naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
12685 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #3
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry — a small governmental body that produces policy research and shares its proposals with intelligence agencies, the army, and other ministries. It assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the framework of the current war, and recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor. The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972.
The existence of the document does not necessarily indicate that its recommendations are being considered by Israel’s defense establishment. Despite its name, the Intelligence Ministry is not directly responsible for any intelligence body, but rather independently prepares studies and policy papers that are distributed to the Israeli government and security agencies for review, but are not binding.
The document recommends that Israel act to “evacuate the civilian population to Sinai” during the war; establish tent cities and later more permanent cities in the northern Sinai that will absorb the expelled population; and then create “a sterile zone of several kilometers … within Egypt, and [prevent] the return of the population to activities/residences near the border with Israel.” At the same time, governments around the world, led by the United States, must be mobilized to implement the move.
The transfer plan is divided into several stages. In the first stage, action must be taken so that the population of Gaza “evacuates south,” while the air strikes focus on the northern Gaza Strip. In the second stage, a ground incursion into Gaza will begin, leading to the occupation of the entire Strip from north to south, and the “cleansing of the underground bunkers of Hamas fighters.” Concurrently with the re-occupation of Gaza, Palestinian civilians will be moved into Egyptian territory, and not be allowed to return. “It is important to leave the travel routes to the south open to enable the evacuation of the civilian population toward Rafah,” the document states. According to an official in the Intelligence Ministry, the ministry’s personnel stand behind these recommendations. The source stressed that the ministry’s research is “not based on military intelligence” and serves only as a basis for discussions within the government.
This is a big step and I'm surprised I've only seen it retweeted once by Adam Tooze and nowhere else. I'm sure it's big on the Arabic internet, but I'm not plugged in to Muslim conspriacy theories. Obviously ideas like this have been mooted around theMotte and everywhere else, but for it come from the Israeli government is new. Thoughts:
-- For this to be planned doesn't mean it is really going to happen. I'm sure somewhere in the Pentagon there are plans put together, if only as exercises, for invading Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica. This could all mean nothing. That is probably not going to be very persuasive to people who already figured that Israel wanted to do this. Ironically, once again in this conflict, I expect the loudest voices telling me that this won't happen and isn't real to be those who have previously advocated for exactly the policy of ethnic cleansing. A new application of the good ol' law of merited impossibility.
-- The paper is dated 10/13. I've lost track of time quite a bit lately for personal reasons, when exactly did Israel begin bombing Northern Gaza and encouraging civilians to remove South? Because it sure looks like they're following the plan outlined in step 1 of Option C: move civilians south. That is going to be viewed as strong proof by Muslims that this is going on; and it is going to lead to tragedy. This document is going to be used to encourage Gazan civilians not to evacuate, which is going to lead to Hamas having a much thicker human shield, which is going to lead to thousands upon thousands of extra deaths. Regardless of its validity, the release of this document is unquestionably a tragedy.
-- The leak could also be a test balloon to see just how bad public reaction to this is. "We're not doing it, we're just brainstorming, no bad ideas, just talking about it...unless?"
-- I'm unfamiliar with the geography of the region, how habitable is the Sinai? My impression from the Bible and occasional references in history is that it ain't great, that Egypt has essentially no use for it beyond controlling the canal. Can you build an actual functioning city in the Sinai? Or is it just an open air prison, by which I mean the population can't leave and would be permanently dependent on imports of food/water? What bribe would Egypt require to open/allow/maintain this prison? Can you trust Egyptian jailers to keep the prisoners in, or will this lead to injecting a million radicals into Egypt's population, probably destabilizing the secular government there? A lot of people like to say "why not just turn Gaza into Singapore?" but is there any realistic universe of economic development in a brand new city in the Sinai?
-- The paper itself...seems pretty persuasive? It compares the De-Hamas-ification of Gaza to the DeNazification plans in Germany after WWII, which took at least seven years of occupation by Allied powers. Arguably the occupation of Germany hasn't ended yet. Seven years of occupation in Gaza would be giving every angry Arab a chance to take a pot-shot at a Jew, every day, for seven years. And gives Hezbollah all the time in the world to plan a Northern front. And PA rule of Gaza has failed before, so maybe it comes right down to where we started. A Final Solution to the Gaza problem has obvious rational appeal. But partition and resettlement is never achieved easily, and never without significant deaths. From a perspective that privileges Israeli Jewish lives over any other value, Option C is probably the right call...on the other hand...
-- Option C is likely to join our collective vocabulary alongside The Final Solution, the Gulag Archipelago, The Situation has Developed Not Necessarily to Our Advantage, Naqba, Pogrom. The expulsion of a population the size of metro Philadelphia is going to be a huge human tragedy inflicting great human suffering on actual people. This suffering, death, impoverishment, and destruction is going to inspire feelings across the Dar Al Islam. While the paper is optimistic about achieving support from the Saudis, Egyptians etc I see no way that the normalization of relations will move forward after Option C.
I don't mean to be an /r/readanotherbook fashion victim, but the situation in Gaza is so obviously to me the plot of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The big event is the potential for peace between the gulf Arabs and Israel, which would be a huge step towards a permanent and sustainable end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And Hamas' 10/7 attacks were designed, by Hamas, to torpedo that diplimatic process between SA and Israel. The goal of Hamas' attacks was to provoke Israeli reaction, that will make it impossible for the Saudis et al to accept Israeli diplomacy. And the Israelis, in their infinite wisdom, are deciding to do exactly what Hamas hoped they would do, and hoping that if they do it harder and better than Hamas thought they would do it that they'll win. That seems like a fool's bargain. Blessed are the peacemakers. We may have trouble living in the undiscovered country that is peace, but that future should be the one we're striving for, and I'm not sure that Option C leaves much room for it any time soon.
Spongebob-grade thinking: since we're already being practical but evil in talking up mass civilian displacements, why not Simply(tm) move the population of Gaza to the West Bank, annex Gaza, and freeze Area C settlement in place or abandon Area C? This removes all need for Area C settler shenanigans, enables mass filtration and registration, re-establishes Israel as both massively powerful in the region and comparatively generous about it in tangible terms that an honor culture understands, moves Hamas militants and sympathizers into an area both more amenable to policing and a population with a chance of assimilating them into prosperous coexistence, simplifies the security situation by removing an unfriendly border...
This is, of course, an evil act in many ways, and I don't endorse it as a plan of action, but it's been bouncing around my head and I wanted it out. Why's it impractical and more expensive than necessary?
Because Area C is a huge strategic weak point for Israel and essentially needs to be under de facto occupation for Israel to have any strategic depth. It has a much larger border with Israel than Gaza and - unlike Gaza, has a land border with Jordan where smuggling routes are arguably easier than Gaza’s with Egypt (ie you don’t have to traverse the entire Sinai).
I’m considering that this is likely a deliberate leak as psychological demoralization. There’s little chance that a state that relies so heavily on intelligence could just accidentally release a plan for essentially ethnic cleansing at the start of the war and before there are ground troops taking the territory. For one, it’s something that even as a plan creates huge ick responses from most potential Allies in the West who have been taught since preschool that ethnic cleansing is a horrible thing that only evil people do. The wider Arab world will like it even less. The plan isn’t going to work.
But if I’m trying to convince civilians to flee and the less zealous fighters to desert, the prospect of everyone in Gaza being either killed or driven into a tent city in Sinai is probably something that would demoralize. They’re being told that flee or die are the only options on the table. If you have a family in Gaza you’ll probably be much more likely to try to leave than to pick up a weapon.
They’re being told that flee or die are the only options on the table. If you have a family in Gaza you’ll probably be much more likely to try to leave than to pick up a weapon.
Not really.
They're saying your options are:
Leave Gaza and you will never be able to return. You will probably end up living in some kind of permanent prison tent city in the Sinai, where no one will particularly want to help you out and there is no clear future for you or your family, except that we are making it clear that under no circumstance will you ever return to your current home.
Stay in Sinai, and of course you may die, but Israel is unwilling to occupy Gaza if the civilian population remains in Gaza. Israel is only willing to or capable of invading if the Gazans leave. The paper makes that point in its review of Options A and B, which envisioned an invasion and occupation of Gaza without ethnic cleansing. Israel views the casualties, both their own and Gazan civilians', as unacceptably high in the scenario where the population remains in Gaza, and believes that it will be forced to withdraw and that the mission of controlling Gaza will fail.
Now, if they could make Option 1 realistically and credibly sound more like: move to Minnesota or Germany or Riyadh, with a path to citizenship and a little money/starting help; then a lot would take that deal. Right now it sounds more likely you'll end up in some awful camp, hoping nothing bad happens to give Egyptians or Israelis an excuse to kill you. Or maybe if Option 2 sounded more like "On December 7th we will drop a series of atomic bombs on Gaza, working our way south, whether anyone is there or not, engaging in what amounts to Civil Engineering by Nuclear Bomb to thoroughly level Gaza from tip to tip." Because right now it sounds more like "We don't have the stones to invade if you stay, so please leave."
But reading the whole paper, what I get out of it is: Leave Gaza and you will be exiled forever to a place where you will live at the whim of those who despise you; stay in Gaza and we will not have the will to outlast you, you will ultimately prevail. Given the themes and virtues of Palestinian culture for the past 80 years, which do you think they will pick?
This reminds me very strongly of the argument made that the USA sent a mixed message to Putin before the Ukraine invasion by offering an escape to Zelensky et al: Please don't invade, but if you invade you will win easily. Putin picked up on that message, to his regret.
I've seen the document bounced around, in some cases by people that consider it alone sign of IDF illegitimacy and possible (charitable) motivation for a lot of the heavier resistance by Biden et EU. I'll caveat that the Israel Intelligence Ministry looks like one of many Likud sinecures, rather than a group with power or even particular competence.
That doesn't prevent it from being a trial balloon, but this document is definitely not a 'plan' in the wargames-invading-Canada sense. I've seen more serious analysis done on cocktail napkins.
The paper's "Option C" might be persuasive if you squint, but only under the assumption you can do five impossible things before breakfast. You just have to pressure Egypt (1) and Europe (2) to intake millions of refuges, without massive loss of life (3), get the new refuges to move (4) somehow filtering out at least a large portion of those with terrorist interests (5). The point where it's trying to send an advertising campaign(!) to tell Gazan residents that they're going to permanently lose their land (!!) because "Allah made sure you lose this land because of Hamas’ leadership"(!!!) is the most word game of word games possible.
But there are deeper issues, even presuming it could be done. Hamas-in-Sinai will not stop hating Jews. They will not, as Lebanon has shown, stop lobbing rockets into Israel. The goal is that it'll be harder for them to do worse, but the tradeoff is that after that point kinetic action becomes a possible act of war. The closest relevant city is Arish in northern Sinai: note that <200k population. Northern Sinai isn't as mountainously untraversable as the middle and south, but it's still a desert. Maintaining a million-plus population tent city might be possible (if at a massive financial and humanitarian cost), and people have successfully built cities-in-deserts before, but there's no real honest way to expect it to happen here.
That doesn't put it off the table -- I don't have any good ideas myself! But I don't think these three options are the only available choices, nor that this paper evaluates them honestly.
What would be the point? Instead of firing rockets from Gaza they'll fire them from Sinai. If the Israeli military could enforce a DMZ we wouldn't be talking about this right now.
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
sarker 6mo ago
I mean this is probably never going to happen, but having a couple of hundred miles of Negev desert/mountains between you and them makes it really hard for them to repeat a 10/7. Easier surveillance for Israel, Much more logistics needed for Hamas, etc.
Arguably the occupation of Germany hasn't ended yet.
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor.
Do they want also a pony? And eternal youth? Egypt was already floating/threatening "and we will take all of them to Europe" or "take them to Europe if you want".
The goal of Hamas' attacks was to provoke Israeli reaction, that will make it impossible for the Saudis et al to accept Israeli diplomacy. And the Israelis, in their infinite wisdom, are deciding to do exactly what Hamas hoped they would do, and hoping that if they do it harder and better than Hamas thought they would do it that they'll win. That seems like a fool's bargain.
Yeah, sadly so far Hamas is clearly winning. Or at least losing less than Israel.
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
Yes, obviously. Why would I say otherwise? A nation that has tens of thousands of soldiers from another country is occupied. That asking them to leave seems like it would be basically impossible with current political constraints further solidifies that this is an occupation, albeit a polite and friendly one. Some countries are better to be occupied than others, the Romans and Americans were both civilizing influences that protected the interests of their clients and vassals, but this is still what occupation looks like.
The difference between "occupation" and "allies" or "mercenaries" is that you can politely ask "allies" or "mercenaries" to leave, and they will pack up and go, whereas once you are occupied you lose that ability forever. Guantanamo Bay is occupied. Korea is not.
In the 1950s one could plausibly say that the US was occupying Korea. US troops based in the center of Seoul propped up dictators that benefited US interests. However, fifteen years ago the democratically elected Korean government asked the US to get its troops out of Seoul. The US did. Now there is a large swath of vacant land between the old city and Gangnam. The US is still in Korea, but critically the US garrison in Korea is maintained on the request the Korean government. The relationship is mutually beneficial: the US gains a base of operations counter Chinese expansion, and the Koreans gain a tripwire against North Korean expansion. In particular, the Koreans are willing to pay to keep the US troops garrisoned: when Trump hinted at leaving, the Korean side fussed and then increased their side of the bill. (Japan picked up the whole bill right away without a fuss, because Japan knows it is in their interest to pay to stay in the Pax Americana.) So Korea and Japan willing to pay to be "occupied"? That's not a military occupation by any definition I know. (I don't know anything about Germany but suspect the situation is similar.)
Yes. I would say that Japan and Germany are both still somewhat constrained in their sovereignty and freedom of movement by the presence of US military bases on their territory, and by the international system those bases symbolize.
Moreover, consider the parallel: an Israeli base in Gaza would be a constant target.
Though I would not call it occupation - I would say that calling PRL (communist period in Poland) a "Russian occupation" is already unusual stretching of this term.
If what happens in Germany is occupation then you may as well consider USA to be occupied by Israel AND Hamas.
I'm mostly being cheeky, but I feel like to properly define Occupation we first need to define Sovereignty and Freedom and all those other fun words and philosophical concepts, along with gaming out counterfactual scenarios where Germany tries to leave the American world-system.
An occupation in my mind is ongoing where you have 1) Foreign troops not drawn from your sovereign state and not under the control of your sovereign state deployed in your sovereign state whose presence 2) significantly restricts the state's sovereignty.
Is obviously satisfied, American troops are neither drawn from nor under the control of Germany
Is where it gets sticky, because German sovereignty is obviously restricted in some ways by the potential consequences of betraying the American system, but Rammstein is more symbolic of the consequences of leaving that system than the enforcer of those consequences, so is their presence the thing restricting those actions?
2a) Then we get into defining Sovereignty. Extremists like 18th-century-radicals along the heart of Kulak will define sovereignty as the complete freedom to do whatever the sovereign chooses, of course no state has ever had that kind of freedom to act. Medieval kings are almost emblematic of sovereignty, but if they made too big a move they would face consequences that would restrict their actions. Is Germany's range of action more restricted, or its consequences faced more severe, such that we say that it is totally restricted in its sovereignty? I don't know.
2b) Defining freedom of action. Would the American troops stationed in Germany be able to physically prevent Germany from invading Poland? Probably not by force, but it is possible that by cutting supply chains that run through those bases and the greater universe of NATO cooperation the USA could make it impossible for Germany to invade Poland.
On balance I don't know if it fully qualifies, but it is certainly close enough to point to as an exemplar of what Israel is in for. Does Israel want to have bases in a Gaza still full of Palestinians 60 years from now?
From a purely practical standpoint, if the Israelis launch a full scale campaign in Gaza, most of the city likely won't be standing when it's done.
So better to get the civilians out if possible, and I don't see the death toll or humanitarian crisis as likely worse than living in bombed out ruins. The people of Gaza are already close to maximally hostile as far as Israel is concerned as they can be without turning into literal zombies, so I don't blame them in the least for getting them off their doorstep.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Leaked Document from Internal Israeli Government Think Tank lays out a plan to remove the entire population of Gaza to the Sinai peninsula as the final aim of the war. Hebrew Source here which I can't vouch for beyond google translate. Full document here
This is a big step and I'm surprised I've only seen it retweeted once by Adam Tooze and nowhere else. I'm sure it's big on the Arabic internet, but I'm not plugged in to Muslim conspriacy theories. Obviously ideas like this have been mooted around theMotte and everywhere else, but for it come from the Israeli government is new. Thoughts:
-- For this to be planned doesn't mean it is really going to happen. I'm sure somewhere in the Pentagon there are plans put together, if only as exercises, for invading Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica. This could all mean nothing. That is probably not going to be very persuasive to people who already figured that Israel wanted to do this. Ironically, once again in this conflict, I expect the loudest voices telling me that this won't happen and isn't real to be those who have previously advocated for exactly the policy of ethnic cleansing. A new application of the good ol' law of merited impossibility.
-- The paper is dated 10/13. I've lost track of time quite a bit lately for personal reasons, when exactly did Israel begin bombing Northern Gaza and encouraging civilians to remove South? Because it sure looks like they're following the plan outlined in step 1 of Option C: move civilians south. That is going to be viewed as strong proof by Muslims that this is going on; and it is going to lead to tragedy. This document is going to be used to encourage Gazan civilians not to evacuate, which is going to lead to Hamas having a much thicker human shield, which is going to lead to thousands upon thousands of extra deaths. Regardless of its validity, the release of this document is unquestionably a tragedy.
-- The leak could also be a test balloon to see just how bad public reaction to this is. "We're not doing it, we're just brainstorming, no bad ideas, just talking about it...unless?"
-- I'm unfamiliar with the geography of the region, how habitable is the Sinai? My impression from the Bible and occasional references in history is that it ain't great, that Egypt has essentially no use for it beyond controlling the canal. Can you build an actual functioning city in the Sinai? Or is it just an open air prison, by which I mean the population can't leave and would be permanently dependent on imports of food/water? What bribe would Egypt require to open/allow/maintain this prison? Can you trust Egyptian jailers to keep the prisoners in, or will this lead to injecting a million radicals into Egypt's population, probably destabilizing the secular government there? A lot of people like to say "why not just turn Gaza into Singapore?" but is there any realistic universe of economic development in a brand new city in the Sinai?
-- The paper itself...seems pretty persuasive? It compares the De-Hamas-ification of Gaza to the DeNazification plans in Germany after WWII, which took at least seven years of occupation by Allied powers. Arguably the occupation of Germany hasn't ended yet. Seven years of occupation in Gaza would be giving every angry Arab a chance to take a pot-shot at a Jew, every day, for seven years. And gives Hezbollah all the time in the world to plan a Northern front. And PA rule of Gaza has failed before, so maybe it comes right down to where we started. A Final Solution to the Gaza problem has obvious rational appeal. But partition and resettlement is never achieved easily, and never without significant deaths. From a perspective that privileges Israeli Jewish lives over any other value, Option C is probably the right call...on the other hand...
-- Option C is likely to join our collective vocabulary alongside The Final Solution, the Gulag Archipelago, The Situation has Developed Not Necessarily to Our Advantage, Naqba, Pogrom. The expulsion of a population the size of metro Philadelphia is going to be a huge human tragedy inflicting great human suffering on actual people. This suffering, death, impoverishment, and destruction is going to inspire feelings across the Dar Al Islam. While the paper is optimistic about achieving support from the Saudis, Egyptians etc I see no way that the normalization of relations will move forward after Option C.
I don't mean to be an /r/readanotherbook fashion victim, but the situation in Gaza is so obviously to me the plot of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The big event is the potential for peace between the gulf Arabs and Israel, which would be a huge step towards a permanent and sustainable end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And Hamas' 10/7 attacks were designed, by Hamas, to torpedo that diplimatic process between SA and Israel. The goal of Hamas' attacks was to provoke Israeli reaction, that will make it impossible for the Saudis et al to accept Israeli diplomacy. And the Israelis, in their infinite wisdom, are deciding to do exactly what Hamas hoped they would do, and hoping that if they do it harder and better than Hamas thought they would do it that they'll win. That seems like a fool's bargain. Blessed are the peacemakers. We may have trouble living in the undiscovered country that is peace, but that future should be the one we're striving for, and I'm not sure that Option C leaves much room for it any time soon.
These actually predate the Pentagon. I would be very surprised if they weren’t kept up to date.
More options
Context Copy link
Spongebob-grade thinking: since we're already being practical but evil in talking up mass civilian displacements, why not Simply(tm) move the population of Gaza to the West Bank, annex Gaza, and freeze Area C settlement in place or abandon Area C? This removes all need for Area C settler shenanigans, enables mass filtration and registration, re-establishes Israel as both massively powerful in the region and comparatively generous about it in tangible terms that an honor culture understands, moves Hamas militants and sympathizers into an area both more amenable to policing and a population with a chance of assimilating them into prosperous coexistence, simplifies the security situation by removing an unfriendly border...
This is, of course, an evil act in many ways, and I don't endorse it as a plan of action, but it's been bouncing around my head and I wanted it out. Why's it impractical and more expensive than necessary?
Because Area C is a huge strategic weak point for Israel and essentially needs to be under de facto occupation for Israel to have any strategic depth. It has a much larger border with Israel than Gaza and - unlike Gaza, has a land border with Jordan where smuggling routes are arguably easier than Gaza’s with Egypt (ie you don’t have to traverse the entire Sinai).
No. The land border is in Area A, meaning direct Israeli occupation.I got the Areas wrong againMore options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m considering that this is likely a deliberate leak as psychological demoralization. There’s little chance that a state that relies so heavily on intelligence could just accidentally release a plan for essentially ethnic cleansing at the start of the war and before there are ground troops taking the territory. For one, it’s something that even as a plan creates huge ick responses from most potential Allies in the West who have been taught since preschool that ethnic cleansing is a horrible thing that only evil people do. The wider Arab world will like it even less. The plan isn’t going to work.
But if I’m trying to convince civilians to flee and the less zealous fighters to desert, the prospect of everyone in Gaza being either killed or driven into a tent city in Sinai is probably something that would demoralize. They’re being told that flee or die are the only options on the table. If you have a family in Gaza you’ll probably be much more likely to try to leave than to pick up a weapon.
Not really.
They're saying your options are:
Leave Gaza and you will never be able to return. You will probably end up living in some kind of permanent prison tent city in the Sinai, where no one will particularly want to help you out and there is no clear future for you or your family, except that we are making it clear that under no circumstance will you ever return to your current home.
Stay in Sinai, and of course you may die, but Israel is unwilling to occupy Gaza if the civilian population remains in Gaza. Israel is only willing to or capable of invading if the Gazans leave. The paper makes that point in its review of Options A and B, which envisioned an invasion and occupation of Gaza without ethnic cleansing. Israel views the casualties, both their own and Gazan civilians', as unacceptably high in the scenario where the population remains in Gaza, and believes that it will be forced to withdraw and that the mission of controlling Gaza will fail.
Now, if they could make Option 1 realistically and credibly sound more like: move to Minnesota or Germany or Riyadh, with a path to citizenship and a little money/starting help; then a lot would take that deal. Right now it sounds more likely you'll end up in some awful camp, hoping nothing bad happens to give Egyptians or Israelis an excuse to kill you. Or maybe if Option 2 sounded more like "On December 7th we will drop a series of atomic bombs on Gaza, working our way south, whether anyone is there or not, engaging in what amounts to Civil Engineering by Nuclear Bomb to thoroughly level Gaza from tip to tip." Because right now it sounds more like "We don't have the stones to invade if you stay, so please leave."
But reading the whole paper, what I get out of it is: Leave Gaza and you will be exiled forever to a place where you will live at the whim of those who despise you; stay in Gaza and we will not have the will to outlast you, you will ultimately prevail. Given the themes and virtues of Palestinian culture for the past 80 years, which do you think they will pick?
This reminds me very strongly of the argument made that the USA sent a mixed message to Putin before the Ukraine invasion by offering an escape to Zelensky et al: Please don't invade, but if you invade you will win easily. Putin picked up on that message, to his regret.
More options
Context Copy link
Gazans have no option to leave- the border with Egypt is closed and Israel has blockaded the rest of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If this plan is real, then it’s just cover for genociding Gaza’s civilian population by writing it off as ethnic cleansing instead.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen the document bounced around, in some cases by people that consider it alone sign of IDF illegitimacy and possible (charitable) motivation for a lot of the heavier resistance by Biden et EU. I'll caveat that the Israel Intelligence Ministry looks like one of many Likud sinecures, rather than a group with power or even particular competence.
That doesn't prevent it from being a trial balloon, but this document is definitely not a 'plan' in the wargames-invading-Canada sense. I've seen more serious analysis done on cocktail napkins.
The paper's "Option C" might be persuasive if you squint, but only under the assumption you can do five impossible things before breakfast. You just have to pressure Egypt (1) and Europe (2) to intake millions of refuges, without massive loss of life (3), get the new refuges to move (4) somehow filtering out at least a large portion of those with terrorist interests (5). The point where it's trying to send an advertising campaign(!) to tell Gazan residents that they're going to permanently lose their land (!!) because "Allah made sure you lose this land because of Hamas’ leadership"(!!!) is the most word game of word games possible.
But there are deeper issues, even presuming it could be done. Hamas-in-Sinai will not stop hating Jews. They will not, as Lebanon has shown, stop lobbing rockets into Israel. The goal is that it'll be harder for them to do worse, but the tradeoff is that after that point kinetic action becomes a possible act of war. The closest relevant city is Arish in northern Sinai: note that <200k population. Northern Sinai isn't as mountainously untraversable as the middle and south, but it's still a desert. Maintaining a million-plus population tent city might be possible (if at a massive financial and humanitarian cost), and people have successfully built cities-in-deserts before, but there's no real honest way to expect it to happen here.
That doesn't put it off the table -- I don't have any good ideas myself! But I don't think these three options are the only available choices, nor that this paper evaluates them honestly.
More options
Context Copy link
What would be the point? Instead of firing rockets from Gaza they'll fire them from Sinai. If the Israeli military could enforce a DMZ we wouldn't be talking about this right now.
I mean this is probably never going to happen, but having a couple of hundred miles of Negev desert/mountains between you and them makes it really hard for them to repeat a 10/7. Easier surveillance for Israel, Much more logistics needed for Hamas, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
Do they want also a pony? And eternal youth? Egypt was already floating/threatening "and we will take all of them to Europe" or "take them to Europe if you want".
Yeah, sadly so far Hamas is clearly winning. Or at least losing less than Israel.
Yes, obviously. Why would I say otherwise? A nation that has tens of thousands of soldiers from another country is occupied. That asking them to leave seems like it would be basically impossible with current political constraints further solidifies that this is an occupation, albeit a polite and friendly one. Some countries are better to be occupied than others, the Romans and Americans were both civilizing influences that protected the interests of their clients and vassals, but this is still what occupation looks like.
The difference between "occupation" and "allies" or "mercenaries" is that you can politely ask "allies" or "mercenaries" to leave, and they will pack up and go, whereas once you are occupied you lose that ability forever. Guantanamo Bay is occupied. Korea is not.
In the 1950s one could plausibly say that the US was occupying Korea. US troops based in the center of Seoul propped up dictators that benefited US interests. However, fifteen years ago the democratically elected Korean government asked the US to get its troops out of Seoul. The US did. Now there is a large swath of vacant land between the old city and Gangnam. The US is still in Korea, but critically the US garrison in Korea is maintained on the request the Korean government. The relationship is mutually beneficial: the US gains a base of operations counter Chinese expansion, and the Koreans gain a tripwire against North Korean expansion. In particular, the Koreans are willing to pay to keep the US troops garrisoned: when Trump hinted at leaving, the Korean side fussed and then increased their side of the bill. (Japan picked up the whole bill right away without a fuss, because Japan knows it is in their interest to pay to stay in the Pax Americana.) So Korea and Japan willing to pay to be "occupied"? That's not a military occupation by any definition I know. (I don't know anything about Germany but suspect the situation is similar.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. I would say that Japan and Germany are both still somewhat constrained in their sovereignty and freedom of movement by the presence of US military bases on their territory, and by the international system those bases symbolize.
Moreover, consider the parallel: an Israeli base in Gaza would be a constant target.
Though I would not call it occupation - I would say that calling PRL (communist period in Poland) a "Russian occupation" is already unusual stretching of this term.
If what happens in Germany is occupation then you may as well consider USA to be occupied by Israel AND Hamas.
I'm mostly being cheeky, but I feel like to properly define Occupation we first need to define Sovereignty and Freedom and all those other fun words and philosophical concepts, along with gaming out counterfactual scenarios where Germany tries to leave the American world-system.
An occupation in my mind is ongoing where you have 1) Foreign troops not drawn from your sovereign state and not under the control of your sovereign state deployed in your sovereign state whose presence 2) significantly restricts the state's sovereignty.
Is obviously satisfied, American troops are neither drawn from nor under the control of Germany
Is where it gets sticky, because German sovereignty is obviously restricted in some ways by the potential consequences of betraying the American system, but Rammstein is more symbolic of the consequences of leaving that system than the enforcer of those consequences, so is their presence the thing restricting those actions?
2a) Then we get into defining Sovereignty. Extremists like 18th-century-radicals along the heart of Kulak will define sovereignty as the complete freedom to do whatever the sovereign chooses, of course no state has ever had that kind of freedom to act. Medieval kings are almost emblematic of sovereignty, but if they made too big a move they would face consequences that would restrict their actions. Is Germany's range of action more restricted, or its consequences faced more severe, such that we say that it is totally restricted in its sovereignty? I don't know.
2b) Defining freedom of action. Would the American troops stationed in Germany be able to physically prevent Germany from invading Poland? Probably not by force, but it is possible that by cutting supply chains that run through those bases and the greater universe of NATO cooperation the USA could make it impossible for Germany to invade Poland.
On balance I don't know if it fully qualifies, but it is certainly close enough to point to as an exemplar of what Israel is in for. Does Israel want to have bases in a Gaza still full of Palestinians 60 years from now?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From a purely practical standpoint, if the Israelis launch a full scale campaign in Gaza, most of the city likely won't be standing when it's done.
So better to get the civilians out if possible, and I don't see the death toll or humanitarian crisis as likely worse than living in bombed out ruins. The people of Gaza are already close to maximally hostile as far as Israel is concerned as they can be without turning into literal zombies, so I don't blame them in the least for getting them off their doorstep.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link