I've seen.

"justification" groundwork for occupation and eventual de facto annexation.

Just a guess...

Wasn't that the whole point?

You seem to suggest that eliminating Hamas makes the buffer zone redundant.

How are eliminating Hamas and securing the borders mutually exclusive?

Israel will obviously do what it wants.

As long as they do it on their side of the border, no problem.

As you know, there is already an elaborate, high wall in place and a 300 meter buffer zone inside Gaza, in effect for years, though sometimes unilaterally expanded at will. Enforced with live-fire tactics costing hundreds of Palestinian lives. Why it wasnt even remotely enforced on October 7th is a question for the ages.

Why the need for a further buffer zone, especially after Hamas is eliminated? Further, North Gaza is already a wasteland unfit for human habitation. Is that not enough for "security"?

The U S. stance is no reduction in Gaza's territory and no re-occupation. We shall see if that has any bearing on Israel's actions.

Hence the need for a further buffer zone and, I presume, a replacement of the current wall. Also, if you read the article, the proposal for the buffer zone was made in the context of demilitarizing Gaza. Eliminating Hamas is a separate objective which alone will not demilitarize Gaza.

And I am sure that Israel is aware of the US position towards no reduction in Gaza's territory. Obviously, both positions will be considered and negotiated. This is the reason why they call it negotiations.

Until a seismic failure of intelligence and military alertness was allowed to happen. I don't see a repeat of that happening

But you may be right, it might be inadequate now. Prepare for unending resistance.

De-militarization? A bit ironic in light of the recent assault-rifle give-away to settlers in the West Bank and all and sundry by the Israeli government.

De-radicalization? Good Lord. Prepare for unending occupation.

They were breached by the terrorists who invaded Israel, killed over a thousand civilians and took hundreds more hostage. It was they who did the killing, not any failure of intelligence. But sure, blame the victim, no matter how transparent and blatantly obscene this slight of hand may be.

Clearly, a buffer and a barrier are not sufficient to stop terrorism, or whatever else you are euphemistically referring to as "resistance". Hence the reference to both the buffer zone and the barrier in the context of ridding Gaza of Hamas and demilitarizing it.

And certainly, many people whose pay grade is way above yours and mine combined are taking demilitarization of Gaza seriously. Apparently, preparing for unending terrorism and unending occupation is not in their plans.

But you go ahead, prepare yourself for whatever you feel like. No obligation on any of the rest of us.

You and I don't know what the "plans" are of those holding the levers of power, especially those waging war and enforcing a long-term occupation, with an interest in liquidating the "Palestinian problem" once and for all. We should however, be able to see and interpret the alarming signs of what's coming.

Get back to me in a few weeks or months.

inside the fence/wall don't you? So what is the purpose of saying you want what you already have?

The second is to signal that the current buffer zone is insufficient for defending Israel's sovereignty. (Duh!).

And, since the message was directed to the Arab countries as part of the plan to demilitarize Gaza, is to lay the foundation to the impending negotiations after the war ends.

That's just a few of the things that would reasonably come up in the course of a rational examination of the statement.

non-negotiable is to lay a pretext for a unilateral action. Like I said in the beginning.

In negotiations of any sort, there are likely to be non-negotiable items. The nature of negotiations themselves is to preclude unilateral actions. If Israel had unilateral action in mind, why bring up this item in the context of negotiations, which is obviously the case here, and not take unilateral action... umm... unilaterally?

and peace conferences all along throughout from even before 1948 and most certainly since shows that Israel has many times made unilateral demands/non-negotiable items a condition of discussions/attendance. When peace conferences have taken place they have demanded that only certain people from the Palestinian side could attend or represent the Palestinians for example. Conducting oneself in this way is taking unilateral action.

Going into a negotiation by saying "I will only negotiate the items I am willing to negotiate" is no negotiation at all. It is ultimatum. But the reason people do it is in order to not discuss items, to not be serious with respect to negotiations and to do so because they are largely in control anyway but need the "apparent failure" of negotiations as a guise to do things they wanted anyway. It is to deflect.

Israel is the military power and is in control of what happens in Gaza. Period. The rest of the world can wring their hands as they've done for 75+ years but reality is what matters. The US is not going to do anything to prevent Israel from doing what it wants other than issuing words. The UN will not do anything because the US will veto anything. The other countries in the region are not going to do anything because they do not want a military confrontation with a far superior force. They tried that twice and failed and have since simply resorted to words and behind the scenes support for terrorist groups. So these words and warnings from others about don't do this or that are hollow and everybody in the region knows it. They are being done as a means to give cover for failure to actually be able to do something. No Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza believes these words from the US, Egypt etc. have any trust and it is because 75+ years has proven to them they are right in that conclusion.

When I make my observations about it all it is simply acknowledging the facts of conduct and reality of the past 75+ years. You can be sure that long before the recent discussion of "buffer zone" the national leadership back in Jerusalem was already planning for the reaction by other parties, like the US, and how they were going to publicly counter objections and words to use etc. Nobody should be naive enough to believe that long term plans do not or have not existed that are not what is put out to the public. This stuff doesn't just bump along from day to day to the whims of the desert wind. Plans have been there all along, contingencies and responses calculated and mapped and the only thing missing is the honesty to admit it. But we in the US do the same with all of our relations with other countries as well. As do nearly all countries I'm sure.

The bottom line is that what happens is going to be what Israel wants. I'm just calling charades about some "negotiations" for the charades they are. They are meant for general consumption around the world and a story for the media to write about and a narrative to sell.

They’ve already turned the Gaza side into a kill zone, rendering scarce agricultural land nearly unusable and frequently lethal.

While the world watches Gaza, Israel has also ramped up its attacks in the West Bank, killing over 220 Palestinians there since Oct. 7. Over the last couple of years, Israel has been turning the West Bank over to more and more settlers stealing Palestinian lands and forcing then into refugee camps within the West Bank. For those here who deny that the Israeli government has ever wronged the Palestinians and have every right to kill as many of them as possible, please read this Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/02/west-bank-violence-israel

Southern Israel can equally contribute to a demilitarized zone, and if Hamas or Palestinians refuse, they don't want to live and let live. A DMZ guarantees both sides will not conduct deadly land insurgencies.

Israel's existing zones are are north and east, but there isn't one in the southern end; moreover, one existing Golan Heights "zone" is recognized by the UN; the others along the eastern border are simply there. The U.S. can exert pressure on the larger international bodies that a DMZ on the southern border would be. Any end to this war should include terms that establish a southern DMZ .

For that matter, the same should be done across Ukraine's border with Russia.

a UN peace keeping force has always been rejected by Israel and the US. It would seem that they do not want an independent non-partisan force in control in the West Bank and Gaza.

Even now the UN already handles the Golan Heights. After the Yom Kippur War, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 350, that created a demilitarized zone in part of the Israeli-occupied territory of the Golan Heights in Syria. It's monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force.

Just because Israel and the US have rejected a U.N. peacekeeping force, that doesn't preclude some other monitoring entity.



Examples of other DMZs not formed through the UN, but by treaties, declarations or resolutions.

-- Åland – The Åland Convention of 1921, which was concluded following a decision of the League of Nations in response to the Åland crisis, mandates that the Finnish government maintain the territory as a demilitarized area.
-- Korean Demilitarized Zone – The Korean Armistice Agreement created a 4 km (2.5 mi)-wide demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea following the Korean War.[3] It is currently one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world despite the name.
-- Kuwait–Iraq barrier – The United Nations Security Council approved the creation of a demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait in Resolution 689 after the Persian Gulf War. Although the demilitarized zone is no longer mandated by the council, it continues to exist.
-- Sinai Peninsula – The Egypt–Israel peace treaty sets a limit to the amount of forces Egypt can place in the Sinai Peninsula. Parts of the peninsula are demilitarized to various degrees, especially within 20–40 kilometres (12–25 miles) of Israel. Israel also agreed to limit its forces within 3 kilometres (1.9 miles) of the Egyptian border. The areas are monitored by the Multinational Force and Observers. Because of the Sinai insurgency all sides agreed and encouraged Egypt to send large amounts of military forces into the area, including tanks and helicopters, to fight Islamist groups.

DMZs prevent extremist rockets & armed attacks, and lower stress that can lead to a space for further talks.

Analyst Jeremy Bash brought up considerations of part of Gaza being a DMZ at least a couple of weeks ago.

from my post. Did I speak of the Golan Heights? No I spoke about the West Bank and Gaza. Did I speak about whether DMZss have worked anywhere else? No I did not.

The other point you seem to miss is your idea of some "other" force acting as the peacekeeping force. The West Bank and Gaza are territories under UN authority occupied by Israel. What happens there is what does or does not go through the UN. Usually anything Israel wants is rammed through by the US and anything the rest of the UN wants is blocked by the US. Possibly one of the worst mistakes the UN had rammed through it was to make the US the big dog in mediation/negotiations regarding the territories and the remaining questions from 1948. 75 years later and there is still no progress or willingness to seriously discuss Right of Return and Compensation for example but that is another discussion for another day about refusal to conduct oneself in the UN according to commitments made.

A third point is I don't care a thing what former CIA spooks have to say about much of anything and I'm reasonably sure that if we really dug into his entire conduct and the Middle East it would be less honorable in nature than duplicitous and horrible. I wouldn't advise anybody to turn their back to him.

A fourth point is that as densely populated and narrow as Gaza is, 3 to 7 miles wide for most of it, and the statement by Israel that the zone would be "deep" there is no way it does not call for displacing people from Gaza. One of the stated aims by the way of several hardliners in the Israeli leadership.

The entire proposal amounts to forced displacement of people and de facto taking of land. It fits a familiar pattern.