Concerns about Israeli plans for Gaza and Palestinian displacement

[JadeHare]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-military-70-percent-gaza-intl

Doesn’t look like there will be much land left for the Palestinians.

And in other news, from the Guardian:

“Israel’s defence minister has said he is committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza through large-scale migration of Palestinians as part of Israel’s long-term plans for the territory.
Israel Katz said the government would implement a plan for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”, in a statement on Wednesday marking the targeted killing of Mohammed Odeh, Hamas’s most recent military commander.
Pushing for mass departures violates Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan for Gaza, which Israel signed last year. The second point of the plan states: “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.”
Israel’s government has promoted the prospect of Gaza without Palestinians since Trump suggested early last year that hundreds of thousands of people should leave to “clean out” the strip for reconstruction.
Last year Israel set up a bureau for “voluntary emigration” and eased travel restrictions for Palestinians who wanted to make a one-way journey out of the strip.
The forced transfer of civilian populations is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israeli officials, including Katz, use the term “voluntary migration” to describe their ”

Excerpt From
“Israel’s defence minister says large-scale Palestinian migration from Gaza will go ahead”
Emma Graham-Harrison
The Guardian
https://apple.news/AnnlpJqlOTdW5cUbA9NEe1Q
This material may be protected by copyright.

Lol well Twigs I can only dream of this conciseness.

So you are comfortable with the British government allowing the sale of arms to the Israeli government knowing that they are being used on a kettled population of civilians who are mainly children?

and Israel leaders the worst in history

I never said this.

Oh and you mistakenly used the word 'war' in place of 'genocide':

An independent United Nations Commission of Inquiry officially concluded on September 16, 2025, that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The investigation, established by the UN Human Rights Council, detailed how Israeli forces breached the 1948 Genocide Convention by carrying out four genocidal acts.

Yes. I agree that the level of emotional outrage by the world is primarily down to the fact so many more people can see what is going on as a result of the broadcasts and that does make this genocide unique in that way.

As far as which is the worst or most evil thing that has ever been done, that is a totally subjective question. In other words, there is no way to objectively prove it either way, as there is no universally agreed upon definition or metric to measure it by.

I would say people are more emotionally involved because they are more aware of what is happening than they have been in other genocides. The thing is though, it is not just about what has been happening since Oct 7th. People who wouldn't have been able to find Israel/Palestine on a map, let alone knew anything about the situation, are now more educated about the whole history and empathy towards the Palestinians has grown massively as a result.

During the Rwandan genocide, the Clinton administration intentionally instructed US officials and spokespeople to avoid using the word genocide. The reason for avoiding the term was because under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which the U.S. had signed, declaring that a genocide was taking place carried a strict moral and legal obligation for the US to intervene and they didn't want to for domestic political reasons. Instead they used words like widespread violence or atrocities. It was not until the genocide was over that he actually apologised and used the word despite the fact that a UN court still hadn't ruled on it formally. By the way, it is not just the ICJ that needs to declare genocide. On that basis, the fact that the UK government and other Western governments, are not calling it a genocide is, I think, disingenuous. There are many people, far more qualified on the subject than me, far more qualified than anyone in the UK government for that matter, who have emphatically declared it is a genocide so no. I believe the UK government knows full well it is supporting a genocide.

Yes, same for many genocides, officials have avoided using the term because it obligates nations to act.

I think its a feature not a bug of genocides that many nations deny it is a genocide. If this is found to be a genocide this one can join that list.

That doesn't actually make it a genocide imo but its a good point. Another way this situation is more business as usual for the human race.

Seeing as we're doing so well, how can it be a genocide if Hamas could have stopped it at any point by surrendering or disarming? Can you think of any similar genocide that was in the power of the victim nation's leadership to end? I can't- I have tried.

No I quite deliberately used the world war because it is only an alleged genocide at the moment.

A UN commission of enquiry is not an international court of law so we have to wait for the international court to decide. The U.N. does acknowledge this point themselves.

Ok, well, the United Nations has only once ever formally declared a situation to be a genocide and the ICJ later found it not to be one.

Well if it’s the sickest most criminal thing ever I think it can be assumed you consider the Israel government the worst in history, no?

Why are you still quoting the UN as an authority on international law then?

To be fair Dairy. I agree with your points that quantifying human rights suffering and atrocities is not a route to go down but I think it's very clear Hamas' disarming or surrendering would not have stopped the ongoing conflict and expansion of the yellow line.

As I have exhaustively explained, it is the whole picture of the genocide that I believe to be the most sick and criminal. I did describe the multiple aspects of the situation, from the kettling of millions of civilians with no means of fleeing, to the complicity of Western Governments - despite the international human rights laws we now have, despite the detailed accounts from journalists, doctors and medics from within Gaza, despite the formal acknowledgement that this is a genocide from the United Nations and many, many experienced and professional bodies all over the world.

It is the fact that the world is watching, governments are supporting and arming the situation that makes it, in my opinion, the sickest atrocity the human race has borne witness to.

The human race bearing witness, in full knowledge of what is happening, and yet doing nothing is the major factor in this.

What I do 100% know is that there can be no Palestinian State with full self determination while the terrorists are in government. So I see it as a very necessary first step nonetheless.

There's the issue. "IF Hamas could have stopped it at any point by surrendering or disarming?". I personally do not believe that would have made any difference. I believe that on October 8th, hardliners in the Israeli government had made the decision, (now this sounds awful because it sounds like I'm saying there was something good for Israel about Oct 7 but there wasn't, it was horrific), to seize the opportunity, because of the global sympathy for Israel, to finally ethnically cleanse Gaza. Israel went into Gaza from the north and drove the population south to the Rafah crossing. Danny Ayalon first posited the idea of constructing a temporary tented city in the Sinai for the Gazan population which was confirmed many times. Everyone knew there would be nothing temporary about the city which is why Egypt reinforced the border. I don't believe that plan has changed. I think the tactic now is to make life so unbearable in the tiny area the whole Gaza population has been corralled into that, when it reaches absolute boiling point, possibly when an epidemic kicks in, someone is going to blink and take the Gazans.

It is racist to exceptionalise the war in Gaza and insist that it is the sickest most criminal conflict ever.

You can dress it up how you want.

That's very different to what you said though.

A Palestinian state and the stopping of the ongoing attacks that have killed 1100 since the start of the "ceasefire" are worlds apart.

A first step would also be Israel laying down their arms in Gaza.

I don’t understand how people can feel so sure that it wouldn’t have made any difference if Hamas had surrendered. On what evidence do you say this?

You do remember that both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir visited 10 Downing Street as Prime Ministers of Israel. Begin was the head of the Irgun, a terrorist organisation and Shamir, the Lehi or Stern Gang, even worse. Churchill particularly hated the Lehi because of his friend, Lord Moyne's murder who Shamir helped plan. Moving on requires compromise and diplomacy.

No a first step would be Hamas disarming - which is specified in the Gaza peace plan.

Inductive reasoning. Tell you what, why don't you explain how you think it would make a difference. Do you think the IDF would just go "Okay, that's great. We'll leave now. Don't worry, we'll lock the gates on the way out."

Do you remember when we were told it would all stop when the hostages were returned..

I am aware of all that yes.

I don't want to get into a to and fro about what the Israelis would have done if October 7 didnt happen. We're all guessing through our own preferred narratives. Its a pointless argument. Same with what would have happened if Hamas had surrendered and disarmed. None of us know.

I strongly disagree that Israel can lay down arms to start the process. The start has to be leadership of Palestinians that is commited to a Palestinian State won through non violence. The immediate next step has to be Israeli leadership commited to a fully self governing Palestinian state. I've said that so many times on here that I'm bored of hearing it myself. Both are as necessary as each other.

I'm going to have a beer in the garden and think about something else now.

"Both are as necessary as each other.". It appears we agree again. Cheers. Enjoy the beer. I'm a cold rose.

I asked first. You explain properly first not just in 2 words "inductive reasoning". What about if Hamas has surrendered and put down their arms in the first few weeks, do you still think we would have seen so many deaths and devastation to Gaza?

If you give me a proper thought out answer then I will do the same back.

I think I made myself fairly clear in my response to dairydebris. I really don't want to have to explain it again.