from MyEdgyAlt@sh.itjust.works to world@lemmy.world on 12 Oct 13:03
https://sh.itjust.works/post/26517166
Excerpts w/emphasis added:
“Since we already encircled the northern part of Gaza in the past nine or 10 months, what we should do is the following thing to tell all the 300,000 residents [that the UN estimates is 400,000] who still live in the northern part of Gaza that they have to leave this area and they should be given 10 days to leave through safe corridors that Israel will provide.
“And after that time, all this area will become to be a military zone. And all the Hamas people will still, though, whether some of them are fighters, some of them are civilians… will have two choices either to surrender or to starve.”
Eiland wants Israel to seal the areas once the evacuation corridors are closed. Anyone left behind would be treated as an enemy combatant. The area would be under siege, with the army blocking all supplies of food, water or other necessities of life from going in.
…
It is not clear whether the IDF has adopted the Generals’ Plan in part or in full, but the circumstantial evidence of what is being done in Gaza suggests it is at the very least a strong influence on the tactics being used against the population. The BBC submitted a list of questions to the IDF, which were not answered.
The ultra-nationalist extremists in Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet want to replace Palestinians in northern Gaza with Jewish settlers. Among many statements he’s made on the subject, the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has said “Our heroic fighters and soldiers are destroying the evil of Hamas, and we will occupy the Gaza Strip… to tell the truth, where there is no settlement, there is no security.”
#world
threaded - newest
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for BBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e82yy0wxno
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
spinscore
Ah yes, we should make sure whenever we discuss Israeli atrocities that we explain why they are justified in doing what they do to the people whose land they stole and continue to steal. It’s purely reasonable self defense by innocents, don’t ya know!
I know sarcasm but this might actually not be a bad idea. Throw a couple of paragraphs of historical facts in those stories for people to really get the context. Like how many articles and discussions state what happened on Oct 7 before they start talking about anything related afterwards. A brief list of major historical events along with some numbers on casualties.
I don’t think pretending October 7th is the start of history is fair, though. Any discussion of October 7th needs to explore why people might become so angry as to take the actions taken on that day. It didn’t happen in a vacuum; it takes a lot to make people do that to other people.
FTFY
The partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine.
Partition
> The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units. - Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine > On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other. - Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
Ben-Gurion Quotes
“Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement — not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.” — Ben Gurion, War Diaries, 12/03/1947 following Israel’s “acceptance” of the U.N. Partition of 11/29/1947 (Simha Flapan, “Birth of Israel,” p.13) Partition: “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine “ — Ben Gurion, p.22 “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan. “The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quote…
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
:::
Quote
>Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers. > The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat. > An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
You mean the re-settlement project. The UN mandated Israel’s existence and despite this mandate, Arabs committed the first of a seemingly never-ending series of terrorist acts by attacking a bus Nov 30th, 1947.
It’s been perpetual ‘refusing to learn the lesson’ since. All that BS copy pasta that says nothing to refute what I stated… Can you reference a conflict which doesn’t have an ‘instigated by radical Islamists’ precursor? Has any land been confiscated beyond the green line that wasn’t because terrorists or their supporting nations FAFO?
It directly does, you just don’t read it
No, it doesn’t. Arabs refused both plans and so the UN chose the one at least one ‘side’ wanted. The ‘plan’ BS is just an excuse. Palestinians would have been pissy regardless. Had the UN chose the other option nothing would have changed historically.
I notice you haven’t found a copypasta for land taken that wasn’t in response to a precursor attack so where would the borders be had there never been any attacks on Israel? My guess: right where the UN said they should be…
The first two paragraphs I quoted under Partition prove you wrong.
The first talks about discussions 2 decades prior.
The second can be reworded more succinctly: Ultimately, UNSCOP delivered two proposals: that of the majority, which recommended two separate states joined economically, and that of the minority, which supported the formation of a single binational state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas. The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both.
Yeah, Brittanica is wrong there. Palestinian Representatives supported a Unitary state since 1928. The Minority Proposal was not voted on after extensive lobbying by American-Zionist organizations and extensive US diplomatic pressure in the UN.
Spoiler
> The UNSCOP report contained two suggestions: one for the partition of Palestine into two states with an economic union between them and a special status for Jerusalem, and another supported by a minority of UNSCOP members suggesting a unitary federal state. From August to November 1947, Zionist leaders broadened the scope of their lobbying to include all members of the General Assembly who might vote on behalf of the partition of Palestine. Additionally, Great Britain, though having turned the Palestine issue over to the UN, worked staunchly against the idea of partitioning Palestine into two states because the Foreign Office opposed the emergence of a Jewish state. While many delegates were persuaded for their own national interests to accept a two-state solution for Palestine’s future, up until the very last minute before the partition vote, Britain aimed to appease Arab opposition to Zionism. The Zionists were persistent, sometimes presenting their case for a Jewish state in multiple languages. Finally, on November 29, 1947, in an emotionally executed vote, a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly of the UN voted for (partition) Resolution 181. The vote was 33 in favor, 13 against, and 11 abstentions. Both the United States and the Soviet Union supported the partition plan; Britain abstained.
israeled.org/…/report-of-the-un-special-committee…
Nor was the UN proposal binding in any way unless both parties accepted. It was used as a justification for the declaration of the Jewish State and subsequent Ethnic Cleansing to create it’s own borders as far as they could.
Partition is inherently unequal, it is impossible to implement without the forced expulsion of the native Palestinian population, which was the entire plan. Which you can read about with the Quoted book about The Concept of Transfer in the history of Zionism and Quotes by Ben-Gurion and Theodore Herzl themselves.
This is all some sensationalist fiction drummed up by an outcast anti-Israel author. You lose the plot when you say ‘EB is wrong here’. Your guy is unproven and intentionally controversial and you lap it up because he says what you want to be true. He is wrong. I’ll stick with the unbiased opinion TYVM.
Not only that, but your citation here supports what I’m saying. “Zionists and Arabs had clearly shown they had absolutely no inclination to live together under the same governmental umbrella”. And yet, the Zionists agreed with a proposal in the end.
Face it, you’re in the wrong here. All your links point to meaningless historical footnotes on the diplomatic process and ignore the fact that the Arabs refused to accept either final UN proposal, nor lobbied in favour of one or the other. They were the first to resort to violence and all because they refuse to relinquish land taken from the Jews in the first place.
It is this insistence on resorting to violence that has cost them so dearly ever since. Even the settlements are predicated on security justified by previous terrorism. No terrorism, no need for a security buffer.
Edit: and ‘plans for gaza’ are themselves meaningless when they aren’t enacted prior to a terror attack. Anticipating more terrorism is prudent at this point.
And why did they attack that bus in 1947? What prceeded that? You dont know or dont care to know. Irguin did plenty of terrorist bombings before that ,could it have been that maybe? Or some other attricty? Or are we pretending this all started on Nov 30 1947?
“Jewish militants bombed the police headquarters in Haifa on September 29, 1947, resulting in the deaths of four British policemen, four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians.”
The king david hotel Jewish extremist terrorist bombing was July 1946, in case you didnt know.
And feast your eyes on this: en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory…
So you’re just wrong.
Yes, we are. That bus bombing is first record of violence in response to the UN mandate. Ball is in your court to find an earlier tu quoque otherwise Israel might not look like the bad-guy and we can’t have that!
I literally just gave you the list you asked for in the comment you replied to. You’re not great with english or reading comprehension, it seems.
Wow this tool does not look great, it highlights “surrender or starve” and “great force” as misleading information when they’re direct quotes.
The rest of the “analysis” isn’t much better. It seems like someone has let an LLM do things it can’t.
This tool is like a piece of dark comedy.
It’s like someone made a robot of Jonathan Greenblatt.
Beep! Booop! This article is describing direct genocidal intent expressed by Israeli commanders! Calculating false information… 100%: if this information were true, it would mean Israel is committing genocide, which cannot be. Calculating bias: 100%: a reasonable observer would conclude Israel is the aggressor and Palestinian civilians are clearly their victims, which is an uncomplicated premise and cannot be! Antisemitism confirmed! (Initiating drone strike…)
Reading through the ‘detailed analysis’ is hilariously bad
spinscore.io/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jta.org%2Farc…
Fucked up and stunningly pathetic that acts of genocide are treated as “controversial”, what is there controversy over?
Israel is commiting a genocide, the evidence is horrifically clear. There is zero controversy over this among serious people.
Agreed.
This plan is forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, and annexation via mass extermination.
This is horrifying. And it cuts both ways: these generals are drowning what is left of Israel’s credibility, international goodwill, and social fabric. They’re killing two countries.
It‘s white people committing the crimes so they‘re up for debate.
White people are the most moral people on earth :)
The last White Colonialist Nation in the World, no less.
No wonder countries like the US, Germany and Britain love them and send them weapons “to defend themselves from the savages”.
Those who never left and watched their fellow Gazans get shot and bombed in the “safe” corridors will probably not choose to move. And of course the IDF doesn’t accept surrenders considering they shot their own hostages.
Imagine your final ethical dilemma in life is to choose whether to die of starvation or see how far you can run from a hailstorm of AGMs, Shelling, Missiles, and gunfire.
Reminds me of the video of those 3 teenagers slowly walking amongst the rubble only for an entire guided rocket to be dropped on them. The one in the front miraculously survived the blast and kept walking for another few yards before he was bombed too.
If the world continues to do nothing, we will have to tell our children what Palestine was. The IDF can and, if uninterrupted, will literally slaughter the entirety of Gaza.
That’s Israel’s dream. A full ethnic cleansing.
As long as the US “Fully, fully, fully, supportive of Israel” nothing can be done internationally.
Spoiler alert. It isn’t. You have no idea what you’re talking about. They aren’t interdicting military supply convoys or shelling artillery depots. You absolutely cannot cut food off from civilians. It doesn’t matter if they don’t want to move. You have to let the food go through.
Yes we do. USAID let the cat out of the bag.
I understand you dearly want Israel to be a lawful liberal democracy. But it just isn’t.
In Article 49, the Fourth Geneva Convention, adopted on 12 August 1949, specifically forbade forced displacement: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
(Short excerpt of the long section clarifying that it’s a war crime)
Always nice to have the reference up, I usually just work off my memory.
They are moving civilians out of the area. You seemingly are missing that part. So no, they are not cutting off food from civilians.
Yeah that’s not for USAID to decide, and any report where an agency is overstepping it’s purview is suspect. If they’re pushing for a policy change beyond the scope of their department, then they can’t really be trusted to not fudge things to try to influence things further. They’re behaving unprofessionally to gain power they aren’t supposed to have and you can’t trust them to behave professionally when gathering information.
USAID is literally the agency responsible for humanitarian aid, (HA), in the US government. They are our experts on HA getting where it’s supposed to go. If they are saying it’s not getting there because Israel is playing fuck fuck games, then that is not only an expert opinion, but also enough under the Leahy Laws to immediately freeze all military or cash aid.
This guy is calling international war crimes as “a valid and legal military strategy”.
“The starvation and mass killing of civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto is a legitimate strategy” - This guy.
“We need to put the Jews in gas chambers to differentiate between civilians and combatants.”
This guy.
What do you think is going on whenever Ukraine hits the Kerch Birdge? They’re trying to cut Russia off from supply. Do you think this is a war crime? Or do you define war crime as “everything Israel does”?
Unless you have tangible evidence of Ukrainians denying vital aid and food to Russians, slaughtering civilians en masses like they’re currently doing in Jabalia, routine executions of journalists to silence the ongoing atrocities, and so much more; this comparison of yours is not valid.
I’m not here to do google searches for you. There have been numerous Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch Bridge and on Russian supply ships to Crimea. And this isn’t some accusation of Ukraine trying to commit genocide, it’s a recognition of Ukraine being in a war, and this is how wars have been fought for thousands of years.
People who don’t hate Israel and are desperately redefining the word genocide understand this. It would be different if Israel prevented civilians from leaving and let them starve along with Hamas. But read the article, that’s not the case. They are trying to get civilians out of the area. And even if the rumours prove to be true, the “General’s Plan” (which is actually a discussion from retired generals, not active duty military) the plan says that civilians that refuse to leave could do so when they run out of food. Hamas can surrender when they run out of food.
I have doubts that this will even happen because I have serious doubts that it would even work. Hamas are just the kind of assholes that would stockpile a year’s supply of rations in their underground lairs while the people they claim to be protecting go hungry. But if it did work, it would significantly reduce the number of civilian casualties (since they could leave the area) which is what we all want, right? Right?
When you pose extraordinary theories, they need extraordinary evidence to back up. You literally are here to do those searches, otherwise you can be dismissed as a lunatic. And that’s exactly what you are if you cannot distinguish between starving an entire city and destroying bridges and weapons of an occupying hostile power.
You attribute people calling out Israel for crimes against humanity as “haters”, you deny that a genocide is happening. You don’t know anything about the conflict, its history and why an order by the Israeli military saying “leave your homes you have 10 days” is not “a humanitarian outreach to get civilians out” and is instead a landgrab of huge proportions.
No, you’re just here to promote false narratives to misdirect and outright deny the atrocities committed by a terrorist-genocidal state. If you’re going to make a point. You should learn to back it up.
You mean by directing them to leave and then attacking the routes out of the area as they are attempting to leave?
…wikipedia.org/…/Attacks_on_Palestinians_evacuati…
Or attacking those who successfuly fled once they reached the destination Israel told them to go to?
pbs.org/…/israeli-strike-on-school-sheltering-dis…
Or in Lebanon where they directed people to leave, in the middle of the night, with 30 minutes warning:
pbs.org/…/israels-airstrike-warnings-terrify-leba…
And then, as in Gaza, attacking those who are attempting to flee as ordered.
hrw.org/…/lebanon-israeli-strikes-impede-fleeing-…
Expelling 400k people might be spinned as “getting civilians out of a combat area” if Israel were not a state that systematically settles conquered land (to the tune of 700k settlers in the West Bank) and if its government didn’t have ministers (on whom the ruling coalition depends to stay in power) that are explicitly saying that they want to do exactly this again.
Like, bro, who the fuck do you think is reading these things you write? Umpa Loompas from Jupiter?
Honestly, it’s like a well known organ trafficker is saying trust me bro, I’m putting you in this ice bath and giving you this sedative and prepping these surgery tools because I’m trying to remove a tumor from next to your kidneys.
This is the framing of information warfare. There are no facts, no truths, only “narratives” that are deployed by adversarial actors.
In such a framing, it doesn’t matter whether the IDF ordering the displacement of 400k people is legal, legitimate, suspect, in good faith or in furtherance of ethnic cleansing. All that matters is whose narrative dominates the information space.
This framing already gives up on debate. Your response does not refute anything I wrote, does not engage with anything. You just labelled my argument a terrorist narrative and you’re done. You’ve counterbalanced the “narrative”.
But, my brother in Lemmy, even we were to accept that Hamas is saying this for this reason, can’t you see that it’s based on exactly the legitimate fear and reasonable expectation of Palestinian civilians that Israel is NOT a trustworthy, humanitarian actor here? The Hamas propaganda would not have a leg to stand on if it weren’t for 30 years of illegal settlement in the West Bank and for the Israeli governing coalition not being dependent on the fascist right.
I don’t even think Alex Jones could misinterpret the news this badly. At some point isn’t misinterpreting the same as spreading misinformation?