https://youtu.be/J-fh-fRs7To?si=so9Gszefgtqzh_VW

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/01/finnish-tv-reporter-at-gazas-al-shifa-hospital-its-true-that-rockets-are-launched-here-from-the-gazan-side-into-israel-video/

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

https://youtu.be/uE3feo_b8Cg?si=ANuykK2OEHVkWX_j

They did. There are plenty of incidents of Hamas launching rockets from lots next to schools, hospitals, and apartment complexes.

What exactly was the point of the entire Socratic approach of questioning where Hamas should wage its war from if your claim is they're not utilizing urban centers?

Parkrose permaculture doesn't have any formal permaculture education. Mollison's criteria for using the word Permaculture to market yourself was to have a PDC minimum. To then teach permaculture is supposed to require the additional Permaculture Isntructor's Certification. She doesn't have the bare minimum credentials to put herself out there as a permaculture educator.

Marisha Aurbach taught my PDC. There are definitely women in the space. She was a great instructor.

What is the strategic advantage of waging war from densely populated urban centers then?

The 2005 withdrawal was more than a military withdrawal. They removed all settlements, as well as multiple settlements in the west bank. It was an attempt to jump start the peace process. That same year the PA and Israel signed the Agreement on Movement and Access which would have opened up movement of people and goods, established a sea port in Gaza, and opened talks for reestablishing the airport in Gaza. When Hamas was elected, they rejected all deals between the PA and Israel, not because of the residual influence Israel had on Gaza, but because they were the no-compromise alternative to Fatah who rejected any notion of peaceful coexistence and held onto the goal of destroying Israel. If freeing the Palestinian territories from Israeli control was the goal, there was no reason for Gaza to restart hostilities with Israel as Hamas did in 2007.

Are you asking if using human shields makes strategic sense, morality and international law be damned? I think a governing body has a moral obligation to its citizens to ny needlessly put its citizens at risk by waging war from population centers.

I don't think that after the 2005 withdrawal Gaza had any good reason to fight Israel

Probably ~60%. Thats a guess based off of 49% of Gaza being agricultural, estimating the total built up areas with maps. What difference does that make?

You know there are vast swaths of open, rural lands in Gaza right? That aren't in the middle of civilian urban centers?

Why are you copying and pasting the same comment to respond to the same thread over and over again? I guess I'll just copy and paste my response to your identical comment below:

According to whom? The closest this 7 month old article gets to attributing the term "safe zone" to an Israeli official is from a summarization of the statements made by a colonel, not a direct quote.

It goes on

A joint statement signed by the leaders of some of the world’s largest humanitarian groups, including the top U.N. agencies, Care International, Mercy Corps, and the World Health Organization, said the area could not function as a safe zone until all sides pledge to refrain from fighting there.

According to whom? The closest this 7 month old article gets to attributing the term "safe zone" to an Israeli official is from a summarization of the statements made by a colonel, not a direct quote.

It goes on

A joint statement signed by the leaders of some of the world’s largest humanitarian groups, including the top U.N. agencies, Care International, Mercy Corps, and the World Health Organization, said the area could not function as a safe zone until all sides pledge to refrain from fighting there.

Is it possible to take what I've said and not overlay some thing I haven't said onto it and then ask me if what you've overlaid is correct or not? No one is asking you to applaud anything. All I'm here doing is pushing back on lies and misinformation.

Yes, they also refer to them ashumanitarian areas. I think this tweet explains it well:

https://x.com/IDF/status/1787347748737421635?lang=en 

They state:

This expanded humanitarian area includes field hospitals, tents and increased amounts of food, water, medication and additional supplies.

They also make it explicitly clear:

The IDF will continue pursuing Hamas everywhere in Gaza

They're not calling them "safe zones," and explicitly state they'll pursue Hamas everywhere they may go.

I still don't think there is a genocide happening, so we don't share the same accepted premise for our frame of reference.

If the media refered to them as safer zones, it would remove the entire false narrative that's pushed in this post and elsewhere - that Israel supposedly implied it wouldn't strike certain areas and is violating that commitment.

There are hundreds of posts in this sub about all the things that are happening that people think are bad. My calling out the lies in this post isn't distracting anyone. I'm not distracting from anything, I'm directly calling out the misinformation in the original post. You're responding to me with, "well sure OP may be lying, but whatabout these things that are happening that aren't part of OP's post" seems like an attempt to distract from the fact that misinformation is being pushed in this post.

You (the ambiguous "you" not you personally) can make the case that you think something is bad without lying and deceiving. This post is engaged in that kind of deceit, which is why I commented on it and why I think my response is relevant.

If someone lies for a cause they think is just, and the lie is called out, claiming the call out is irrelevant as the cause is just detracts from the credibility of the cause to the intended audience. I think it's always relevant to sift through the misinformation and try to reveal the truth.

It sounds like your explanation could be used to justify any amount of civilian death.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Israel established "safer" zones, it never claimed they weren't still going to strike Hamas wherever they may hide. It's straight up dishonest and manipulative to then present a narrative that Israel established safe zones it wouldn't strike and is now violating that commitment. It's very obviously propagandistic manipulation, and people are swallowing it without realizing they're being manipulated.

What level of collateral damage is acceptable is an entirely different issue than the distinction between "safer" and "safe" in an active war zone.

Yeah, it tends to happen anytime there's any criticism of Wheaton.

Gazans aren't all "free game," but if the objective is to take out Hamas, and you tell everyone you won't strike certain areas, don't you think Hamas leadership would take refuge in those areas?

War isn't a game of tag with safe zones. There's an extremely important distinction between "safe" and "safer." Israel hasn't claimed there are areas where Hamas gets safe haven. So why do you think people are constructing a narrative that Israel is conducting strikes on "safe zones" when that's not the language they've used?

It seems like Israel refers to these areas as "safer zones," implying they are safer than elsewhere - but acknowledging there isn't really anywhere off limits to strikes.

How has the media turned "safer" into "safe?"

Good goat forage isn't grass. It's woody shrubs and trees above knee height. If you want a living lawn mower, get sheep.

Andrew mollison has a lot of great content out there. He also teaches a course through Oregon state university.

For suburban scale permaculture design, Toby Hemenway's Gaia's Garden is the gold standard book.

For broader scale, in depth design, there's no replacing Permaculture: A Designer's Manual by Bill Mollison.

Geoff Lawton is a protégé of Bill Mollison, he has some good content, but also a lot of psuedo-scientific takes and questionable ethics. If you can separate the good from the bad, he has some things of value to offer, but is also a bit of a grifter.

Paul wheaton founded the Permies forum. His old content on YouTube focused on showcasing what other people were doing, and the old stuff that's still up is great. He adopted this "Duke of permaculture" persona and has become a bit exploitative, attempting to set up a pseudo commune that he essentially acted as slum lord over. His old stuff is still good. His videos with Sepp Holzer are especially good.

Sepp Holzer is worth checking out. The things he's done with his property in Austria are incredible

Edible acres on YouTube is fairly entertaining.

The thing that many people getting into permaculture often get confused about is that Permaculture is a design system, not all the individual systems that get encorporated into any particlar design. The individual systems (for example rain catchment systems or food forests) can stand alone, outside of permaculture, or they can be incorporated into permaculture design. They also are not all required. Permaculture design caters to the desires and needs of the land user, while utilizing the 12 permaculture design principles, guided by the 3 permaculture ethics.

With the universities you listed, are you in the pnw? One thing I've noticed in the wet pnw is that woodchips increase slug pressure. If that's oke of your pests, beer traps help.

Additionally, if you're in the pnw (I'm more familiar with the soils here than elsewhere) calcium and nitrogen deficiencies are common with the amount of nutrients that get leached from our soils with all the rain, even in established beds. Ammendments may be the answer, even in your established beds.

Lastly, did you start these from seed or purchase starts? I work at a small nursery that sells veggie starts. I often take home flats of starts that weve decided are too long in their container to sell. Ive noticed with many of those, arugala and broccolis in particular, bolting early and stunting due to deficiencies is common. If yours were purchased as starts, the issues may have come from their conditions before they went into the ground.

Gardyn's website says you can grow all organic food with the system, yet as you get deeper into the website it states you cannot use "organic plant food," which would disqualify all produce grown with it from being organic. This is a prime example of the way unscrupulous businesses circumvent the regulations around the use of the term "organic." It goes onto make the blanket claim that organic nutrients aren't compatible with these styles of "smart gardens."

Im not going to dig through the rest of these products' pages, but im sure theyre all the same. The reliance on conventional, non-renewable inputs is antithetical to permaculture. These products are not sustainable. Their ad campaigns are pure green washing.

My advice is that if you don't have the time or space to garden, you should find a local CSA or Farmer's market and support local sustainable agriculture, rather that becoming personally dependent on conventional fertilizers to grow poor quality, less flavorful food.

If you're planting directly into what was sod last year, with the only addition being woodchips, much of the soil's nutrients are likely tied up in the residual biomass of the sod. As the roots of the grass die back and fully breakdown, the soil will improve. That said, you soil may still have been deficient in certain nutrients to begin with. I would bet that it's not the mulch suppressing growth, but a lack of other available nutrients. You could scrape the mulch back away from the individual plants, sprinkl in ome organic ammendments, and recover with the mulch as see how it does.

Civil disobedience is the willful violation of unjust laws and willful acceptance of the consequences. The lunch counter sit ins during the civil rights movement would be an example of civil disobedience. Occupying public spaces and violating time, place, and manner restrictions to the extent they're impeding on the First Amendment rights of others, then trying to avoid the consequences of those actions, isn't civil disobedience. It's just lawlessness.

They can stand up for their political beliefs without violating the law and without infringing upon the rights of others.

The "fruit" isn't fruit but the inverted flower. That's why pollination isn't required to get the "fruit."

I don't think theyre self pollinating without the wasp. We don't eat the fruit, but the inverted flower. It requires no pollination to give us figs. Pollination produces seeds.