Israel-Gaza war

[patzer]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

[pppolitics]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

[Vosem]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

The decent thing to do is not to force people out of their homes but to rebuild their homes so Gaza is a liveable community again. There is absolutely no expectation that civilians in war ravaged communities just go somewhere else-this is insane nonsense. Time and time again, cities that have been levelled to the ground have been rebuilt to be in the long term just as prosperous or even more than they were before. Gaza could be a beautiful Mediterranean city in a few decades and even live in peace with its neighbours.

So there is no excuse for this disgusting, sick and immoral rhetoric that people keep peddling.

Most of the actual infrastructure was built during the period of full Israeli control between the 1960s and 1980s (prior to which Gaza didn't have basics like running water); making Gaza a livable place means either restoring that or the emergence of a Palestinian nationalism which does not make conquest of other places its goals. Once again, for these goals to be remotely realistic you should be hoping that Israel wins this war (...which is why I've been insisting that "supporting Israel" is still the obvious and correct stance for Palestinians living in Gaza. It's really not very complicated or morally unclear stuff, guys).

[pppolitics]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

You already told us that Israel and all occupied territories belongs to the Jews and Palestinians are there illegally.

[Vosem]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

[pppolitics]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

[Vosem]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

...what? If you leave because you don't like the government of a place, and then that government seizes it through eminent domain, it now belongs to the new government, yes. Nobody disputes this. If America elects George W. Bush, and then Pierre Salinger flees to France as a political dissident and renounces his US citizenship, the US government absolutely can seize his possessions. (I don't think they did in that case, but this certainly is a thing done with criminals that have fled abroad. While US citizenship cannot be lost except through renunciations or convictions for very specific crimes, many countries do renounce citizenship if you live somewhere else for some number of years, and post-colonial citizenships rarely or never apply to individuals who moved out prior to a formal independence date.

'Forced displacement' is when the government orders you out. Leaving because you don't like the regime is not forced. (Thinking of non-Palestinian examples tends to clarify this point, but it's obviously hard for those with a poor knowledge of recent world history.)

I think the issue with lots of pro-Palestine commentary is that they delude themselves into thinking of the conflict as singular, when most of the general circumstances are very normal and the main strange thing about it is the existence of the toxic Palestinian liberationist ideology; there will be peace when this ideology does not exist, not in Palestine and not among Western or Arab supporters.

[Silent Hunter]

Forcing people permanently out of Gaza directly or indirectly is just plain wrong.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The IDFs' first all-female tank unit that were involved on October 7.

Noa Tishby Interview

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1pPc_TrB2J/

Amazing effort.

[pppolitics]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

...what? If you leave because you don't like the government of a place, and then that government seizes it through eminent domain, it now belongs to the new government, yes. Nobody disputes this. If America elects George W. Bush, and then Pierre Salinger flees to France as a political dissident and renounces his US citizenship, the US government absolutely can seize his possessions. (I don't think they did in that case, but this certainly is a thing done with criminals that have fled abroad. While US citizenship cannot be lost except through renunciations or convictions for very specific crimes, many countries do renounce citizenship if you live somewhere else for some number of years, and post-colonial citizenships rarely or never apply to individuals who moved out prior to a formal independence date.

'Forced displacement' is when the government orders you out. Leaving because you don't like the regime is not forced. (Thinking of non-Palestinian examples tends to clarify this point, but it's obviously hard for those with a poor knowledge of recent world history.)

I think the issue with lots of pro-Palestine commentary is that they delude themselves into thinking of the conflict as singular, when most of the general circumstances are very normal and the main strange thing about it is the existence of the toxic Palestinian liberationist ideology; there will be peace when this ideology does not exist, not in Palestine and not among Western or Arab supporters.

Everyone here knows that Israel is intentionally making Palestinian lives as miserable as possible to coerce the Palestinians to leave.

You are not fooling anyone by pretending that forced displacement is voluntary.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The IDFs' first all-female tank unit that were involved on October 7.

Noa Tishby Interview

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1pPc_TrB2J/

Amazing effort.

Israel certainly needs tanks divisions, tanks are VERY powerful in battle.
Seeing this makes me wonder how many tanks they managed to outfit with these volunteers. Maybe divide the number of the Pere unit by four or five...

[Horus]

Forcing people permanently out of Gaza directly or indirectly is just plain wrong.

It seems the vast majority of pro Israel voices disagree with you.

[Comrade Funk]

Forcing people permanently out of Gaza directly or indirectly is just plain wrong.

It seems the vast majority of pro Israel voices disagree with you.

Liberals, conservatives, and one libertarian

[Meclazine for Israel]

The "international assassination operation for Hamas kingpins has begun".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-04/who-was-hamas-leader-saleh-al-arouri/103281984

The USA is offering $5M per leader if you can find them before Israel does.


The United States government offered a reward of up to $US5 million for information leading to the capture of Arouri. (Supplied: US State Department)

On Tuesday, 2 January 2024,Saleh al-Arouri was killed in Beirut with both his car and apartment bombed.

"Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said his government does not take responsibility for the strike during an interview on US network MSNBC."

https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/regev-israel-does-not-take-responsibility-for-beirut-strike-whoever-did-this-has-a-gripe-with-hamas-201236037503

In December, 2023, the Times of Israel received leaked information regarding the operation to track down the senior Hamas leadership.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-recording-shin-bet-chief-vows-to-kill-hamas-chiefs-in-lebanon-turkey-qatar/

"In Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Turkey, in Qatar — everywhere," Mr Bar said, according to the recording.

"It will take us a few years but we will destroy Hamas."

Mr Bar also described October 7 as "our Munich".


Eight members of the Palestinian militant organisation Black September killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972. (AP: Kurt Strumpf)

[Devils30]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

...what? If you leave because you don't like the government of a place, and then that government seizes it through eminent domain, it now belongs to the new government, yes. Nobody disputes this. If America elects George W. Bush, and then Pierre Salinger flees to France as a political dissident and renounces his US citizenship, the US government absolutely can seize his possessions. (I don't think they did in that case, but this certainly is a thing done with criminals that have fled abroad. While US citizenship cannot be lost except through renunciations or convictions for very specific crimes, many countries do renounce citizenship if you live somewhere else for some number of years, and post-colonial citizenships rarely or never apply to individuals who moved out prior to a formal independence date.

'Forced displacement' is when the government orders you out. Leaving because you don't like the regime is not forced. (Thinking of non-Palestinian examples tends to clarify this point, but it's obviously hard for those with a poor knowledge of recent world history.)

I think the issue with lots of pro-Palestine commentary is that they delude themselves into thinking of the conflict as singular, when most of the general circumstances are very normal and the main strange thing about it is the existence of the toxic Palestinian liberationist ideology; there will be peace when this ideology does not exist, not in Palestine and not among Western or Arab supporters.

Everyone here knows that Israel is intentionally making Palestinian lives as miserable as possible to coerce the Palestinians to leave.

You are not fooling anyone by pretending that forced displacement is voluntary.

For the last f**** time, Israel is not going to be forcibly deporting Palestinians to the Congo. It’s a silly idea and article.

[Horus]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

...what? If you leave because you don't like the government of a place, and then that government seizes it through eminent domain, it now belongs to the new government, yes. Nobody disputes this. If America elects George W. Bush, and then Pierre Salinger flees to France as a political dissident and renounces his US citizenship, the US government absolutely can seize his possessions. (I don't think they did in that case, but this certainly is a thing done with criminals that have fled abroad. While US citizenship cannot be lost except through renunciations or convictions for very specific crimes, many countries do renounce citizenship if you live somewhere else for some number of years, and post-colonial citizenships rarely or never apply to individuals who moved out prior to a formal independence date.

'Forced displacement' is when the government orders you out. Leaving because you don't like the regime is not forced. (Thinking of non-Palestinian examples tends to clarify this point, but it's obviously hard for those with a poor knowledge of recent world history.)

I think the issue with lots of pro-Palestine commentary is that they delude themselves into thinking of the conflict as singular, when most of the general circumstances are very normal and the main strange thing about it is the existence of the toxic Palestinian liberationist ideology; there will be peace when this ideology does not exist, not in Palestine and not among Western or Arab supporters.

Everyone here knows that Israel is intentionally making Palestinian lives as miserable as possible to coerce the Palestinians to leave.

You are not fooling anyone by pretending that forced displacement is voluntary.

For the last f**** time, Israel is not going to be forcibly deporting Palestinians to the Congo. It’s a silly idea and article.

150 pages ago only 2-3 voices claimed Israel should forcibly deport anyone. Now it is a mainstream view among the shrinking number of Israel supporters.

I'm not sure why you're so confident this won't happen.

[Vosem]

I'm not disputing that so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is simply that they should have the opportunity to move to somewhere that gives them a better life than the Gaza Strip if they want to.

They do want to go elsewhere: back to their native land in Israel.

It's the Israeli government that won't allow them.

The issue is that that's like Germans trying to regain their land in Stettin- it's all long since been developed and entirely different to when their grandparents left, and also in the case of Israel in particular, the prospect of a country of only 9 million which is also having a housing shortage admitting two million refugees really isn't viable, and also, like the Ukraine/Russia example mentioned above, inter-ethnic tensions are likely and discrimination is possible. Also, from a security point of view from Israel, it would be very very difficult to weed out Hamas members if refugees arrived in large numbers.

That's why it's much more feasible for the refugees to find permanent accommodation elsewhere than in Israel. If it was a smaller number of people then Israel would be a more viable option but not on that scale- there are bigger countries better able to absorb larger numbers of refugees without getting overwhelmed.

Israel forced displace them.

It’s not other countries responsibility to take them.

It’s Israel responsibility to take them back.

This doesn't seem to apply to displaced people anywhere else, though, and (...much as it has in Israel/Palestine, actually) insisting that it apply is a recipe for generations of never-ending warfare.

…but but but it happens elsewhere too!

Is that the best excuse that you’ve got?

...what exactly am I supposed to be excusing? Israel didn't forcibly displace anyone in the 1940s, and instead people fled voluntarily. This is not really all that unusual in modernity; a similar Nakba happened last year in Karabakh. (If you want examples of Western democracies doing something like this, then something very similar happened in eastern Slavonia in...uh...1995). It's not a mainstream position that these exoduses were caused by the government which took control, and it is not a mainstream position that those governments have obligations to non-citizens fleeing.

It took around 40 years from the Nakba to revisionist historians in the 1980s saying that the blame resided with the Israeli government; I wonder if in the 2030s we'll see similar stuff from the Serbian revanchists.

(Also, 'forced displace' is incorrect English; you presumably meant to write 'forcibly displaced. Your syntax makes you difficult to understand.)

Forced displacement is clearly voluntary to Zionists.

If my relatives and I use weapons and intimidation to force you to flee your house, then you left voluntarily and the house is no longer yours.

The house is now mine and my relatives’, right?

...what? If you leave because you don't like the government of a place, and then that government seizes it through eminent domain, it now belongs to the new government, yes. Nobody disputes this. If America elects George W. Bush, and then Pierre Salinger flees to France as a political dissident and renounces his US citizenship, the US government absolutely can seize his possessions. (I don't think they did in that case, but this certainly is a thing done with criminals that have fled abroad. While US citizenship cannot be lost except through renunciations or convictions for very specific crimes, many countries do renounce citizenship if you live somewhere else for some number of years, and post-colonial citizenships rarely or never apply to individuals who moved out prior to a formal independence date.

'Forced displacement' is when the government orders you out. Leaving because you don't like the regime is not forced. (Thinking of non-Palestinian examples tends to clarify this point, but it's obviously hard for those with a poor knowledge of recent world history.)

I think the issue with lots of pro-Palestine commentary is that they delude themselves into thinking of the conflict as singular, when most of the general circumstances are very normal and the main strange thing about it is the existence of the toxic Palestinian liberationist ideology; there will be peace when this ideology does not exist, not in Palestine and not among Western or Arab supporters.

Everyone here knows that Israel is intentionally making Palestinian lives as miserable as possible to coerce the Palestinians to leave.

You are not fooling anyone by pretending that forced displacement is voluntary.

For the last f**** time, Israel is not going to be forcibly deporting Palestinians to the Congo. It’s a silly idea and article.

150 pages ago only 2-3 voices claimed Israel should forcibly deport anyone. Now it is a mainstream view among the shrinking number of Israel supporters.

I'm not sure why you're so confident this won't happen.

What would possibly make you think that it’s shrinking?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Saw this posted elsewhere on the Internet. Felt it would be of interest to the thread. (poster was talking about trying to get more understanding of the situation)

Gaza Under Hamas by Bjorn Brenner
Civil Society in the Gaza Strip by Sara Roy
Ruling Palestine :Gaza under Hamas by International Crisis Group
Jordan Policy and Hamas by Mohammed Abu Rumman.



Basically Hamas is not a totalitarian top down organization. Its a network whose elements are constantly negotiating with each other. Like the military wing (the Al Qassam Brigades) doesnt take orders from the political wing the way a state army takes orders from a govt. Its a constant discussion that flows both ways. In many ways Hamas's internal makeup resembles tribal and clan style consensus building more than a political authoritarian party. This then leads to how it views Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Not as a rival but as an outer member of its network since both have the same ideology and just differ on strategy. The secular DFLP and PFLP also get regarded as even more distant members of the network . This also affects Hamas' relationship with Fatah. Hamas goal is not to "kill" Fatah but rather to absorb it and reeducate its members.

Further Hamas ideology is Islamic Democracy which while it limits the numbers of acceptable options, does believe in genuine choice between those options. Therefore as long as groups like PIJ ad DFLP and PFLP remain acceptable , they are treated as partners and not as rivals.

It seems to me that Israel "destroying" Hamas feels highly unlikely considering all this. They need to offer an alternative, and build up what they previously destroyed (like how Vosem noted they built a lot of infrastructure in Gaza during the 60s to 80s). Unfortunately for Israel, offering an alternative means running an empire not on the absolute cheap; this renders this military operation a likely long-term political failure due to inability or unwillingness to follow up with the steps needed to preserve newfound gains. One would hope they get more far-sighted leadership at the table once those calls have to be made.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/

Israel is pretty open about the plan how they want to ethnicaly cleanse the gaza strip and posters here trying to distract away with it should just be honest that they consider this a good thing.

[Estrella]

Actual Palestinians: we want Israel to stop oppressing us
Western leftists: ALL I WANT TO DO IS KILL JEWS KILL KILL KILL

https://twitter.com/ahmad_tibi/status/1742452417680019805

[PSOL]

Actual Palestinians: we want Israel to stop oppressing us
Western leftists: ALL I WANT TO DO IS KILL JEWS KILL KILL KILL

https://twitter.com/ahmad_tibi/status/1742452417680019805

Some rando on twitter is not representative of the western left

[Vosem]

Tibi becoming a ridiculous COVID hawk was a funny subplot a few seasons ago.

[CumbrianLefty]

Actual Palestinians: we want Israel to stop oppressing us
Western leftists: ALL I WANT TO DO IS KILL JEWS KILL KILL KILL

https://twitter.com/ahmad_tibi/status/1742452417680019805

Some rando on twitter is not representative of the western left

Genuinely, bigging up some fringe crank as somehow representing the entirety of "the left" is one of the right *and* centre's most annoying - and pernicious - habits.

[pppolitics]

Back in December, Netanyahu himself told President Biden and other U.S. officials that he wants to dump the Palestinians in Egypt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/21/biden-netanyahu-dispute-palestinian-state/

Now, Netanyahu wants to dump the Palestinians in the Democratic Republic of Congo

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/

His ministers agree with such plans.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's Minister of Finance:

“What needs to be done in the Gaza Strip is to encourage emigration. If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not 2 million Arabs, the entire discussion on the day after will be totally different.”

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's Minister of National Security:

“the migration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the enclave to return home and live in security and protect IDF soldiers.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-call-for-resettling-gazas-palestinians-building-settlements-in-strip/

[pppolitics]

As Gazans return to destroyed homes, Israeli ministers push resettlement

JERUSALEM — Tariq’s neighborhood in Gaza’s Jabalya Camp was rapidly becoming a war zone when he and his family of eight fled Israeli bombing in November. When he returned home Sunday — after weeks spent scrounging for food, on the run from artillery and firefights — it was unrecognizable.

“What remained was half a house,” he told The Washington Post on Wednesday. “Ruins we could live on.”

Tariq, who spoke on the condition that he be identified only by his first name out of concern for his safety, was among the first displaced residents to venture back to homes in Gaza this week after a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops from the north. They encountered destroyed buildings, ravaged roads, piles of rubble — some with decaying corpses still uncollected — and huge uncertainty about their future.

Amid the gradual downshift from full-scale war in some parts of Gaza, the fate of the enclave and its 2.1 million inhabitants remains far from clear. As some residents trickle back to their ruined neighborhoods, prominent politicians in Israel have questioned whether they should go home at all.

Controversial proposals from some Israeli officials to evacuate Gazans to camps in Egypt or other countries are causing rifts with Washington, Europe and the United Nations, and have been included in a case filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice alleging “genocide” in Gaza. Far-right members of the governing coalition have proposed sending displaced Palestinians to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the European Union or Chile.

The Post reported in December that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had urged President Biden and other U.S. officials to pressure Egypt to open its border with Gaza and accept Palestinian refugees. A report in Israeli media last week said Netanyahu was in discussions with the Democratic Republic of Congo to receive “voluntary migration” from Gaza.

Netanyahu’s office and the Israeli Foreign Ministry declined to comment. The Congolese government did not respond to requests for comment.

Critics say such proposals could amount to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian enclave.

“Forced displacements are strictly prohibited as a grave violation of [international humanitarian law] & words matter,” Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, wrote Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, in response to calls by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for Palestinians to leave Gaza.

“What needs to be done in the Gaza Strip is to encourage emigration,” Smotrich said in an interview Sunday with Israeli Army Radio. “If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not 2 million Arabs, the entire discussion on the day after will be totally different.”

Ben Gvir echoed that call Tuesday, posting on X, that “the migration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the enclave to return home and live in security and protect [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers.”

[...]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/04/gaza-displaced-civilians-resettlement-israel/