Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, MiGG0 said:

 

I think you have reading comprehension issues:

intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part

 

Great, any one person is also a part of 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group', every person killed wherever is 'literally genocide'.

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
2 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

 

I think you have reading comprehension issues:

intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part

 

Nope, you do. "In whole or in part" refers to "intent to destroy a ... group". Since there is no intent to destroy, the "whole or in part" is not applicable to Gaza. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Great, any one person is also a part of 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group', every person killed wherever is 'literally genocide'.

That point is much too smart to be made in a context different from pure Mathematics.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

People have morals, you know. Not something I'd expect you to understand.

That's what makes all the more puzzling: a person who has morals stands for someone who clearly has none.

Posted (edited)

Israel’s mass displacement of Gazans fits strategy of using migration as a tool of war

Quote

Filtering for Hamas

As a result of the monthslong Israeli air and ground campaign in northern Gaza Strip, more than 1.8 million of the strip’s population have been displaced from their homes. And with the operation heading into Gaza’s south, many are now fleeing areas they were told would be safer.

This mass displacement – some 80% of the Gaza population – is a deliberate element of Israel’s military campaign, with complex objectives. In the early stages of the conflict, the Israeli military said it was emptying areas for civilians’ own safety – despite mass evacuation orders being against international law, except in very discrete scenarios.

Since then, other longer-term objectives have been touted by voices in and around the Israeli government. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, an Israeli think tank with links to the government, published a paper arguing that the current military campaign presented “a unique and rare opportunity to evacuate the entire Gaza Strip.”

Meanwhile, a leaked document from Oct. 13, purportedly from the Israeli intelligence ministry, proposed the permanent relocation of all or a portion of Palestinians in Gaza through three steps: set up tent cities in Egypt, create a humanitarian corridor, and build cities on the Sinai Peninsula. The document concluded that the relocation was “liable to provide positive and long-lasting strategic results.”

Similarly, Israel’s intelligence minister has promoted a plan to resettle Gazan residents in countries around the world, while a pro-Israeli government news outlet has reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is eyeing a plan to “thin” Gaza’s population “to a minimum.”

To be clear, the Israeli government has not publicly confirmed any plan for Gaza’s population after the current conflict. But as scholars of migration and war, we understand that displacement in conflict is often strategic – that is, it can serve specific short-term and long-term goals.

Displacement as a tool of war

Historically, population displacement has been used for three strategic reasons in conflicts:

As a means of controlling or expelling a population seen as hostile or undesirable. This occurred during the war in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995, when the Serbian army expelled or killed whole communities of Bosniaks, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of 82% of the non-Serb population. More recently, nearly the entire Armenian population of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh fled the threat of violence by Azerbaijan forces. In other cases, armed groups uproot civilians in order to subjugate them, rather than remove them en mass. From 1993 to 2002, security forces in Turkey used systematic village evacuations to control and pacify the Kurdish population as part of counterinsurgency operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

As a grab for territory and resources. This occurred in the Western Sahara, which Morocco claims as part of its territory. Since 1975, the Moroccan government has sought to repopulate the former Spanish colony by moving Moroccan nationals in and forcing the displacement of Sahrawis to refugee camps in Algeria. As a result, the population of Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara is comprised of twice as many Moroccans as Sahrawis, and nearly 200,000 Sahrawis remain refugees.

As a sorting mechanism to weed out disloyal or disobedient populations. During the Syrian Civil War, President Bashar al-Assad’s government systematically depopulated rebel-held areas. Refugees returning to Syria from neighboring countries like Lebanon and Jordan – along with internally displaced Syrians – were put through laborious security checks to vet their loyalty and ensure they do not pose a threat to the Assad regime.

Permanent displacement

In the context of the current conflict in Gaza, all three strategies of population displacement – as control, territorial expansion and sorting – have been reportedly suggested by officials or others with Israeli government ties.

Israel has leveraged the threat of mass exodus of Palestinians to the Sinai Peninsula in negotiations with Egypt. Reports suggest that Israel has floated the idea of paying off Egypt’s massive International Monetary Fund debt in exchange for the country hosting refugees from Gaza, or offering large aid packages in exchange for setting up temporary camps in Sinai.

However, Egypt has refused to open its border beyond allowing a few hundred Palestinians with dual citizenship and several dozen critically injured individuals to cross.

The mass displacement of Palestinians from Gaza on a permanent basis – be it to Egypt or throughout the world – is unlikely, as it would require agreement from would-be host countries and the compliance of Palestinians, though the chief of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency recently cautioned that Israel is continuing to pursue this strategy. Moreover, the permanent resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza would amount to ethnic cleansing, something the U.N. has already warned of.

Any temporary displacement from Gaza would require a guarantee of the right to return for the displaced, and a commitment from Israel that there would be a rebuilt Gaza to return to – and neither is certain.

‘Indefinite’ occupation

One option being discussed by Netanyahu is for Palestinians in Gaza to live under Israeli security controls for an “indefinite period,” as they did before Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Such a move would be in line with Israel’s security goal of removing Hamas from its borders. Reoccupation – or even annexation, as some Israeli analysts have promoted – of parts of northern Gaza, coupled with the depopulation of these areas, would enable the Israeli military to turn these areas into buffer zones.

But occupation is very resource and labor intensive. Israel will be reluctant to commit to rebuilding Gaza, patrolling the streets and carefully monitoring and governing the population. And an indefinite occupation would put Israeli soldiers at risk and likely become unpopular with the Israeli public and the international community. Already, U.S. President Joe Biden has warned Israel against the reoccupation of Gaza, calling the option “a big mistake.”

Filtering for Hamas

An alternative to a full occupation is for Israel to continue to drive the Palestinians in Gaza further south, and only allow those deemed not to pose a threat to Israel back in northern Gaza. Israel has stated its intention is to eradicate Hamas. To that end, it has pushed civilians into increasingly smaller areas in the south, with the implication being that those who fail to leave are suspect.

Mark Regev, a senior adviser to Netanyahu, claimed as much in an interview with CNN: “We … asked all the civilians to leave, and most of them did. … One has to ask: They had ample time to leave, why didn’t they heed the advice to leave the area?”

Of course, the implication that those not fleeing are Hamas fighters or supporters ignores the plight of immobile populations like the elderly, disabled and orphans. It also puts the onus on civilians to know where the evacuation zones are.

After the seven-day pause in fighting, Israel resumed the bombardment and began issuing evacuation orders using a numbered grid of neighborhoods in Gaza, splitting the strip into more than 600 areas. The Israeli military said this is to protect civilians; however, it could also serve as a crude method of differentiating civilians from Hamas and other militants – the assumption being that people who stay will be viewed as as potential threat.

Indeed, images emerged on Dec. 7 of Israeli soldiers detaining seminaked Palestinian men on their knees at gunpoint, allegedly filtering for Hamas fighters.

Controlling Gaza’s population through the use of zones, formal occupation or resettlement elsewhere are strategies that have been repeatedly suggested during the course of the conflict. Which of them, if any, comes to fruition will depend not just on the actions of Israelis and Palestinians, but also on other states and international organizations – namely Egypt, the United States and the United Nations.

And to greater or lesser degrees, all three entities have warned Israel against the strategic use of forced displacement to serve its political and military ends. After all, “forcible transfer” is in itself a crime under international law. The question now is whether such factors will influence how Israeli officials use strategic displacement – and what it will mean for the future of the Palestinians in Gaza.

 

Edited by sunday
Posted
40 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Israel did not conquer J&S through a war of aggresion. Of course you'll twist the words, that's your MO. The real issue is conquest through aggression. Not once in Israel's history did it initiate a war of aggression. It was always self defense. In self defense, conquest is most certainly the moral choice. 

Israel also never settled these lands. 

Great, then it has no reason to claim them as its own, then. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, sunday said:

That point is much too smart to be made in a context different from pure Mathematics.

Ridiculous claims justify ridiculous responses. 

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Nope, you do. "In whole or in part" refers to "intent to destroy a ... group". Since there is no intent to destroy, the "whole or in part" is not applicable to Gaza. 

Intent to destroy part of group ethnic palestanians comes directly forom casualties, destroying homes, blockading medicines/foods, etc. That evidence is what S.Africa is bringing to court. Ultimately it is ICJ that determine is it or was is not intent.

So far it dont look good for Israel as many countries already have decided it is too much and they are infact making genocide. But ofcourse normal Isrealis reply is "they all are antisemitists".

Edited by MiGG0
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm going to conclude this debate right here.

Here's the definition of genocide:

(yes I know it was posted here but some people have reading comprehension issues)

Let's dissect it:

a national, ethnical, racial or religious group - Gazans are none of that. The nationality there is primarily Palestinian. The ethnicity/race are primarily Arabic. And the religion there is Islam. 

All of these groups exist in many parts of the world including in Israel, where they live as citizens and thus enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and highest standard of living in the middle east.

 

So you can call it whatever you want, but genocide is a word that already has a meaning, and none can hijack it to mean something else.

"in whole or in part".  destroying the people who live in Gaza would certainly count as genocide, if it were indeed happening- which it is not.

Posted
2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Ridiculous claims justify ridiculous responses. 

Some responses are way too ridiculous for a barely conscious person to make.

If one wants to kill all the redheads in Scotland, that is a genocide even considering that there are still more redheads in Ireland, Russia, Norway, etc.

Posted
8 hours ago, R011 said:

See my prey post on anti Semitism etc 

I think you can criticize the nation state of Israel without being an antisemite. Bibi is a massively corrupt piece of shit after all, and I believe the only active Israeli poster here is not a fan of his for several reasons. That is not antisemitism the same way engaging in urban warfare with non uniformed terrorists in Gaza is not by itself genocide.

Posted
19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It was a 3 wave attack. Air defenses are usually struck in the first.

And immediately after that I quoted an expert. I verify things with others before I post here.

Could be, but when you see a target with 16 out of 20 buildings (or whatever) still standing, you need to understand that there are more than one possible explanation for why that may be the case. 

There are reports this morning that the Iranians were pleased at their defense and that they have made the decision for a more devastating attack on Israel probably before the election.  This is all unconfirmed, of course, so could be hot air.  

Posted
1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Could be, but when you see a target with 16 out of 20 buildings (or whatever) still standing, you need to understand that there are more than one possible explanation for why that may be the case. 

Another version(s) of the reasons of that lack of damage

 

Posted
38 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Could be, but when you see a target with 16 out of 20 buildings (or whatever) still standing, you need to understand that there are more than one possible explanation for why that may be the case. 

There are reports this morning that the Iranians were pleased at their defense and that they have made the decision for a more devastating attack on Israel probably before the election.  This is all unconfirmed, of course, so could be hot air.  

If the munitions were CMs, there'd be BDA and at best by the next wave the targets were hit. 

If the munitions were ALBMs, then Iran has nothing it can intercept them with. Especially after the S-300 were all neutralized.

The intended targets seem to have been destroyed. 20 buildings that you referred to are the whole compound. There is obviously no reason to destroy the whole compound if you're using expensive and heavy munitions. Just the main targets there. Most other buildings are just support elements anyway.

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If the munitions were CMs, there'd be BDA and at best by the next wave the targets were hit. 

If the munitions were ALBMs, then Iran has nothing it can intercept them with. Especially after the S-300 were all neutralized.

The intended targets seem to have been destroyed. 20 buildings that you referred to are the whole compound. There is obviously no reason to destroy the whole compound if you're using expensive and heavy munitions. Just the main targets there. Most other buildings are just support elements anyway.

Any real evidence surfaced of that lately?

Atleast twatterers that look it from sat images have not found any (or didnt have atleast yesterday):

https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1851667657642148157

 

Edited by MiGG0
Posted
2 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

They are not displaced. Just asked for their own safety to temporarily move to a different part of the ~40km long Gaza strip. That's about the distance from Berlin Spandau to Berlin Schönefeld. 

Yeah, sure.

Posted

Utterly sure because no one in the neighborhood wants to take them. 

So it's get out of the way while the IDF does the wack a mole several times. Sure it sucks but it's a consequence of their actions. Israel is just reacting. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Utterly sure because no one in the neighborhood wants to take them. 

So it's get out of the way while the IDF does the wack a mole several times. Sure it sucks but it's a consequence of their actions. Israel is just reacting. 

Remember that once exiled Palestinians start arriving in Germany.

Posted
2 minutes ago, sunday said:

Remember that once exiled Palestinians start arriving in Germany.

That would be on his own government. The fact that thirdworlders are allowed into Europe is not the fault of 'US wars', 'Israeli occupation' or any other factor besides us. We are at fault. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Not sure if this goes here, but it does add to the discussion on hand. 

Yeah, it's been long it the making and was pretty much inevitable anyway. Could have come a bit sooner or a bit later, but it would have come.

Posted
18 hours ago, Josh said:

I think you can criticize the nation state of Israel without being an antisemite. Bibi is a massively corrupt piece of shit after all, and I believe the only active Israeli poster here is not a fan of his for several reasons. That is not antisemitism the same way engaging in urban warfare with non uniformed terrorists in Gaza is not by itself genocide.

You can certainly criticise individual Israelis or particular Israeli policies without being anti Semitic or any of the other things I mentioned.  It's the [people who side with terrorists and fascists and make false and defamatory accusations I'm speaking of.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...