Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Israels plan for Gazas future

958 replies

MixedMetals · 07/07/2025 22:40

Defense Minister Israel Katz said Monday that he has instructed the IDF to prepare a plan to establish a "humanitarian city" on the ruins of Rafah, which would eventually house the entire population of the Gaza Strip.

According to Katz, the plan involves moving 600,000 Palestinians, primarily from the al-Muwasi area, into the new zone after security screening. Once inside, residents would not be allowed to leave, the defense minister said.

Katz added that, if conditions permit, construction of the "city" would begin during the 60-day Israel-Hamas cease-fire currently under negotiation.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-07-07/ty-article/.premium/defense-minister-israel-to-concentrate-all-gaza-population-in-rafah-humanitarian-zone/00000197-e56a-d1ad-ab97-e5ef764e0000

Defense minister: Israel to concentrate all Gaza population in Rafah 'humanitarian' zone

***

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-07-07/ty-article/.premium/defense-minister-israel-to-concentrate-all-gaza-population-in-rafah-humanitarian-zone/00000197-e56a-d1ad-ab97-e5ef764e0000

OP posts:
Thread gallery
38
Anonimummy · 16/07/2025 23:03

itsagreayarea · 16/07/2025 22:33

Are you quoting the telegraph here re: the 72% as solid evidence for this statistic?

Or a have you got UN verified publication to cite? Link the report please if want anyone to take heed of this statistic.

This is the exact, authoritative wording from the UN, naming Hamas by name and citing “recruitment and use of children” as a grave violation.
Again, add the link please so people can read the full statements instead of half sentences.

Very few mention this when duscussing the terrible loss of childrens lives in Gaza. How curious.

Why do you think that would be prioritised for a mention when the IDF are happy blasting multiple machine gun rounds in to the chest of a trapped 5 year old girl? Or sniping 3 years old playing outside their home? Or forcing clinical abandonment of pre-mees, leaving them starve to death and rot in hospital beds.

You need to give this over. You can still support Israel and not the government’s policy. Stop backing them. This is backing the policies of war criminals.

Any evidence of this or are you quoting Hamas propaganda again?

Almost two years. and probably close to millions if not more, of SM videos coming out of Gaza but not one getting a frame of the IDF deliberately targeting children and they are apparently doing it so often someone must have caught it.

I had read of Hamas forcing children to fight because their adult operative numbers have been reduced so much by the IDF eliminating them.

This is what the people who have supported Hamas as ‘resistance fighters’ and refused to call for them to surrender are supporting FFS!

Stripes56 · 16/07/2025 23:02

smallglassbottle · 16/07/2025 15:26

George Orwell wrote about the restriction and destruction of language and how it can lead to oppression. Ultimately it can destroy a concept merely because it doesn't have a word left to name it.

Not sure if this article has been quoted as yet:
Israeli scholars are raising concerns that the current plans would constitute a war crime:

“Last week, 16 Israeli scholars and lecturers at Israeli law faculties wrote a letter to Katz and Zamir, with copies sent to the attorney general and others, to warn against “the clear and explicit illegality inherent in the plan to concentrate the population of Gaza.”
Implementing it, they said, would constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

They called the camp a “detention camp” created for the purpose of ethnic cleansing:

“In our view, should this plan materialize, it would not be an evacuation in the legal sense, but rather the establishment of a mass detention camp, the primary purpose of which is ethnic cleansing and expulsion,” the academics wrote.“

The also raise concerns that the camp would risk the crime of extermination of the population.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/manifestly-illegal-in-katzs-plan-for-gaza-humanitarian-city-experts-see-war-crime/

ForgesOfEmpires · 16/07/2025 22:58

itsagreayarea · 16/07/2025 22:33

Are you quoting the telegraph here re: the 72% as solid evidence for this statistic?

Or a have you got UN verified publication to cite? Link the report please if want anyone to take heed of this statistic.

This is the exact, authoritative wording from the UN, naming Hamas by name and citing “recruitment and use of children” as a grave violation.
Again, add the link please so people can read the full statements instead of half sentences.

Very few mention this when duscussing the terrible loss of childrens lives in Gaza. How curious.

Why do you think that would be prioritised for a mention when the IDF are happy blasting multiple machine gun rounds in to the chest of a trapped 5 year old girl? Or sniping 3 years old playing outside their home? Or forcing clinical abandonment of pre-mees, leaving them starve to death and rot in hospital beds.

You need to give this over. You can still support Israel and not the government’s policy. Stop backing them. This is backing the policies of war criminals.

You people follow the same pattern every time: demand evidence, and then when it's provided, either ignore it or shift the goalposts.

The Telegraph article I cited includes a clear reference to official Hamas figures. This wasn’t some obscure claim - it was a widely reported global story, covered by dozens of major outlets. You can verify it yourself with a 10-second Google search. Are you seriously suggesting that Hamas is manipulating its own casualty data to make it look like fewer women and children were killed? Can you offer a single reason as to why they would do that?

As for the UN Secretary-General’s statement on child soldiers, again: public record. The use of child fighters by Hamas and other Palestinian factions has been documented for years — by the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty. It's not some fringe claim, it's standard knowledge in human rights reporting.

After days of running in circles with the same denialist tactics and bad-faith responses, I’ll make this simple:

If I take more time out of my day to dig up the original reports, primary source links, and direct quotes - not just summaries in articles - then here’s my ask in return:

You acknowledge that you were wrong to question my integrity, apologise for wasting my time, and admit two basic realities:

First, that the casualty figures clearly reflect a high proportion of fighting-age males, not primarily women and children which in turn is a pretty obvious indicator that Israel is targeting combatants.

Secondly, Zthat Hamas uses child soldiers, and any honest conversation should include a clear condemnation of that fact as well as its likely impact on the number of injured or dead children.

If you're willing to do that, fine - I’ll put in the time because educating someone on their bias snd getting to an honest picture is worth that investment.

If not, then I'm not indulging 5 seconds on you. Believe whatever you like. Uninformed rage is your perogative.

itsagreayarea · 16/07/2025 22:33

ForgesOfEmpires · 16/07/2025 13:03

The UN regularly publishes these bulletins, albeit they go off Hamas numbers, but why don't you check their website daily for updates? Or use the OCHR tool.

This story was global and widely circulated, I'm suprised you didn't see it but perhaps Middle East Eye and Palestinian Solidarity Campaign didn't publicise it.

Telegraph, April 25
"The demographics are the most important thing in all this. We’ve heard the claims that about 70 per cent of the deaths are women and children, and these lists, especially the most recent, show that’s complete nonsense,” he said.

About 72 per cent of fatalities aged 13-55 are men, which is the rough age range of Hamas combatants, Mr Fox said. “We know that Hamas uses child soldiers, and these statistics show clearly that Israel is targeting fighting-aged men.”

"The Henry Jackson Society’s December report said: “The ministry of health, operating under Hamas, has systematically inflated the death toll by failing to distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths, over-reporting fatalities among women and children and even including individuals who died before the conflict began"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/04/01/hamas-drops-thousands-of-deaths-from-casualty-figurures/

Next up you'll deny 13 to 55 is a fighting age for men. Let me save you the time. Use of boys from age 13 has been widely publiced by the UN and NGOs for decades.

From the UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict last month in Annex II, listing groups responsible for grave violations, the report states:

“Hamas’ Izz al‑Din al‑Qassam Brigades listed for recruitment and use of children.”

This is the exact, authoritative wording from the UN, naming Hamas by name and citing “recruitment and use of children” as a grave violation.

Very few mention this when duscussing the terrible loss of childrens lives in Gaza. How curious.

Are you quoting the telegraph here re: the 72% as solid evidence for this statistic?

Or a have you got UN verified publication to cite? Link the report please if want anyone to take heed of this statistic.

This is the exact, authoritative wording from the UN, naming Hamas by name and citing “recruitment and use of children” as a grave violation.
Again, add the link please so people can read the full statements instead of half sentences.

Very few mention this when duscussing the terrible loss of childrens lives in Gaza. How curious.

Why do you think that would be prioritised for a mention when the IDF are happy blasting multiple machine gun rounds in to the chest of a trapped 5 year old girl? Or sniping 3 years old playing outside their home? Or forcing clinical abandonment of pre-mees, leaving them starve to death and rot in hospital beds.

You need to give this over. You can still support Israel and not the government’s policy. Stop backing them. This is backing the policies of war criminals.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/07/2025 18:44

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 15:45

Maybe we should have a separate thread about terminology, because although it's being used as a tool to derail here, it's a very important issue in it's own right

I don’t think you got deleted over using the term concentration camp. It’s been widely used by news outlets and charities and countries. Plus on MNet before without deletion. But yes. I agree re terminology. Not everyone will agree with widely accepted terminology though. Sounds like another thread for a bun fight and last night on here was horrible. You can always ignore posts that don’t agree with your words, or post proof of definition.

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 15:45

DrPrunesqualer · 16/07/2025 15:39

Which is happening already. Look at the word woman for example. Or a persons sex. Big Brother is taking a hold but we really need to fight against that.

Maybe we should have a separate thread about terminology, because although it's being used as a tool to derail here, it's a very important issue in it's own right

DrPrunesqualer · 16/07/2025 15:39

smallglassbottle · 16/07/2025 15:26

George Orwell wrote about the restriction and destruction of language and how it can lead to oppression. Ultimately it can destroy a concept merely because it doesn't have a word left to name it.

Which is happening already. Look at the word woman for example. Or a persons sex. Big Brother is taking a hold but we really need to fight against that.

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 15:32

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 15:15

Still no excuse for arbitrary detention and ethic cleansing.

Things being tricky does not justify war crimes. Ever.

I don’t know why you keep tagging me seeing as in your post that got deleted you said you would be glad not to interact with me again.

If there’s confusion about why your post got deleted the answer is painfully familiar. Personal attacks.

smallglassbottle · 16/07/2025 15:26

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:37

Hmnn so my post got deleted and labelling a camp that:

  • concentrates people into an area,
  • who are taken there by force,
  • not allowed to leave, presumably by lethal force if they do (we have the current issue with food aid to back that up)
  • with basic facilities only
  • whose sole criteria for being taken to this 'camp' is ethnicity
  • a camp which has been described by human rights experts and two former Israeli prime ministers as a (censored speech) camp.
  • It's almost certainly illegal under international law

As what is blatantly is, is a term that if I us will be deleted.

If it means I don't get banned, I'll call a duck an aquatic quacking bird. What shall we call this instead then? A focus resort? A convergence park?

We can't use internment camp, because one of the defining features of an internment camp is that it detains people that are thought to be of risk, even if that is a whole group. The current plan was for people to be screened on entry so anyone that was thought to be Hamas would not be allowed to enter (in practise, that means the men will be carted off somewhere else, to who knows what fate). So those in the camp are those that are explicitly believed not to pose a risk. So it can't be an internment camp.

Some people have proposed using 'death camp'. I don't, because from what I can see it lacks the primary motivation being to kill. Thank goodness.

So what we left with, my nonsensical convoluted language? A new term we can invent? The phrase that probably fits the most?

I'm disturbed that there is more outrage at what this proposed convergence park is called, than its proposed existence.

George Orwell wrote about the restriction and destruction of language and how it can lead to oppression. Ultimately it can destroy a concept merely because it doesn't have a word left to name it.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/07/2025 15:19

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 14:13

That sounds like a holiday resort or something. Not a place that people would be forcibly transported to and detained indefinitely.

Agree.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/07/2025 15:17

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:37

Hmnn so my post got deleted and labelling a camp that:

  • concentrates people into an area,
  • who are taken there by force,
  • not allowed to leave, presumably by lethal force if they do (we have the current issue with food aid to back that up)
  • with basic facilities only
  • whose sole criteria for being taken to this 'camp' is ethnicity
  • a camp which has been described by human rights experts and two former Israeli prime ministers as a (censored speech) camp.
  • It's almost certainly illegal under international law

As what is blatantly is, is a term that if I us will be deleted.

If it means I don't get banned, I'll call a duck an aquatic quacking bird. What shall we call this instead then? A focus resort? A convergence park?

We can't use internment camp, because one of the defining features of an internment camp is that it detains people that are thought to be of risk, even if that is a whole group. The current plan was for people to be screened on entry so anyone that was thought to be Hamas would not be allowed to enter (in practise, that means the men will be carted off somewhere else, to who knows what fate). So those in the camp are those that are explicitly believed not to pose a risk. So it can't be an internment camp.

Some people have proposed using 'death camp'. I don't, because from what I can see it lacks the primary motivation being to kill. Thank goodness.

So what we left with, my nonsensical convoluted language? A new term we can invent? The phrase that probably fits the most?

I'm disturbed that there is more outrage at what this proposed convergence park is called, than its proposed existence.

Louds of countries, officials and Charities have used the same terminology. So deemed nothing wrong with it. Have you asked MNet why your post was deleted. They don’t delete things when words used are internationally recognised. Maybe it was something else. You can email them on [email protected]

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 15:15

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 15:14

What does it have to do with do you think? The lack of uniforms won’t be helping with identifying soldiers versus civilians. Neither will Hamas hiding in and underneath civilian buildings.

Still no excuse for arbitrary detention and ethic cleansing.

Things being tricky does not justify war crimes. Ever.

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 15:14

PaxAeterna · 16/07/2025 15:02

It’s fairly common for terrorists not to wear uniforms. Look at the Iraqi war, Afghanistan even Colombia.

All problematic wars but the death rate of civilians- as in the numbers dieing each day was lower. The civilian death rate in Gaza is staggering because it is happening so quickly. It has nothing to do with a lack of uniforms

What does it have to do with do you think? The lack of uniforms won’t be helping with identifying soldiers versus civilians. Neither will Hamas hiding in and underneath civilian buildings.

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 15:11

PaxAeterna · 16/07/2025 14:50

A enclosed camp. Armed by military I assume because they won’t be allowed out, even though they have not committed a crime and where high numbers of people will die because of disease at the least.

Apparently it’s derailing to talk about the camp so let’s not.

PaxAeterna · 16/07/2025 15:02

Anonimummy · 16/07/2025 13:49

How do you propose separating Hamas from civilians then?

Do you not think it’s necessary?

In a normal war, a military force would be easily identifiable (like the IDF is), and would not be hiding amongst and posing as civilians. This is not that kind of war.

It’s fairly common for terrorists not to wear uniforms. Look at the Iraqi war, Afghanistan even Colombia.

All problematic wars but the death rate of civilians- as in the numbers dieing each day was lower. The civilian death rate in Gaza is staggering because it is happening so quickly. It has nothing to do with a lack of uniforms

PaxAeterna · 16/07/2025 14:50

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 14:12

Call it a proposed camp for Palestinian civilians which is what it is at the moment?

A enclosed camp. Armed by military I assume because they won’t be allowed out, even though they have not committed a crime and where high numbers of people will die because of disease at the least.

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 14:49

Anonimummy · 16/07/2025 14:44

Again, how do you propose separating civilians from Hamas?

What is appropriate in your opinion?

Why bother responding to a post posing a question you’re going to ignore it?

If you have an opinion on what shouldn’t happen, surely you’ve must have one on what should?

Stop derailing.

Whatever the solution is, committing war crimes is not it. There's a reason they can't be legally justified.

Do you think Israel should be permitted to commit war crimes? Should we just rip up the Geneva convention?

PaxAeterna · 16/07/2025 14:46

How on earth do you disintangle Hamas from civilians? You just can’t. It seems that if Israel agree to withdraw that Hamas would agree for the remaining hostages to be released.

I don’t have all the answers but Blinken & international governments have suggested putting in place a day after plan - which would include a temporary governance structure. This was the suggestion in the Arab proposal too. Then you would offer Palestinians a peaceful political path to their own state.

How would you deradicalise the Israeli population? It seems like a large % of them are happy to stand behind an ethnic cleansing plan. That is also an extreme view.
What’s the plan to get the hostages home at the moment because if Israel had stuck to the terms of the original ceasefire, they would be home. How many have they saved via this military method?

Anonimummy · 16/07/2025 14:44

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:58

Of course I don't think a convergence villa is appropriate. I don't believe in excusing war crimes.

Are they any lines of international law which you think apply to Israel? Or are they above poxy things like the international criminal court and the Geneva convention?

Again, how do you propose separating civilians from Hamas?

What is appropriate in your opinion?

Why bother responding to a post posing a question you’re going to ignore it?

If you have an opinion on what shouldn’t happen, surely you’ve must have one on what should?

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 14:20

BelleHathor · 16/07/2025 14:15

Don't worry about the minutiae of what's it's called. The argument about language is another distraction meant to tire you out.

The World will see with it's own eyes what happens and will judge and react accordingly in the future.

That's true.
It's important that we keep this on topic.

BelleHathor · 16/07/2025 14:15

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:37

Hmnn so my post got deleted and labelling a camp that:

  • concentrates people into an area,
  • who are taken there by force,
  • not allowed to leave, presumably by lethal force if they do (we have the current issue with food aid to back that up)
  • with basic facilities only
  • whose sole criteria for being taken to this 'camp' is ethnicity
  • a camp which has been described by human rights experts and two former Israeli prime ministers as a (censored speech) camp.
  • It's almost certainly illegal under international law

As what is blatantly is, is a term that if I us will be deleted.

If it means I don't get banned, I'll call a duck an aquatic quacking bird. What shall we call this instead then? A focus resort? A convergence park?

We can't use internment camp, because one of the defining features of an internment camp is that it detains people that are thought to be of risk, even if that is a whole group. The current plan was for people to be screened on entry so anyone that was thought to be Hamas would not be allowed to enter (in practise, that means the men will be carted off somewhere else, to who knows what fate). So those in the camp are those that are explicitly believed not to pose a risk. So it can't be an internment camp.

Some people have proposed using 'death camp'. I don't, because from what I can see it lacks the primary motivation being to kill. Thank goodness.

So what we left with, my nonsensical convoluted language? A new term we can invent? The phrase that probably fits the most?

I'm disturbed that there is more outrage at what this proposed convergence park is called, than its proposed existence.

Don't worry about the minutiae of what's it's called. The argument about language is another distraction meant to tire you out.

The World will see with it's own eyes what happens and will judge and react accordingly in the future.

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 14:13

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 14:12

Call it a proposed camp for Palestinian civilians which is what it is at the moment?

That sounds like a holiday resort or something. Not a place that people would be forcibly transported to and detained indefinitely.

Twiglets1 · 16/07/2025 14:12

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:38

It's not, for that, it has to consider individuals that is detained because they're believed to be a risk. They're siphoning off. Anyone they think is ham as. Therefore, it cannot be an internment camp.

Call it a proposed camp for Palestinian civilians which is what it is at the moment?

BelleHathor · 16/07/2025 14:11

Martymcfly24 · 16/07/2025 13:41

That's a really long way of saying there wasn't one.

Yup, source is the Henry Jackson Society report as misrepresentated by Honest Reporting (amplified the 40 beheaded babies lie).

These well funded/backed entities come out with misrepresentations and using their conduits spread these "truths" via the MSM and Social Media. By the time people (usually working for free) debunk these lies they've already been spread worldwide.

The only positive thing is that the old adage of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" is coming true. They can only lie to people so many times and this is parts of the reason that support has fallen so sharply.

Tooblondetooyoung · 16/07/2025 13:58

Anonimummy · 16/07/2025 13:49

How do you propose separating Hamas from civilians then?

Do you not think it’s necessary?

In a normal war, a military force would be easily identifiable (like the IDF is), and would not be hiding amongst and posing as civilians. This is not that kind of war.

Of course I don't think a convergence villa is appropriate. I don't believe in excusing war crimes.

Are they any lines of international law which you think apply to Israel? Or are they above poxy things like the international criminal court and the Geneva convention?