Israel / Palestine

... first declaring an increased no go area inside Gaza as "to protect ... , and then once the land is empty Israel will increase building on that land, the expansion of settlements.

I regret not having a link to the article, but I recall that the Economist summed this up with proper data. The Israeli state sort of have facts on their side when they claim that they don't support or allow settlement expansion in the West Bank. How they get around this however is that the Israeli army have a clause that lets them annex and clear Palestinian land with any flimsy excuse. This land then sits mostly barren for typically around a decade before the army decides to revert the land to civilian use. But when they do, according to the Economist, there is not a single example of the land being returned to arabs, it's always given to settlers.

Settlers seems to be a nice term for what is being done.

Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, hinted that Israel may annex part of Gaza in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Cohen was reported by the Times of Israel as saying:

At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.

So excuse for an Israeli land grab.

Insightful article in the FT which examines the idea, sometimes proposed by Israel's spokespeople, of installing the Palestine Authority in Gaza:

But given the PA’s weakness and unpopularity, and the long history of hostility between the leaderships of the West Bank and Gaza, diplomats are sceptical that any attempt to re-establish the PA’s position in Gaza would succeed.

The alternative to Hamas was “most likely [a group such as] Islamic Jihad, which is more extreme, more difficult to deal with than Hamas, most likely only dealing with the Iranians”, said the Arab official.

“[The international community] have tried [propping the PA] so many times, it’s not going to work.”

Palestinian analysts agree. “There is no way that the PA can regain Gaza via Israeli tanks,” said Khatib. “It would not work . . . Even if there is no Hamas, there will be others, because the reality of the occupation, which is very brutal, will bring a reaction from other groups.”

It's tiny already. Won't really help the situation.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1714744542824423636

chuck rocks get shot

Tragic acts of terror in West Bank now. 60 Palestinians reported dead. Initial reports claim Israeli “settlers” (a term which I’ve today learned is ludicrously wrongly applied) are responsible. Relatedly, it seems several extremist Jewish groups operate as settler groups. Some of them are Zionists within Zionism, and consider only their group to be true Jews.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/19/middleeast/west-bank-settler-attacks-israel-cmd-intl/index.html

Can someone here explain this “settlers” phenomenon in an objective way? The parallels with South Africa and 1800s America are striking.

The Origin Story 2parter on Zionism podcast explains the various strands of Zionism from it's origin. From socialust secular through to messianic religious.
Each strand had a degree of settling the land building kibbutim, moshavim, urban settlements and cities.

The socialist kibbutim attacked around Gaza were mainly secular socialist pro peace. 2 I think we're religious socialist, generally pro peace.
Those who settle land illegally post Oslo Accords are generally right wing religious settlers and now form what is now referred to as the settler movement. The belive that Greater Israel is rightfully theirs to take

Wikipedia is always going to be a relatively neutral reference, as long as you are not reading it during the middle of an edit war. If you compare revisions on this article, it doesn't seem to contentious.

The socialist kibbutim attacked around Gaza were mainly secular socialist pro peace. 2 I think we're religious socialist, generally pro peace.

So ironic isn't it. The high profile pro-peace campaigner Vivian Silver is one of those believed to be taken hostage. There was a good interview with her son on PM on R4 the other day. I can't remember which day I'm afraid, but his attitude under the circumstances is beyond commendable.

They are basically hoping Hamas realises who she is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Silver

Not what you asked for but worth reading the wiki for the finance minister to understand how senior in the cabinet the level of support for settlers goes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezalel_Smotrich

Interesting, but I ask if you believe they painted a full picture. I remember how badly The Economist downplayed and brazenly rejected the data on Obama-ordered airstrikes in Pakistan. I've never got a sense that they're impartial, independent and balanced since then, though they do a better job than many.

Did this article cover the Sheikh Jarrah controversy and the related issues, how Jewish Israelis (an important distinction in this particular case) in areas of the West Bank are allowed to make 'claims' over land that they supposedly owned before 1948, wherein falsified documents were used? Case in point - that infamous, Brooklyn idiot (and there are many like him) who "settled" in Palestine and stole a portion of the family's house, and the best thing he could say on camera for the whole world to witness was, "If I don't steal your home, someone else will"? Of course, all this was illegal under the UN, international law, and all those other useless bodies that can't enforce jack.

Edit: maybe Zionist Israelis is a better term.

Can someone here explain this “settlers” phenomenon in an objective way?

The meaning may have changed over time so I am not sure it helps to examine the words routes. But today, in Israel, it describes groups of Zionest extremists who believed for various reasons that all the land from the river to the sea is rightfully theirs. Those groups then build communities in "new" places with the aim of pushing out non-Jews and annexing territory.

I know that doesn't sound particularly objective, but tbh that's basically it.

We’re checking this petition
16 people have already supported this petition.
We need to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it.
Please try again in a few days

The petition was rejected as "there is an existing one on this issue"... the existing one doesn't focus on peace and humanitarian aid, but instead seeks to take a side by asking the gov to not side with Israel at all (extremely unlikely to occur).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67151404

The hospital strike seems more and more like Hamas/Islamic Jihad fucking up. Loads of open source investigation going on, none of it seems to suggest a big bomb.

I'm seeing totally opposite claims, a BBC reporter saying the explosion was so big that it can't have been shrapnel from a hamas missile and the angle it came down from meant it must have been fired from far away, but OSINTtechnical on twitter saying it doesn't look like there's a big enough crater and he's usually good as photo forensics.

This seems to summarise a lot of what I read (and a lot more besides).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-arab-hospital-piecing-together-what-happened-as-israel-insists-militant-rocket-to-blame?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Same. Naturally, investigations by MEM, Al-Jazeera and others based in the Middle East are 'disproving' Israeli claims. MEM goes into details about rockets and ballistics with a US weapons expert, concluding if anything, that's it's likely a standard American munition: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyjFtMXMmIS/

The Alj investigation concludes that the rocket seen in the videos that Israel etc. are claiming to have been the cause, launched from Gazs is clearly intercepted mid-air by the Iron Dome: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CylLDrztOqg

Hopefully Forensic Architecture do their own investigation.

The work they did on the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh was invaluable - https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/shireen-abu-akleh-the-targeted-killing-of-a-journalist

Yeah, the concern I have is that this won't happen until after it's too late - not that it'll be their fault.

Did this article cover the Sheikh Jarrah controversy and the related issues

No, the point was to highlight all the land grabs that did not cause controversy.

The images of the destruction of buildings and structures by Israeli strikes post hospital look catastrophic with buildings flattened and completely pulverised.
Probably many civilians killed also.

The hospital appears to be largely intact, though the car park looks completely torched, the theory that it’s a large rocket that failed with most of its fuel still inside dropping out the sky makes more sense to me, than Israel targeting a hospital car park full of civilians.

If the hospital was an Israel target, I would expect there would just be a massive crater and nothing left.

C4 News last night said the Israeli report they've put out was full of holes. E.g. claimed it was launched from the nearby cemetery, but on a different page claimed it was launched from further away closer to the coast - which is it?

The aftermath doesn't suggest a big bomb, but there are other munitions the Israeli's own and could have used which damage buildings and infrastructure far less while still killing and maiming.

I would take anything the IDF say with a big pinch of salt given their track record on killing people, saying they didn't, then later admitting that they did.