The U.N. reports at least 42% of Gaza's housing units are damaged or destroyed - Democracy Now

[al bupp]

The U.N. reports at least 42% of Gaza's housing units are damaged or destroyed. One-point-four million Gazans — or more than half of the territory's population — have been displaced.

Source: United Nations

Link to tweet

[onecaliberal]

1. And where are the humans who lived there supposed to go?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

2. [Oops, wrong place.[

[Oops, wrong place.]

[al bupp]

5. That is one salient reason it might be seen as a form of genocide. /nt

[onecaliberal]

6. No maybe about it.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

7. Oh, please.

Either the word "genocide" doesn't mean anything anymore, or this isn't a genocide. This is a war. But unless Israel is the least effective genocider of all time, it's not a genocide.

[KS Toronado]

45. I think you think we all think

[AntivaxHunters]

53. "This is a war"

Isn't an excuse to commit genocide.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. Please look up the definition

Of genocide. Only one side in this was is calling for genocide/

[inthewind21]

71. One calls for it

The other actually carries it out. Glad you finally see that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

78. Again

Look up the definition of genocide. This isn’t genocide, and those who continue to falsely claim it is cheapen the term.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

81. Sorry if it was unclear.

The intended meaning of my sentence was

"This is a war, which is terrible enough. But it's not a genocide."

Not

"This is a war, therefore genocide is okay."

[former9thward]

8. I wonder what the UN would have said about Allied bombing of Germany and Japan?

Would they be wringing their hands about that?

[enid602]

11. Annex

The Japanese and Germans had other places within those countries to move. Not so in Gaza. Israel has already said it will annex all or part of Gaza after the war. Unless Arab nations or western liberal democracies take in the Gazans, they might be stuck in a much smaller Gaza, with the constant threat of an already 17 year old old blockade.

[Beastly Boy]

21. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a bunch of smaller terrorist groups

take up a hell of a lot of valuable real estate in Gaza, not to mention its resources.

Hmmm... Gaza without Hamas. Imagine the possibilities...

[The_Casual_Observer]

83. It's mostly women and children but if it makes you

Feel better.

[Beastly Boy]

85. Hamas and the other terrorist groups are mostly women and children?

I am speechless.

[The_Casual_Observer]

86. Twisting the response like that gets you nothing

But ignored.

[Beastly Boy]

87. I posted,

and I quote: "Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a bunch of smaller terrorist groupstake up a hell of a lot of valuable real estate in Gaza, not to mention its resources. Hmmm... Gaza without Hamas. Imagine the possibilities..."

You replied, and I quote: "It's mostly women and children but if it makes you feel better. "

You either failed to comprehend the content of my post, or you deliberately diverted the debate away from what I posted. Either way, there is no response that would justify taking your post seriously, no twisting required.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. Citation please

of Israel saying they plan to annex Gaza after the war. They have specifically said that they DON’T want Gaza.

[enid602]

35. Sorry

MSN.com. They were quoting article from the Washington Examiner. Not the best source, I know. I can’t copy and paste the link on my cell. They quote Eli Cohn, Israeli Foreign Minister who said Gaza will be annexed in part or in full at the end of the war. If they win, I guess. Google will Israel annex Gaza.

[EX500rider]

39. Quite the opposite from what I have read:

Israel aims to cut Gaza ties after war with Hamas

Israel has suggested that the long-term aim of its military campaign in Gaza is to sever all links with the territory.
Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said that once Hamas had been defeated, Israel would end its "responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip".

Before the conflict, Israel supplied Gaza with most of its energy needs and monitored imports into the territory.
The statement comes as Israel continues its strikes on Gaza and aid remains blocked on the border with Egypt.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67175094

[AntiFascist]

48. Israeli news reported that Netanyahu had previously propped up Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority...

This was to prevent the PA from achieving a two-state solution. I haven't heard Netanyahu suddenly reverse his stance on a two-state solution, so what is to become of Gaza? Other than continuing the efforts to flatten it and eliminate all Gazans from the Gaza Strip?

[Mosby]

88. One media person said that

Tal something.

Explain to me how Bibi prevented a two state solution by allowing aid to reach Gaza. You can't. The Palestinians, in the WB and Gaza, have not had a legal, elected government for 14 years. The gov of Israel has nothing to do with that.

Further, Mahmoud Abbas, the defacto leader of the PA has made it clear that he will not even sit down with the Israelis until they agree to several absurd preconditions.

[AntiFascist]

89. Also, an Israeli visiting professor at Cornell...

https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/cornell-scholar-netanyahus-policy-failures-display-following-attack

Cornell scholar: Netanyahu’s policy failures on display following attack

Uriel Abulof is a visiting professor in Cornell University’s government department and a professor of politics at Tel-Aviv University.
...
“Since the mid-1990s, Netanyahu first bolstered Hamas to undermine the more moderate Fatah/PLO so as to advance his ‘no Palestinian partner for peace’ thesis. Second, over the past ten months, focusing on undermining Israel’s democracy and diverting resources, including military, to his ultra-religious nationalist supporters, ignoring all warnings on its ill-effects, not least on the IDF. Right now, IDF soldiers seem to rely much more on Israel’s robust civil society for logistical, financial, and moral support, than on its own government.
...

[Mosby]

90. The Palestinians were offered deals in 2000, 2001, 2007

Netanyahu was not part of the government then. So how exactly was he "bolstering" Hamas? What's does "bolstering" even mean"? He was allowing aid into Gaza.

People have this weird obsession about him, not talking about you.

[AntiFascist]

91. In 2019 Netanyahu even said as much during a meeting of the Likud party...

https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history
...
a columnist at Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper unearthed evidence that Netanyahu has intentionally propped up Hamas rule in Gaza — seeing Palestinian extremism as a bulwark against a two-state solution to the conflict.

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
...

[enid602]

44. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-war-israeli-foreign-minister-says-gaza-territory-will-shrink-after-war/ar-AA

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-war-israeli-foreign-minister-says-gaza-territory-will-shrink-after-war/ar-AA1itBGE

[tritsofme]

46. After the despicable terror attacks by Hamas, an expanded buffer zone seems eminently reasonable.

[inthewind21]

72. Really

Funny thing about terrorists. They can travel thousands of miles to carry out a plan. Have you forgot "never forget"? But hey, a strip of an area that is 140 sq miles should do the trick!

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Yes, I think they would

It is, after all, often called a war crime these days:

This was by no means an unprecedented act by the Allies. In July 1943, long before Dresden, the Allies unleashed Operation Gomorrah, a protracted assault on Hamburg which literally melted the streets and incinerated people in searing, hurricane-strength winds. More than 20,000 died in just one night of the Hamburg campaign alone, and historians have compared it to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then there was the RAF bombing of Pforzheim, a German town, shortly after the Dresden onslaught, which killed almost a third of the population.

Questions have long been raised about the strategic legitimacy of attacks like these, and the later, apocalyptic attack on Tokyo in March 1945, which flattened the city and left around 100,000 dead. It’s Dresden which has attracted most attention by critics, as it was regarded as a capital of culture first and foremost, not a military target. As Victor Gregg, a British POW caught up in the firestorm later said, ‘The people of Dresden believed that as long as the Luftwaffe kept away from Oxford, Dresden would be spared.’

Dr Gregory Stanton, a scholar specialising in genocide, has classified the Dresden bombing as a war crime. Many other experts have agreed, and even suggested that Churchill himself could have been put on trial. German historian Jörg Friedrich, author of a book about the Allied bombings of German cities, went as far as saying ‘Churchill was the greatest child-slaughterer of all time.’
...
But the potentially damning counterpoint to all of these technical justifications is that Bomber Harris was explicitly interested in terror as an objective in itself. He and other Allied strategists were frustrated by the relative failures of precision bombing raids and advocated massive area bombardments to kill civilians and shatter the enemy’s will. Harris was completely open and unashamed about this, and was actually impatient about other military bigwigs mincing their words about the ferocity of their attacks.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/was-the-destruction-of-dresden-an-allied-war-crime

[Voltaire2]

60. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo

clearly qualified as war crimes. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are off in their own separate category. But obviously the victors are never charged.

[Beastly Boy]

14. Nope. The law is clear on that.

Presence of civilians at military targets does not make any points or areas immune from military actions.

Now, knowing this, why would Hamas place military targets in residential areas? It's as if they don't give a shit about how many civilians get killed or displaced...

[Beastly Boy]

15. They are not supposed to go anywhere. It is hamas military infrastructure that is supposed to go.

As far away from civilian areas as possible.

[Chuuku Davis]

49. Good question.

No other muslim country will take them.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

3. I looked for the source.

It seems to come from here:

https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-15

The full statement is this:

At least 42 per cent (164,756) of all housing units in the Gaza Strip have been either destroyed or damaged since the start of the hostilities, according to the Ministry of Housing in Gaza.

So it's a statement from Hamas, not directly from the UN.

[al bupp]

4. Fair point, but the UN has put their stamp on the claim

In any event, it should be roughly verifiable from satellite imagery alone. I suppose we will see to what degree the it's simply Hamas propaganda or not.

[Beastly Boy]

12. The UN also put their stamp on the Palestinian Health Ministry fake report

and inflated casualties at the Al-Ahli hospital it blamed on Israel.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142472

UN can no longer be considered a credible source for accurate information.

[Cha]

19. And, in my experience "Democracy Now!" can't

be considered a credible source, either.

Too much Gaslight coming from them like Jill Stein for instance.

[Beastly Boy]

24. Agreed. United Nations is the Democracy Now of international organizations.

[Cha]

25. And, there they are both

in one OP.

That's too bad about the UN.

[AloeVera]

40. Ah. There it is. Again... sigh.

The calculated but very efficient smear of the UN using the hospital bombing. As well as the NYT and everybody else who was using their reasoned, sound judgement immediately in the aftermath of the bombing.

Turned out that even a priori, reasoned judgement can fail in the event of a fluke accident. A stopped clock and all that.

So if 10,000 bombs have already fallen on you dropped by your enemy and the next one hits a hospital - are you going to even consider that it might not be from your enemy but instead friendly fire? No. Yet we are asked to believe this was somehow nefarious and intentional.

This incident is being used not just to smear and discredit a good and worthy institution (not talking about the NYT) but more dangerously in this moment - to discredit anything that the Palestinians claim.

Beware the tools of propaganda!

[tritsofme]

47. lol, there is absolutely no smear. These morons uncritically repeated Hamas propaganda.

They have no credibility left, if they had any to start with.

[AloeVera]

51. Suuuure Buddy.

[AloeVera]

52. You are calling the UN morons?

[tritsofme]

67. That's the truth. Sorry it irritates you.

[AloeVera]

56. You just proved my point.

[Beastly Boy]

66. The twists and turns of your narrative are so tortured, it is hard to see what you are critical of and why.

To the best of my understanding, it appears that my criticism of the UN doesn't meet with your approval. As to why, I am not entirely sure.

Are you critical of my post because you think UN is beyond criticism, or are you upset with me for citing the reasons why the UN is not a credible source of reporting? You use "calculated" and "very efficient" as if they were derogatory terms, and that perplexes me. Were I to expect rational discourse, I would have taken your response as a compliment, but it appears you meant to convey the exact opposite. Any reasons why?

Was the UN report (and that of NYT) wrong or not? No one in their right mind would contest their grievous error of taking the Palestinian health ministry, a Hamas arm known for biased reporting on their bosses' behalf, for granted as a valid source of accurate information. Doing so does not, by any reasonable standards, constitute a "reasoned, sound judgement". Pre-judging a non-guilty party to be guilty is the definition of bias. You seem to acknowledge, in your own peculiar manner, that this is indeed the case, heat of the moment and all, but your acknowledgement comes across as apologetic rather than critical. Go figure.

Did the UN report cause defamatory and physical damage to IDF and others? To argue the contrary, you would have to shut your eyes and ears to all the demonstrations and violence instigated by their false reporting that followed it. "Heat of the moment" does not absolve the UN of the consequences of their erroneous reporting. Indeed, responsible reporting requires not jumping to conclusions. I am not asking you to believe anyhing: the fact is that the UN laid blame on the non-guilty party solely on the basis of a report from a dubious source, and not considering other possibilities, let alone not seeking confirmation prior to passing a judgement, is by definition prejudicious.

I will grant you that causing damage to the hospital does not appear to be intentional, but causing harm unintentionally still amounts to negligence. I don't understand how you can ascribe "nefarious" intent to this simple proposition. And I wouldn't exactly call an Islamic Jihad rocket accidentally falling on a hospital "friendly fire". I doubt any of the victims of the explosion, whatever their number, would count incompetent militants messing with dangerous explosives in the proximity of a hospital among their friends.

With your permission (or not), I am rather fond of being calculating and efficient. So if this is the legitimate extent of your grievances, my response is as straightforward as it is short:

Pffft!

[AloeVera]

68. Well I am not as well-versed in the art of debate as you appear to be but I do try to speak form my heart

As well as a relatively intact mind.

You did call the UN "morons". And stated that they have no credibility left after this and added "if they had any to begin with". That is evidence of pre-existing bias to me and a view I find hard to fathom but to each his own. As for the evidence you claim to have presented to support your view of the UN, there was none except for stating the UN is the Democracy Now of international institutions or some such nonsense and the hospital bombing.

You are upset that the NYT reported a claim made by Palestinians - as they clearly state in their original headline and which you ignore. Interestingly, they report claims made by the IDF and Israel every day which are taken at face value. In reality, the whole war is premised on their claims which include their claims of why they wage this war the way they do. At some point in the not-too-distant future those claims may turn out to be wrong. I await your outrage then. The stakes are high in that regard too.

Both the UN and NYT reported on a claim which had not been rebutted at the time and which led to unintended, painful consequences. I acknowledge that. As I have tried to explain and you so efficiently and calculatingly brushed aside, there were perfectly rational, non-nefarious reasons for reporting on this. If you didn't understand a priori reasoning, then here's one you may be familiar with. If it walks, talks and quacks like a duck... But it turned out that freak accidents happen and all reasoning goes out the window. Fortuitous for your side but painful for everyone else.

However if you want a far better example of painful, you should try being an ordinary Gazan today. That is of more import, with far larger consequences, than what we are ridiculously debating here and expending our energy on.

I do not concede my points. You obfuscated the context of the use of the words nefarious and intentional. Implicit in the argument that the UN and Palestinians should be discredited based on this incident is that they both nefariously and intentionally tried to mislead the world. In the case of the UN that argument is utter bullshit and unworthy to call it anything but serving propaganda.

And yes I do see that this is a calculated effort to discredit the UN and unfortunately has been fairly efficient in achieving that goal. Yes, I use likely because we have "investigations" by one side only. The other side is busy dodging bombs and trying to bury their dead while keeping the rest alive on oxygen. However the UN is calling for an independent investigation and I believe the EU is as well.

Friendly fire is not my term as you know. See Pat Tillman, may he rest in peace. Like most things military, it doesn't really make sense, at least we can agree on something.

It's my hope that you will at some point use your qualities of calculation and efficiency in service of more honest and important arguments than this one.
Peace.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. The UN

also implicitly blamed Israel for the Hamas terrorist attack today, so as far as I’m concerned, fuck the UN.

[GuppyGal]

82. Aren't you going to correct your post to read according to the Ministry of Housing in Gaza

blah blah blah and the UN blah blah blah ???

[BootinUp]

13. It is an important detail. nt

[Cha]

17. Oh "the ministry of Housing in Gaza said so?

.. and is "Democracy Now" pushing this?

Because they were big pushers of jill stein for presdient and I think DN is full of GASLIGHT.

[BootinUp]

20. I pretty much never watch

DN has to be a special reason.

[Cha]

23. I have an acquaintance. who

always use to tell me how terrible the Dems are and how bad Joe Biden is.

I saw "used" to e bc I told her I didn't want hear anything more from DN.

[BootinUp]

26. I'd say, good call. nt

[betsuni]

42. I stopped watching DN in 2014 because of lying about the Obama administration.

I knew it would be non-stop anti-Democratic propaganda in 2015/16. I used to read/listen to a lot of places but around 2014 it was clear a pro-Russia anti-America (meaning the Democratic Party) agenda had taken over. That's the horse they bet on for some reason.

Oops, the only revolution that happened was the Trump revolution.

[dalton99a]

32. Hamas also said they killed no civilians in Israel. Their figures are bullshit.

[DemocratInPa]

9. Sickening..

The poor people have suffered enough, when will we condemn Israel and call for an immediate ceasefire?

[jimfields33]

10. The very minute hamas stops bombing the heck out of Israel.

Let’s remember who is the sole blame for October 7th. As soon as Israel gets rid of Hamas, both sides will be a heck of a lot better off. Go Israel and get those Hamas murderers.

[DemocratInPa]

27. Because

The innocent people of Gaza who are losing their homes and more are to blame for October 7th.

[jimfields33]

30. I believe the leaders of Hamas should have

Answered these questions before bombing. What did Hamas think was going to happen?

[enid602]

37. Trap

I wonder why the leaders of Hamas, supposedly living in mansions in Qatar, would train and instruct their minions to undertake an attack that could never, ever be successful. They probably feel that BiBi is a bit hot-headed, and they’re trying to trap him.

[inthewind21]

74. Oh

but it was successful. And the reaction was exactly what they were hoping for. And many here have fallen for it hook line and sinker and still fantasize about "wiping out Hamas" which IS pipe dream. You think there might be a reason Bibi hasn't rolled tanks in yet? I mean he's totally justified right, what's he waiting for?

[AntivaxHunters]

54. And what caused October 7?

[jimfields33]

58. Hamas!

[AntivaxHunters]

59. Hamas caused Hamas to attack on October 7th?

It couldn't have possibly been for what Israel did in the past like bombing hospitals in 2014 could it?

Or all the innocent little kids taking headshots from the IDF could it?

On & on.

What Hamas did was revenge for the atrocities committed by Israel against them. Period. That's not to say what they did is right because it's not, it's gross but let's stop ignoring the horrors Israel has committed too. Like their long stories history of bombing hospitals & healthcare workers.

[jimfields33]

62. Nope. No justification for something almost 10 years ago.

Had they immediately defended themselves like Israel is doing right now. I’d be more in agreement with you.

[AntivaxHunters]

63. Of course there's not justification

But it's important to recognize that both sides are guilty

[jimfields33]

64. I do agree with you on that point.

[The_Casual_Observer]

84. Defend themselves how?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

69. Is there anything that could cause you to deliberately shoot an innocent child?

To do what Hamas so proudly did on October 7?

I assume the answer is no. I assume the answer for just about everyone is no.

So let's stop saying that what Hamas did was an inevitable reaction to Israeli policy. Hamas agents aren't unthinking lab rats that can be controlled by stimuli from Israeli puppetmasters. They are thinking people. They decide their own actions. They chose to do it.

Israel's policies in the occupied territories are atrocious. But what happened on October 7 is an entirely new level of evil. Beyond even the imaginations of most people. Let's not pretend it was anything but that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. Is there anything that could cause you to drop a bomb on an innocent child?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

79. Not with that purpose, of course not.

When there's a military target, then it gets messy.

Is it okay to drop a bomb on a military target if there's a 0% chance that there are civilians nearby? Many people would probably say yes.
What if it's 10%? Fewer people would say yes.
What if it's 50%? Even fewer.
What if it's 100%? Fewer still.
What if there are 100 enemy soldiers there and only 10 civilians? People will have different answers.

Israel has its own threshold. I imagine it's probably lower than most people, including myself, would set. And I think the position that it's never acceptable to risk any civilian lives is perfectly reasonable and admirable. But this is a decision that is at least understandable to us. Going up to a baby and shooting is something else entirely.

[inthewind21]

77. Uh, NO

Terrorists have been taking hostages, killing by beheading and all sorts of other brutal ways for a VERY long time now! The U.S. knows it, Israel knows it, and the rest of the world is certainly aware. Horrific, yes. But a new concept, absolutely not. I seem to recall a 20 year war waged on said "all new level of evil" what was it called again ... oh yeah "the Axis of Evil" and "the war on terrorism". Huh, wonder how there are still any terrorists left? WTAF!

"But what happened on October 7 is an entirely new level of evil. Beyond even the imaginations of most people. Let's not pretend it was anything but that." What were you saying again about pretending?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

80. Let me try and clarify what I meant.

The person I was replying to said that the October 7 attacks were motivated in part by the awful Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. My response was that no, the attacks were so horrifyingly out of the norm of moral behavior that they can't be explained that way. They came from a kind of hatred that runs much deeper than that.

You're right that others have done it before. I didn't phrase it properly. If your argument is that Israel should have known that their occupation would be met with this utter evil, based on 9/11, ISIS beheadings, etc., then I think you have a good point. I was just saying that it's not how one would expect most humane people to respond.

[Voltaire2]

61. Hamas is not 'bombing the heck' out of Israel.

They had initial success in getting some of their not very damaging missiles through the Israeli defense system by overwhelming it. They no longer have the capacity to do that. There is no force equivalence here. Israel has total air superiority and is using that to conduct a massive bombing campaign against a densely populated urban area.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

70. It's certainly not for want of trying.

Israel's goal is to make sure they can't try any more. Because if left alone, they will try, and better at it. And massacres like the one on October 7 will happen again, and again, and again.

[Voltaire2]

73. Yes, that could be the goal.

I'm just not sure that Israel can do that without committing genocide. So far, this looks like a military siege of a densely populated city, and that will result in a huge number of civilian casualties.

[onecaliberal]

18. But, but, but, they need a pound of flesh because pushing these people to literally live on top of each other

In squalor around bombed out buildings, abused by their own government. Banned from crossing any border. I mean who the fuck among us wouldn’t love that?!

[R0ckyRac00n]

38. Really? A Shylock reference? Ouch.

[tritsofme]

50. They are getting less and less subtle.

Can’t help but wonder, are tiki torches next?

[TheRealNorth]

75. I doubt most people realize that the expression....

Came from, "the Merchant of Venice". And it is generally applied to everyone, not just Jewish people (even if Shakepseare was the origin of the expression).

[Beastly Boy]

22. Isn't Hamas doing just that on a daily basis?

Condemn Israel and call for an immediate ceasefire.

[GuppyGal]

16. There is ONE REASON why this is happening and it's because of October 7th. No October 7th

none of this shit would be happening. I've had enough of this fucking lamenting.

[Tomconroy]

28. If hamas released the hostages and surrendered

The bombing would stop.

[brooklynite]

33. Perhaps Hamas should spend its money on housing...

...rather than tunnels and weapons.

[dalton99a]

36. They do spend money on housing - for their leaders in Qatar.

[Mosby]

34. Not even a believable lie.

Nt

[onecaliberal]

65. I know because dropping bombs on people for 15 years in a 24 mile radius will do no damage.

[WarGamer]

43. No surprise.