Israels plan for Gazas future

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.

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

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.

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.

Just because one former prime minister compares it to that, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with them or consider it an appropriate term to use.

I would call it an internment camp if it comes into existence at all.

Or problems around forced marriage/pregnancy for girls.

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.

What I want to know is what the pro-Palestinians in the West think is an acceptable plan?

How are the Palestinians de radicalised if the civilians are not separated from Hamas, and Hamas refuses to surrender, and allow a moderate leadership who wants to govern for the benefit of civilians and to live alongside Israel in peace?

Do they think Hamas should continue to govern Gaza (and as they say have many more Palestinians join their ranks as they will hate Israel even more), Israel should withdraw and pay reparations to rebuild, leaving the remaining hostages to rot for many more years, with one or two released at a time in return for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners including convicted terrorists so they can regroup, refund, and continue the cycle while civilians live in fear and poverty, children are exposed and indoctrinated into terrorism as the deaths of their family members were Israel’s fault, left as perpetual refugees reliant on Aid and so on it goes?

Of course they won’t accept Israel (and Egypt) keeping Gaza as an ‘open air prison’ so Israel will have to reopen air, sea and land borders, and have no embargoes on imports, inviting more and larger terrorist attacks due to the above and on and on it goes?

How do Western pro-Palestinians actually see it panning out?

They profess to agree with dismantling Hamas, but how?

Hopefully @ForgesOfEmpires will come back with that UN report that she was asked for after she stated 72% of the dead were men .

Oh no, who else? 🤔👀

That is very true.ill rephrase that

He doesn't listen to voices that have even one tiny ounce of humanity (unlike Gvir/Smotrich etc who are genuinely worrying in their outlook -I had another word but it would probably be deemed hysterical)

Bit of a side question here but how do you get intel from the Israeli Army Radio. ?

Surely the IDF chief couldn’t be said to be a moderate. Although he seems to be mainly concerned that it is unworkable. So it probably is actually not even viable from a pure and cold logical point of view.

But even those within Israel are calling it a concentration camp. The former prime minister. You can disagree but I don’t think you can claim it is specifically chosen to offend. What would you call it?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-said-to-call-gaza-humanitarian-city-plan-unworkable-at-security-meeting/

It's receiving widespread condemnation internally which is a good thing but we have seen Netanyahu does not tend to listen to moderates.

Hysterical language specifically chosen to offend and trigger people.

I'm not engaging with people who use that term anymore.

@Tooblondetooyoung ”There is constant effort here to divert the topic from what this thread is about - the proposed concentration camp for Palestinians.”

More hysterical language.

Shall we get back to the topic at hand again...

There is constant effort here to divert the topic from what this thread is about - the proposed concentration camp for Palestinians. I know it's easier to distract and go 'but Hamas' rather than attempt to defend the insensible, but it's so blatant.

So what's the latest on this plan?

Fair enough yes people are entitled to express different opinions I agree.

If you follow these threads closely you would have seen many of the personal attacks they aimed at others that got deleted by MN for breaking site guidelines.

It's a shame you haven't spoken up to defend posters that Veiled attacked in the past rather than speak up to defend them now.

But also - yes - you are entitled to defend who you want to defend.

And that is an opinion you are perfectly entitled to have and plenty of other people share. Lots of others do not. My post was merely in the interests of fairness. I’ve followed these threads quite closely and was actually quite shocked by the pile on Veiled got after extracting a clause from her comment, rather than the whole sentence!

If I was Israel I would take temporary reputational damage from the current right wing government over being destroyed completely by Hamas which was their goal.

At least there will be future generations which there wouldn't have been if Iran and their proxies like Hamas got their way.

Veiled has said some questionable things about Iran but she never said Hamas was no longer a threat to Israel - that was a distortion (deliberate or otherwise) of her words. What she said was that Israel now posed a bigger threat to itself than Hamas. She was clearly referring to the reputational damage being caused by the government and possibly the hatred that they will now make worse for future generations.

So many of their posts get deleted ... not necessarily a female. Not that their sex matters. I'm surprised they are still posting after so many deletions though.