A plan is considered reasonable if:-
If it allocates a considerable amount of additional space for housing these civilians, in addition to the current evacuation zone. At least 2/3 of the evacuated area in Rafah.
The safety of the civilians is guaranteed to a reasonable level in that area. It is not an active fighting area (as evidenced by ISW reports) and buildings don't regularly get bombed there (less than one bombing a week).
Alternatively, if these civilians are guaranteed a safe refuge outside of Gaza, that also counts, as long as their passage is indeed guaranteed (subject only to security checks) and the other conditions apply. Note that this is not an endorsement of this or any other solution, I am merely curious to see if the Israeli government comes up with a real plan.
Resolves N/A if the war ends or at the end of 2024, whichever is sooner, if an invasion hasn't occured.
1,000
3.00hi @traders - I'm doing my best to research and hopefully get this resolved. David has emailed Shump but I'm not sure whether we'll hear back. in the interim, I've done some research and I've also asked ChatGPT to provide links after sharing the market name and criteria. I received the below response. if you disagree with anything here, please reply to this comment.
The claim that over a million people have been safely evacuated from Rafah, with 100,000 tents delivered and minimal civilian casualties, does not fully align with reports from international organizations and humanitarian agencies.
Evacuation and Shelter Provisions
In April 2024, Israeli media reported that the Israeli Defense Ministry purchased 40,000 tents in preparation for evacuating civilians from Rafah. However, there is no independent verification confirming that 100,000 tents have been delivered or that they are adequately accommodating the displaced population. Furthermore, the designated "expanded humanitarian areas," such as al-Mawasi, have been criticized for lacking sufficient infrastructure, sanitation, and security to support the influx of evacuees.
Safety and Casualties
While the Israeli military has issued evacuation orders to minimize civilian harm, reports indicate that areas designated as safe have still experienced military activity. For instance, on May 6, 2024, the Israeli army ordered approximately 100,000 Palestinians to evacuate parts of Rafah, signaling an impending ground invasion. Despite these measures, humanitarian organizations have reported ongoing risks to civilians, including airstrikes and limited access to essential services.
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/07/1249550208/israel-gaza-rafah-crossing?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-800175?utm_source=chatgpt.com
International Criticism
The United Nations and various human rights organizations have expressed concerns over the evacuation plans. The UN humanitarian chief criticized Israel for deliberately blocking aid to Gaza, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. Additionally, Human Rights Watch labeled the evacuation plans as "catastrophic" and "unlawful," emphasizing the lack of safe destinations for displaced civilians.
Conclusion
While efforts have been made to evacuate civilians from Rafah, significant challenges remain regarding the adequacy of shelter, safety, and humanitarian support. The situation continues to draw international concern, and the effectiveness of the evacuation plans is subject to ongoing scrutiny.
@shankypanky
The market asks about "plan for evacuating" not about execution.
but if we do judge by the results, there was really no catastrophe as was expected. I'm saying that because the market is written in relative terms ("reasonable level" etc), so it is important to remember the context when this market was opened.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/07/politics/us-israel-bomb-shipment-pause-rafah-incursion
There was no humanitarian crisis caused by the Rafah incursion that was more extreme than the total humanitarian crisis of the war in Gaza in general, it is just another step. This is why it's hard to get a clear conclusion despite so much time passed since the incursion.
@CarmelHadar In my understanding, the market description specifies some pretty precise criteria. It's about the available space, the number of air strikes and whether there is active combat. The number of tents or the infrastructure should not matter, as long as the conditions are good enough for survival, which they obviously were. The amount of aid should not matter at all because it is unrelated to the evacuation of Rafah.
I want to point out that most/all of the articles that ChatGPT linked to were written before the evacuation had happened, some even months earlier. That in itself seems like some evidence that the evacuation went much more smoothly than they predicted. There was the "All eyes on Rafah" moment where the issue got a huge amount of attention and people warned about a humanitarian catastrophe, but when Rafah finally got evacuated, nothing much happened that would have been worth reporting on.
For the safety question, I believe that https://geoconfirmed.org/israel would be helpful to get an overview over air strikes, since people usually record and publish at least the aftermath.
So, what do you think? There was no big "plan" yet no catastrophe happened ( I mean no significant increase in deaths resulted from Rafah incursion)
How do you think to resolve that?
I mean, it seems to me that the "plan" worked (just tell the civilian to leave, and fight the combatants).
If you looked on the death toll graphs in the incursion months, it seems that there was no catastrophe, death rate is pretty similar to other months of fighting.
This should be resolved, I it's not n/a according to criteria, nor No. I think it's quite abvious, despite creator reluctance
@SusanneinFrance I am aware of one airstrike on the humanitarian zone that happened since the IDF started the evacuation of Rafah. But I agree that the safety condition seems to be satisfied.
@traders Hi Traders. Sorry for not being very unresponsive. I plan to review this shortly, it probably should be resolved. Please send any links or arguments that you would like to have considered in resolution. There seems to be some conflicting information online so this might be tricky
@Shump In which points does your information disagree?
In my recent experience, anti-Israel accounts on social media routinely make up claims about real attacks, stating that those took place in a "safe zone". But that is usually easy to refute.