Israel-Gaza war

[Silent Hunter]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Remember Israel's opening position was no aid into Gaza at all.

[afleitch]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Remember Israel's opening position was no aid into Gaza at all.

Which is an important point. Israel has had to be dragged through the court of public opinion in order to provide the bare minimum as required by the international organisations it is part of.

[AtorBoltox]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Egypt should not take in the Palestinians, because Israel would never allow them to return to Gaza. We've had this debate in this thread a dozen times. We had actual Israeli politicians say this and official plans drawn up

You’ve made this argument before, sure, but it was obvious nonsense then and remains so. In any other Situation no one would even pretend to believe an excuse like this. If Chad closed its borders to Darfur tomorrow and then claimed it was for humanitarian reasons as ‘if we let them come the Sudanese won’t allow them to return,’ not a single NGO, UN spokesman or anyone else would believe this was their motivation, or accept it as a valid reason to turn away refugees.

[Pres Mike]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Egypt should not take in the Palestinians, because Israel would never allow them to return to Gaza. We've had this debate in this thread a dozen times. We had actual Israeli politicians say this and official plans drawn up

You’ve made this argument before, sure, but it was obvious nonsense then and remains so. In any other Situation no one would even pretend to believe an excuse like this. If Chad closed its borders to Darfur tomorrow and then claimed it was for humanitarian reasons as ‘if we let them come the Sudanese won’t allow them to return,’ not a single NGO, UN spokesman or anyone else would believe this was their motivation, or accept it as a valid reason to turn away refugees.

You arguing aganist the consensus of this forum. The consensus of the US state department. The consensus of the entire global community.

And I am Palestinian btw. How are you going to argue aganist me?

[AtorBoltox]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Egypt should not take in the Palestinians, because Israel would never allow them to return to Gaza. We've had this debate in this thread a dozen times. We had actual Israeli politicians say this and official plans drawn up

You’ve made this argument before, sure, but it was obvious nonsense then and remains so. In any other Situation no one would even pretend to believe an excuse like this. If Chad closed its borders to Darfur tomorrow and then claimed it was for humanitarian reasons as ‘if we let them come the Sudanese won’t allow them to return,’ not a single NGO, UN spokesman or anyone else would believe this was their motivation, or accept it as a valid reason to turn away refugees.

You arguing aganist the consensus of this forum. The consensus of the US state department. The consensus of the entire global community.

And I am Palestinian btw. How are you going to argue aganist me?

I do not actually think it is consensus that Egypt should turn away refugees. If it is, I’m absolutely shocked at the callousness of the ‘global community.’ You’re also Palestinian? So America accepted your family as refugees? Absolutely outrageous, how dare the us immigration department assist in Israel’s ethnic cleansing!!! Now, can you respond to my point? Is Chad in the wrong for accepting refugees from darfur?

[AtorBoltox]

I guess Viktor Orban is actually a humanitarian social justice hero. Unlike Merkel, he refused to assist ISIS’s genocidal campaign 

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

[AtorBoltox]

Again, this is not a principled stand in favour of the dignity of the Palestinian people, it's Egypt not wanting to handle a bunch of refugees. The level of doublethink needed to believe that the Palestinians are currently victims of a genocide but also it would be morally wrong for their neighbour to take even a single refugee is staggering

[Silent Hunter]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

A good number of refugees never go back even when their previous country becomes safe. They've settled in their new country and put down roots.

Or it never becomes safe in their lifetime.

[Cashew]

Trump just won the election today.

Israel winning the war is more important than the outcome of the election

Replace that with "Sri Lanka winning the war against the Tamil Tigers is more important than the outcome of the election" and realoze how deranged that statement is.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump just won the election today.

I am growing tired of all this winning.

[Pres Mike]

Can GMac or Ray explain where the Palestinians in Rafah are supposed to go? Egypt isn’t taking them, and Rafah is the southernmost town.

I mean, you basically just summed up the problem here. The people who ostensibly should be advocating for them are fine with them dying.

If you'll look carefully at what Israel is doing, they're going sector by sector rather than trying to take the whole city at once with overwhelming force. I think they're far more interested in dismantling Hamas infrastructure than anything else right now, and that essentially allows the civilians to evacuate to other areas of Rafah, shuttling them around as needed.

It's far from the ideal solution that could happen if Palestinian civilians actually had any friends in the Arab world, but what's unfolding is far from the worst-case scenario either.

Egypt should not take in the Palestinians, because Israel would never allow them to return to Gaza. We've had this debate in this thread a dozen times. We had actual Israeli politicians say this and official plans drawn up

You’ve made this argument before, sure, but it was obvious nonsense then and remains so. In any other Situation no one would even pretend to believe an excuse like this. If Chad closed its borders to Darfur tomorrow and then claimed it was for humanitarian reasons as ‘if we let them come the Sudanese won’t allow them to return,’ not a single NGO, UN spokesman or anyone else would believe this was their motivation, or accept it as a valid reason to turn away refugees.

You arguing aganist the consensus of this forum. The consensus of the US state department. The consensus of the entire global community.

And I am Palestinian btw. How are you going to argue aganist me?

I do not actually think it is consensus that Egypt should turn away refugees. If it is, I’m absolutely shocked at the callousness of the ‘global community.’ You’re also Palestinian? So America accepted your family as refugees? Absolutely outrageous, how dare the us immigration department assist in Israel’s ethnic cleansing!!! Now, can you respond to my point? Is Chad in the wrong for accepting refugees from darfur?

No, my family were not refugees. They applied legally to come. My mother's parents came in the 60s. My dad came in the 90s. Both sides of my family come from Area A in the West Bank.

There is a difference between not wanting to deal with refugees and knowing they won't be allowed to return. No, Egypt doesn't want to deal with the Palestinians. I acknowledge that. But they probably would let them in if Israel promised the Palestinians could return. But literally no one in the world thinks Israel would let them return, because half the Israeli government has publicly said they want to expel the Palestinians and annex Gaza. An actual plan was drawn up! Just like the 700k Palestinians expelled in 1949. Their descendants still live in refugee camps around the world.

Plus, where would the Palestinians go? Live in tent cities in the Sinai Desert? Contrary to public belief, Gaza isn't a desert. I posted a topographical map in this thread showing habitable areas in the Levant.  I've personally always found the idea that "Arabs fight for sand for thousands of years" to be a racist notion.

Concerning darfur, I don't know enough on the issue to comment.

[GAinDC]

Again, this is not a principled stand in favour of the dignity of the Palestinian people, it's Egypt not wanting to handle a bunch of refugees. The level of doublethink needed to believe that the Palestinians are currently victims of a genocide but also it would be morally wrong for their neighbour to take even a single refugee is staggering

It’s “from the river to the sea” until that sea reaches my country…

[Devils30]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

They can return to any part of the West Bank/Gaza as part of a negotiated settlement. Israel is not going to allow millions of the great-grandchildren of refugees into Israel. Anyone who pushes for this or for the idea that Israel does not have to dismantle settlements 25 miles inside the West Bank is just proposing a poison pill that gets things nowhere.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

A good number of refugees never go back even when their previous country becomes safe. They've settled in their new country and put down roots.

What happened with New Orleans after Katrina.

[Horus]

Why are Israelis so ungrateful? Majority of our politicians value them more than they value their own constituents and they still behave this way. Why so entitled?

https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1788241394340929690?t=6Et-vnGWvCW4glrsvVVlzQ&...

[Silent Hunter]

What happened with New Orleans after Katrina.

Population in 2005 was 455k. In 2006, it went down to 209k. As of 2022, it's at 370k.

(All figures to the nearest thousand)

Berlin hasn't returned to its pre-war population nearly 80 years on. Warsaw took until around 1970.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has confirmed the U.S. paused a shipment of bombs to Israel last week over concerns the country was approaching a decision to launch a full-scale assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah

2,000 pound bombs? What is the normal range/size on munitions used in urban and tunnel warfare?

Good to see more breaks are being applied to the Israeli war machine, but still not enough by any means.

[Silent Hunter]

2,000 pound bombs? What is the normal range/size on munitions used in urban and tunnel warfare?

Good to see more breaks are being applied to the Israeli war machine, but still not enough by any means.

2,000lb would be on the high end, as anything above that tends not to fit on most aircraft hardpoints. That's "take out a whole block", as shown in this 1942 newsreel:

But you might need it against a large compound or a tunnel complex. There are 4,000lb "bunker busters" out there too.

The 500lb would be more common to use against a building. Or 250lb.

Against a single vehicle, you'd use a helicopter or drone-launched Hellfire, which is only 20lb.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

A good number of refugees never go back even when their previous country becomes safe. They've settled in their new country and put down roots.

Or it never becomes safe in their lifetime.

The problem here isn't that the Palestinians don't want to return, it's that they can't return.

Again, this is not a principled stand in favour of the dignity of the Palestinian people, it's Egypt not wanting to handle a bunch of refugees. The level of doublethink needed to believe that the Palestinians are currently victims of a genocide but also it would be morally wrong for their neighbour to take even a single refugee is staggering

The actual doublethink here is coming from the people who can't recognize the blatant injustice of someone from Milwaukee with zero connection to the land holding a permanent "right to return" to Israel when the actual recent inhabitants can never return. It's like if the Navajos had no rights or citizenship, were periodically bombed and then when anyone calls it out they go "why don't those damn Mexicans take them!"

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

They can return to any part of the West Bank/Gaza as part of a negotiated settlement. Israel is not going to allow millions of the great-grandchildren of refugees into Israel. Anyone who pushes for this or for the idea that Israel does not have to dismantle settlements 25 miles inside the West Bank is just proposing a poison pill that gets things nowhere.

Putting aside the question of returning to pre-48 territory, it isn't remotely clear that they can return to "any part of West Bank/Gaza" at all. The precedent the Israelis have set after every war is that they have an unlimited right to establish settlements wherever they want from which they can exclude whoever happened to live there prior with zero repercussions. Even now they've occupied a corridor in northern Gaza from which they've repeatedly shot civilians attempting to return to their homes. If there weren't a few hundred thousand Gazans still in the north it's not hard to imagine some of those freaks currently blocking food aid managing to miraculously "sneak past" the IDF to establish new settlements in the rubble.

Anyway, the idea that there's going to be any kind of negotiated settlement regardless of "poison pills" seems far fetched. Neither side has any incentive. This war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu out of jail and even if he were to be removed there's zero political appetite for compromise from the Israeli public. At the same time, Hamas is politically stronger than ever and if the Israelis continue down their current path they'll become a pariah state and burn through all the advantages that let them dominate the Palestinians in the first place.

[Devils30]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

A good number of refugees never go back even when their previous country becomes safe. They've settled in their new country and put down roots.

Or it never becomes safe in their lifetime.

The problem here isn't that the Palestinians don't want to return, it's that they can't return.

Again, this is not a principled stand in favour of the dignity of the Palestinian people, it's Egypt not wanting to handle a bunch of refugees. The level of doublethink needed to believe that the Palestinians are currently victims of a genocide but also it would be morally wrong for their neighbour to take even a single refugee is staggering

The actual doublethink here is coming from the people who can't recognize the blatant injustice of someone from Milwaukee with zero connection to the land holding a permanent "right to return" to Israel when the actual recent inhabitants can never return. It's like if the Navajos had no rights or citizenship, were periodically bombed and then when anyone calls it out they go "why don't those damn Mexicans take them!"

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

They can return to any part of the West Bank/Gaza as part of a negotiated settlement. Israel is not going to allow millions of the great-grandchildren of refugees into Israel. Anyone who pushes for this or for the idea that Israel does not have to dismantle settlements 25 miles inside the West Bank is just proposing a poison pill that gets things nowhere.

Putting aside the question of returning to pre-48 territory, it isn't remotely clear that they can return to "any part of West Bank/Gaza" at all. The precedent the Israelis have set after every war is that they have an unlimited right to establish settlements wherever they want from which they can exclude whoever happened to live there prior with zero repercussions. Even now they've occupied a corridor in northern Gaza from which they've repeatedly shot civilians attempting to return to their homes. If there weren't a few hundred thousand Gazans still in the north it's not hard to imagine some of those freaks currently blocking food aid managing to miraculously "sneak past" the IDF to establish new settlements in the rubble.

Anyway, the idea that there's going to be any kind of negotiated settlement regardless of "poison pills" seems far fetched. Neither side has any incentive. This war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu out of jail and even if he were to be removed there's zero political appetite for compromise from the Israeli public. At the same time, Hamas is politically stronger than ever and if the Israelis continue down their current path they'll become a pariah state and burn through all the advantages that let them dominate the Palestinians in the first place.

This is exactly the line of you leftist thugs. “Why bother even negotiating a two state solution when you know it’s impossible.” Most Israelis and Americans aren’t stupid. It’s your wet dream of eliminating the state of Israel. Spare us the bs going forward.

[lfromnj]

Lol at calling someone named Bourbon Democrat a leftist.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

A good number of refugees never go back even when their previous country becomes safe. They've settled in their new country and put down roots.

Or it never becomes safe in their lifetime.

The problem here isn't that the Palestinians don't want to return, it's that they can't return.

Again, this is not a principled stand in favour of the dignity of the Palestinian people, it's Egypt not wanting to handle a bunch of refugees. The level of doublethink needed to believe that the Palestinians are currently victims of a genocide but also it would be morally wrong for their neighbour to take even a single refugee is staggering

The actual doublethink here is coming from the people who can't recognize the blatant injustice of someone from Milwaukee with zero connection to the land holding a permanent "right to return" to Israel when the actual recent inhabitants can never return. It's like if the Navajos had no rights or citizenship, were periodically bombed and then when anyone calls it out they go "why don't those damn Mexicans take them!"

Maybe if the Israelis acknowledged some kind of right to return then the Palestinians and Arabs wouldn't be so opposed to any kind of "temporary" displacement.

They can return to any part of the West Bank/Gaza as part of a negotiated settlement. Israel is not going to allow millions of the great-grandchildren of refugees into Israel. Anyone who pushes for this or for the idea that Israel does not have to dismantle settlements 25 miles inside the West Bank is just proposing a poison pill that gets things nowhere.

Putting aside the question of returning to pre-48 territory, it isn't remotely clear that they can return to "any part of West Bank/Gaza" at all. The precedent the Israelis have set after every war is that they have an unlimited right to establish settlements wherever they want from which they can exclude whoever happened to live there prior with zero repercussions. Even now they've occupied a corridor in northern Gaza from which they've repeatedly shot civilians attempting to return to their homes. If there weren't a few hundred thousand Gazans still in the north it's not hard to imagine some of those freaks currently blocking food aid managing to miraculously "sneak past" the IDF to establish new settlements in the rubble.

Anyway, the idea that there's going to be any kind of negotiated settlement regardless of "poison pills" seems far fetched. Neither side has any incentive. This war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu out of jail and even if he were to be removed there's zero political appetite for compromise from the Israeli public. At the same time, Hamas is politically stronger than ever and if the Israelis continue down their current path they'll become a pariah state and burn through all the advantages that let them dominate the Palestinians in the first place.

This is exactly the line of you leftist thugs. “Why bother even negotiating a two state solution when you know it’s impossible.” Most Israelis and Americans aren’t stupid. It’s your wet dream of eliminating the state of Israel. Spare us the bs going forward.

Bold to assume that only alleged "leftist thugs" (MBD is a leftist now?) think the two-state solution is impossible.

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/OmarSShakir/status/1788101062257180747?t=_nsrVw7YfjgZlnK0R7_...

[afleitch]

https://twitter.com/OmarSShakir/status/1788101062257180747?t=_nsrVw7YfjgZlnK0R7_...

492 civilians.

Not Gaza. Not Hamas. Not at war.