking” is absurd.
How is this different from a buying a baby from its mother?
The babies are a commodity. No concern at all about preserving the benefits of maternal-bonding and the natural kinship network.
And it's illegal in, for instance, India, so the Israeli male homosexuals bring Indian women to Nepal, get them impregnated, sign the paper, pay the money, and fly back to Israel with the babies, where they will be permanently, and by design, deprived of the natural right and psychological benefit of mothering.
That's trafficking.
In adoption, the adults are responding to the child's needs, in a disrupted situation which everyone known ought not to have happened. Adoption is adults trying to remedy the situation of a bereft child--- because the child's natural parents have died, or have gone missing, or have abandoned the child, or are unable to parent -- and the adoptive parents attempt to supply as many of the child's needs as possible, especially the need for a father and a mother.
Exactly the opposite is surrogacy, in which the contract purchasers deliberately PLAN and CAUSE the child to be conceived, born, and then bereaved of his natural parents --- they PLAN and CAUSE cause his deprivation --- and they set things up to meet the desires and wants of the adults, not the rights and needs of the child.
They explicitly intend for the child to be brought up either motherless or fatherless.
Even Elton John said it was "heartbreaking" that his surrogate-boy wouldn't have a "mummy" ---and then he and his "husband" went out and bought another one.