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.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      The partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine.

      Partition

      The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.

      • Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine

      On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.

      • Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
      Ben-Gurion Quotes

      “Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement — not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.” — Ben Gurion, War Diaries, 12/03/1947 following Israel’s “acceptance” of the U.N. Partition of 11/29/1947 (Simha Flapan, “Birth of Israel,” p.13)

      Partition: “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine “ — Ben Gurion, p.22 “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan.

      “The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan

      https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/

      Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.

      :::

      Quote

      Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.

      The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.

      An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

      Settlements, Occupation, and Apartheid

      Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

      This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.

      The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:

      Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:

      Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        21 days ago

        You mean the re-settlement project. The UN mandated Israel’s existence and despite this mandate, Arabs committed the first of a seemingly never-ending series of terrorist acts by attacking a bus Nov 30th, 1947.

        It’s been perpetual ‘refusing to learn the lesson’ since. All that BS copy pasta that says nothing to refute what I stated… Can you reference a conflict which doesn’t have an ‘instigated by radical Islamists’ precursor? Has any land been confiscated beyond the green line that wasn’t because terrorists or their supporting nations FAFO?

        • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          And why did they attack that bus in 1947? What prceeded that? You dont know or dont care to know. Irguin did plenty of terrorist bombings before that ,could it have been that maybe? Or some other attricty? Or are we pretending this all started on Nov 30 1947?

          “Jewish militants bombed the police headquarters in Haifa on September 29, 1947, resulting in the deaths of four British policemen, four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians.”

          The king david hotel Jewish extremist terrorist bombing was July 1946, in case you didnt know.

          And feast your eyes on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine

          So you’re just wrong.

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            20 days ago

            Yes, we are. That bus bombing is first record of violence in response to the UN mandate. Ball is in your court to find an earlier tu quoque otherwise Israel might not look like the bad-guy and we can’t have that!

            • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              I literally just gave you the list you asked for in the comment you replied to. You’re not great with english or reading comprehension, it seems.

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            21 days 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…

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  20 days 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.win
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    20 days 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.