Article shared by Tom McDermott
This article details the creation of a new buffer zone cutting deep into Gaza, removing at least 60 sq km of territory from the already tightly packed 360 sq km. Israel's army is creating the space by bulldozing buildings already damaged or destroyed by airstrikes and artillery.
Destruction along proposed buffer zone Damaged areas since Oct. 7, 2023
 |
| Line shows buffer zone along Gaza's eastern border with Israel |
Here is a summary:
- Satellite images show that Israel has demolished buildings and land along a 1 km wide path on the Gaza border, likely to establish a buffer zone. This would take away about 60 sq km of Gaza's total 360 sq km territory.
- An Israeli government official confirmed they are constructing a "temporary security buffer zone" though its scope and whether it will have barriers is unclear.
- Analysis of satellite images found over 1,100 buildings already damaged and over 80,000 structures damaged across Gaza so far in the Israel-Hamas war.
- The buffer zone plans have raised international objections, with the U.S. stating opposition to any reduction of Gaza's territory.
- The buffer zone would further undermine prospects for an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians condemn Israel's "buffer zone" plans.
- Hamas says it is determined not to let the buffer zone happen but has not elaborated on how it will stop it.
In summary, Israel appears to be moving ahead with controversial plans to demolish land for a buffer zone along the Gaza border despite international criticism, further reducing Palestinian territory.
I am pleased to ready the article by Tom McDermott, especially after having been advised by Tom, that no political biased articles would be published on the XUNICEF site. Well done, Tom. This is how censorship works in practice!
ReplyDeleteI did not intend to publish my comment above anonymously. I am Kristian Laubjerg with email: klaubjerg@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteWhere is the bias here? To me the piece appears to be based on facts, quotes from both sides and the stated US position.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting a new definition of what makes an article political ? When facts based it becomes a-political?
ReplyDeleteWhen it is fact-based it is not biased. Facts should be used for political ends - the world would be better off as a consequence. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
ReplyDeleteTom's presentation is full of information, which is not verifiable - such as "Hamas says etc": This could be untrue; "The buffer zone would undermine etc. ": Who says so, certainly no evidence is put forward to substantiate the claim. Tom's presentation is highly political, regardless of whether the information provided are fact based or hypotheses. In fact, I like that, since it is obvious from the comments on Gaza, that XUNICEF readers are attracted to this kind of political articles. My initial comment was 'in fact' addressed to Tom, who turned down an article I had authored, informing me that it was political. He did not object to the content being false! I just had an article published with the title: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters ? I dare not send it to Tom. But you can read it here by following this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.meer.com/en/78028-terrorists-or-freedom-fighters
Interesting article Kristian - this is Rob Carr - not yet a retiree but almost there. There is no topic more political than this one. Keep the debate going - but not sure who wins?
DeleteThank you, Rob. Long time since Liberia. My direct mail is klaubjerg@gmail.com
DeleteThanks Tom for posting this. You find interesting things that supplement the information we see here in the UK. Neutrality is impossible to achieve since what is or is not bias is in the mind of the beholder. Responsible journalists do their best to be even-minded.
ReplyDeleteKristian, I have read your article. It is well-written and researched. I recommend everyone on this blog to read it. While I might agree with a lot of what you wrote, anyone with any power to change things for the better would not. Suggesting some pragmatic, doable solutions that could initiate change and garner support among the powerful would be a better way forward.
ReplyDeleteI also browsed through an article you wrote on migration into Denmark. I would be interested in your views on statements of the Danish Ministry of Finance indicating that migrants from North Africa and the Middle East remain a burden throughout their lives. Even during their most productive years, they take out more from the State than they pay in.
Your views on development assistance in general would also be interesting. In my view, it is hard to characterize development aid over the past 50 years as anything but ineffective. I am convinced that there will never be any meaningful development without competent, caring governance with corruption under control and aid does nothing in this regard.
All the many wars between the Israelis and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors have ended with the US President stopping them. This one is unlikely to be different. Therefore pressure should be put on President Biden to do what his predecessors always did.
ReplyDeleteSorry, the question on migration that I brought up did not come across the way I wanted. Denmark is often held up as a model for others to emulate. However, in some countries, it is illegal to even collect the type of statistics that the Ministry of Finance published in Copenhagen. Such legislation came about to protect vulnerable minorities against discrimination. Obviously, the Danish Government does not see any need for this.
ReplyDelete