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.

Yes it is ambiguous but genocide was the question being discussed before people diverted away from it by talking instead about land grabs, ethnic cleaning etc - a different topic.

Forget what Israel say or don't say about whether it's a genocide, it's not for them to decide anyway but the international court.

What I'm interested in is some acknowledgment that there wouldn't have been so many civilians killed in Gaza had Hamas just surrendered early. The fighting would have stopped because the IDF wouldn't have had any terrorists to fight and countless civilian lives would have been saved. Do you accept that?

I'm ok with that... honestly I don't really understand the difference, in any case a genocide would have taken place... one's as bad as the other imo? I think if for example half of the knesset failed to prevent the other half from doing a genocide then they still basically did a genocide as a collective...
The intent is the big problem and I think Israel can prove their intent was to finish Hamas off so that they couldnt do 7 October again, and no sensible person should deny Israel that right xx
I don't think they can prove the intent was to wipe out innocent civilians unless they come up with some documents proving it was policy at the highest level.

The goal posts have not moved. The country is ruled to have failed to prevent genocide when genocide has been established. This is what has been ruled on every country in which a genocide has occurred. The mechanism is there to rule that the country as a whole committed genocide but do you really think the ICJ is going to rule that every single person in the country was involved in genocide. Also the ICJ doesn't prosecute, it makes a ruling. Once genocide has been established, the case is either passed to the ICC or more likely, a specific court will be established to prosecute individuals who were responsible for the genocide.

How do you know the fighting would have stopped?
Genuine question.

IMO the fighting wouldn't have stopped, there would always be an excuse for Israel to obliterate Gaza...they could easily have said they suspect hamas supporters are still hiding under hospitals and apartment buildings...

There is no way of saying when Israel would have stopped the genocide they were happy to commit to, once they seen they had the support of the US and the UK governments.

I think it does make a difference between an action word - doing something - and the more passive - just allowing it to happen. If you are struggling to prove that someone did something you can turn to the lesser charge of well, they allowed it to happen. Anyway, a small difference of opinion.

I agree with what you say about intent being the big problem and I think it will be hard to justify the criteria for genocide in this case as there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Especially considering that Israel did provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians (not enough) and did take steps to limit civilian deaths (again, not enough). Their clear intent was to kill as many Hamas operatives as possible, not to kill as many Palestinians as possible. Has they really wanted to, they could have killed many more Palestinians and still could - but that is not their aim.

I have no idea whether there would have been less loss of life as the whole of Israel's modus operandi would have been very different. As Omer Bartov said, the goal was always ethnic cleansing so there is no way of knowing what method Israel would have resorted to to achieve their goal and whether or not it would have meant less loss of life.

Who would the IDF have been fighting if Hamas had surrendered and disarmed?

It wouldn't have been a war any more and a ceasefire could have been agreed in 2023 and if Hamas disarmed, the IDF would have had no excuse to be bombing hospital grounds etc.

Did you know the IDF is unique in being the only military to have International Law Department (IDL) lawyers directly within field and regional units during conflicts?

They also massively increased the amount of IDL lawyers during the current conflict.

They had enough experience to expect the accusations to come, immediately from Oct 7th itself. They knew immediately that on the Palestinian side, the main goal was a propaganda war. Of course the slaughtering, torture, gang raping, looting and taking hostages to get convicted terrorists released was a nice bit on the side for the Palestinians who took part and celebrated it.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the ICC and ICJ cases.

Up to 130 int'l lawyers kept IDF functioning through war | The Jerusalem Post

I'm not sure. The whole point of the Genocide Convention was to address not just the Holocaust but also things like Bomber Harris' deliberate targeting of civilians to break the will of the German soldiers. The core of it is to protect civilian life at all cost if possible. You could be right though.

You don't know if there would have been fewer civilians killed if the war had ended after a day or two instead of years ... ok.

I wonder if that would be your attitude to other wars around the world too, that you wouldn't have any idea whether the war lasting a couple of days or a couple of years would have any bearing at all on how many civilians end up getting killed.

Depends on the goals of those wars. Israel stated it's goals were to get the hostages back, absolutely, and to get rid of Hamas. Many many people, including Israelis, do not believe that at all. The goal was to get rid of the Palestinians.

I'm sure I remember reading some military guys writing about this war- towards the start of the war- saying how laws around war will need to be changed after this conflict because its so difficult to apply them to this situation. With terrorists embedded within the population, making no effort to protect their own civilians, in fact in many cases encouraging them to be in harms way... Hamas have referred to their own as necessary sacrifices.
I go so far as to see war crimes and absolutely terrible deeds by soldiers as 100% inevitable during a war. Given human variation any army will have a % amoung its number likely to react to the violence of war by commiting awful deeds. Literally any nationality or race would do this and has always done this. Under pressure of war some (men lets face it) humans will absolutely do awful things.
I think if a war is fought in the situation of Gaza, terrorists who give not a shit, embedded and not separated, 80 years of pent up hatred between both sides- atrocity is absolutely bound to happen.
For me, it's enough to call it atrocity, war crimes, slaughter etc but not genocide.

Agree the core should be to protect civilian life. And tragically in this instance awful civilian loss of life was always inevitable from the moment Hamas breached the borders. I believe they knew this and depended on it, because they hate Jews more than they care for their own civilians to live. And they knew Israel would come for Hamas hard, and not care in the first instance about Palestinian civilians. I believe Israel deeply cares mainly about its own civilians.

Back to garden and beer for me.

I disagree that it depends on the goals of the wars. Goals are words but wars are where people get killed every day.

Though speaking of goals, Israel stated it's goals were to get the hostages back, and to get rid of Hamas. And it's clear to see how they have tried to achieve that. I would say those goals are fair enough - to get the hostages back (many of them were civilians too and not all did make it back alive) and to get rid of the terrorist group Hamas. They did pretty well at getting the hostages back and at killing lots of terrorists. They're still working on getting them to disarm.

But "getting rid" of Palestinians? If that was Israel's goal they suck at it. Why provide humanitarian aid to a group you want to get rid of? Why send warnings when you are about to drop bombs on villages if your goal is to get rid of as many civilians as you can?

You are right on a lot of those points but some of them are debatable. Actually most points are right. I'll let you know my comments later but enjoy your beer. Cheers.

For me, it's enough to call it atrocity, war crimes, slaughter etc but not genocide.

Well said @dairydebris

Enjoy your beer, it's a cup of tea in the garden for me after a bit too much beer watching the football last night.

☕️

Simple. Israel had a lot of diplomatic global support but that is waning, severely. Absolutely they could have wiped out the Palestinians in a few days. Problem is, they would have to live with the international repercussions if they did. They can only push the boundaries so far to maintain Western support. What sickens me is when they call it "encourage voluntary emigration" especially as it has been used before. It is disgusting in my opinion but then I am a bit of a softy.

Palestinian displacement
in May 2026 The Guardian

‘Israeli minister confirms goal of large-scale expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza
This article is more than 1 month old
Human rights groups and lawyers say ‘voluntary migration’ policy amounts to ethnic cleansing

Emma Graham-Harrison
Thu 28 May 2026 10.00 BST

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 plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza.
Israel-based human rights organisations and lawyers have warned that the conditions Israel has imposed on Gaza mean no departure can be considered voluntary and the policy constitutes planning for ethnic cleansing.

Following the backlash from the above ethnic cleansing idea of Israels
They Rebranded it
aa.com

Israel rebrands Gaza displacement plan amid backlash over forced transfer concerns:

Move comes amid ongoing Israeli killings, land seizures across Gaza strip, in violation of ceasefire in effect since October 2025
Said Amori
29 June 2026•Update: 29 June 2026

^^

JERUSALEM
Israeli political and security officials replaced the term “voluntary migration” with “Free Movement Plan” when referring to plans to relocate Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, according to Israel’s Channel 13, amid international concerns over forced displacement.

Citing unnamed informed sources, Channel 13 said instructions were circulated to relevant bodies, including security and intelligence institutions, “to reintroduce the initiative using language deemed more acceptable internationally.”
Sources involved in contacts with concerned countries “expressed optimism that the change in terminology could help shift those countries’ positions and revive the plan after earlier setbacks,” the channel added.
A senior Israeli official, whose name was not disclosed, acknowledged that Hamas “still exists” in the Gaza Strip and that Israel is seeking to push “as many Palestinians in Gaza as possible” to leave.
In April, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tasked his international affairs adviser, Caroline Glick, with advancing plans to relocate Palestinians, including contacts with the breakaway region of Somaliland and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, though those efforts yielded no results.
Channel 12 also reported in December 2025 that the security establishment had presented the government with a plan to relocate Palestinians from Gaza by land, sea, and air, while contacts with several countries failed to produce any agreement.
Israel has repeatedly framed the displacement of Palestinians under the concept of “voluntary migration,” while the ongoing war, widespread destruction, and tightened blockade in the Gaza Strip have drawn repeated warnings from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Arab states against forced displacement.
Israel's genocidal war on Gaza since October 2023 has killed over 73,000 people, injured over 173,000 and caused massive destruction to about 90% of the enclave's infrastructure.

Israel had a lot of global support - less now - yes agree on that.

I just think it's an extraordinary level of hate for a country to assume that the only reason they haven't completely wiped out the civilian population of another country must be because they are worried about what people would say.

What is it about Israelis that makes them such monsters? That they have such a blood lust that they want to kill all Palestinians? Are they even still human at this point that they would want to kill an entire population if only the world would look the other way? It seems not in the minds of the people who only want to assume the worst about them.

First off, not all Israelis. There is hate but it is directed specifically at people like Ben Givr and his ilk and they are monsters. I watched a Piers Morgan uncensored because it had Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak being interviewed. Olmert used the word genocide and Barak was calling for open revolution in Israel to get rid of the current government. I think, and I'm going to say this honestly, the Palestinians have been treated horrifically for decades but this current administration is fucking evil to the core.

Yes Twiglets. This is it for me. So many nations have utter shits at their heads. Any nation has the potential to have a shit at the head. Yet exceptional hatred seems to be reserved only for Israel.

@Twiglets1 come in you know when people refer to “Israel” they are not talking about Israeli civilians, they are talking about the Israeli Government and it’s policies. Next you will be insinuating that when we say “Israel” we are talking about all Jewish people!
Israel as a state is becoming more and more unpopular because of its behaviour towards the Palestinian people, but also it’s apparent lust for war and land grabbing.

I don't disagree that the current Israeli government has some evil characters in it - Smotrich and Givr come to mind. They are far right extremists that unfortunately are a part of Netanyahu's coalition government.

You were not directing hate purely at "Ben Givr and his ilk" in previous comments. And I don't agree that they represent the whole mentality within the Israel government or Israeli military.

I don't agree that they are a reason to talk with such hatred about how "Israel" (including the whole of the IDF presumably) would have tried to kill all Palestinians - if only the world wasn't watching to hold them back from what they really wanted to do.

Exactly - look at Russia with Putin at the helm as just one example.

Do we assume that the Russian army would kill every Ukraine civilian they could if only the world wasn't watching? No. We assume that they are soldiers in a war, not psychopaths.