Israels plan for Gazas future

[MixedMetals]

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

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?

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.

Or problems around forced marriage/pregnancy for girls.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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]

Agree.

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.