Israeli attack on northern Gaza hints at retired general's "surrender or starve" plan for war
www.bbc.com
Giora Eiland tells Jeremy Bowen that Israel should tell Palestinians to leave northern Gaza before sealing it off as a way of pressuring Hamas.

Excerpts w/emphasis added:

“Since we already encircled the northern part of Gaza in the past nine or 10 months, what we should do is the following thing to tell all the 300,000 residents [that the UN estimates is 400,000] who still live in the northern part of Gaza that they have to leave this area and they should be given 10 days to leave through safe corridors that Israel will provide.

“And after that time, all this area will become to be a military zone. And all the Hamas people will still, though, whether some of them are fighters, some of them are civilians… will have two choices either to surrender or to starve.”

Eiland wants Israel to seal the areas once the evacuation corridors are closed. Anyone left behind would be treated as an enemy combatant. The area would be under siege, with the army blocking all supplies of food, water or other necessities of life from going in.

…

It is not clear whether the IDF has adopted the Generals’ Plan in part or in full, but the circumstantial evidence of what is being done in Gaza suggests it is at the very least a strong influence on the tactics being used against the population. The BBC submitted a list of questions to the IDF, which were not answered.

The ultra-nationalist extremists in Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet want to replace Palestinians in northern Gaza with Jewish settlers. Among many statements he’s made on the subject, the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has said “Our heroic fighters and soldiers are destroying the evil of Hamas, and we will occupy the Gaza Strip… to tell the truth, where there is no settlement, there is no security.”

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      No, it doesn’t. Arabs refused both plans and so the UN chose the one at least one ‘side’ wanted. The ‘plan’ BS is just an excuse. Palestinians would have been pissy regardless. Had the UN chose the other option nothing would have changed historically.

      I notice you haven’t found a copypasta for land taken that wasn’t in response to a precursor attack so where would the borders be had there never been any attacks on Israel? My guess: right where the UN said they should be…

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          The first talks about discussions 2 decades prior.

          The second can be reworded more succinctly: Ultimately, UNSCOP delivered two proposals: that of the majority, which recommended two separate states joined economically, and that of the minority, which supported the formation of a single binational state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas. The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both.

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            1 month ago

            Yeah, Brittanica is wrong there. Palestinian Representatives supported a Unitary state since 1928. The Minority Proposal was not voted on after extensive lobbying by American-Zionist organizations and extensive US diplomatic pressure in the UN.

            Spoiler

            The UNSCOP report contained two suggestions: one for the partition of Palestine into two states with an economic union between them and a special status for Jerusalem, and another supported by a minority of UNSCOP members suggesting a unitary federal state. From August to November 1947, Zionist leaders broadened the scope of their lobbying to include all members of the General Assembly who might vote on behalf of the partition of Palestine. Additionally, Great Britain, though having turned the Palestine issue over to the UN, worked staunchly against the idea of partitioning Palestine into two states because the Foreign Office opposed the emergence of a Jewish state. While many delegates were persuaded for their own national interests to accept a two-state solution for Palestine’s future, up until the very last minute before the partition vote, Britain aimed to appease Arab opposition to Zionism. The Zionists were persistent, sometimes presenting their case for a Jewish state in multiple languages. Finally, on November 29, 1947, in an emotionally executed vote, a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly of the UN voted for (partition) Resolution 181. The vote was 33 in favor, 13 against, and 11 abstentions. Both the United States and the Soviet Union supported the partition plan; Britain abstained.

            https://israeled.org/resources/documents/report-of-the-un-special-committee-on-palestine-unscop-summary/

            Nor was the UN proposal binding in any way unless both parties accepted. It was used as a justification for the declaration of the Jewish State and subsequent Ethnic Cleansing to create it’s own borders as far as they could.

            Partition is inherently unequal, it is impossible to implement without the forced expulsion of the native Palestinian population, which was the entire plan. Which you can read about with the Quoted book about The Concept of Transfer in the history of Zionism and Quotes by Ben-Gurion and Theodore Herzl themselves.

            • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
              1·
              1 month ago

              This is all some sensationalist fiction drummed up by an outcast anti-Israel author. You lose the plot when you say ‘EB is wrong here’. Your guy is unproven and intentionally controversial and you lap it up because he says what you want to be true. He is wrong. I’ll stick with the unbiased opinion TYVM.

              Not only that, but your citation here supports what I’m saying. “Zionists and Arabs had clearly shown they had absolutely no inclination to live together under the same governmental umbrella”. And yet, the Zionists agreed with a proposal in the end.

              Face it, you’re in the wrong here. All your links point to meaningless historical footnotes on the diplomatic process and ignore the fact that the Arabs refused to accept either final UN proposal, nor lobbied in favour of one or the other. They were the first to resort to violence and all because they refuse to relinquish land taken from the Jews in the first place.

              It is this insistence on resorting to violence that has cost them so dearly ever since. Even the settlements are predicated on security justified by previous terrorism. No terrorism, no need for a security buffer.

              Edit: and ‘plans for gaza’ are themselves meaningless when they aren’t enacted prior to a terror attack. Anticipating more terrorism is prudent at this point.