Israel - Hamas war XIV

[fionwe1987]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Holocaust was the Holocaust. Just stop.

You brought it up. I did not.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So many people's homes are destroyed and won't be rebuilt anytime soon. Ready made property for no charge isn't bad.

Ready made property far from their homes, and insufficient to the significantly larger population, and one that, once again, requires ethnic cleansing. So yes, bad. Very bad. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Or would you prefer extended times living in tent cities? 

I'd prefer Isreal not bomb indiscriminately. Have I not been clear on this point. You're saying Isreal can create these base conditions of massive destruction with impunity. Then drive out these people from their home land, take over their land and expand its borders, and somehow this is a good deal for the Palestinians? 

You know, you're worse than the Likud idiots who want the same things. They're at least honest about not caring about Palestinians. 

You want to claim concern for them, while encouraging and supporting the worst actions. Its gaslighting, plain and simple, and thankfully, I don't think most of the folks in this thread, or the rest of the world, will fall for it. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've said they should receive significant aid. Will that happen? Idk. 

So since it may not happen, because of the actions and words of people like you, they should move? What kind of logic is that?

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, but what's the best choice when working with a lot of bad options? 

One that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing. 

[fionwe1987]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kind of important to the Israelis that Israel is recognized. 

And they won't get it if it comes at the cost of ethnic cleansing in Gaza. 

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm skipping the rest of your post. Do you have any experience working in government? Because my guess is no and I hate to break it to you, most of this kind of work is trying to decide which bad option is the best one. Every option here is awful and only going to get worse. You have to make a deal and right now neither side really will when what's going on the ground demands that they need to. 

No I only work with cancer patients, which is full of lovely options like cotton candy or toblerone for medication. Thus, I must clearly have no clue how to work through life defining decisions full of bad options. 

Look, you clearly have a need to punish Palestinians. Wrap it up in as much sugary concern as you like, the actions you propose are grotesque and immoral. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You brought it up. I did not.

I mentioned as a reason why Israel was created. This is basic shit. 

Quote

Ready made property far from their homes, and insufficient to the significantly larger population, and one that, once again, requires ethnic cleansing. So yes, bad. Very bad. 

Far from home? Dude, a flight between the two takes more time to taxi than it probably does to fly. I just looked it up. This isn't the Brits trying to relocate people to Rwanda. 

Quote

I'd prefer Isreal not bomb indiscriminately. Have I not been clear on this point. You're saying Isreal can create these base conditions of massive destruction with impunity. Then drive out these people from their home land, take over their land and expand its borders, and somehow this is a good deal for the Palestinians? 

Err, when have I ever said that? Pretty sure I've said the exact opposite. 
 

Quote

You want to claim concern for them, while encouraging and supporting the worst actions.

I actually want them to end. You seem to want them to continue by encouraging scenarios that will drag things out. Someone in the medical field (and I spent nearly a decade in it) should know know how a flowchart of bad ideas works.  

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mentioned as a reason why Israel was created. This is basic shit. 

Yes, and what's your point with that? Are you saying the same needs to happen before you'll countenance Palestinians remaining in Gaza? Or is there some completely incomprehensible reason you brought it up?

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Far from home? Dude, a flight between the two takes more time to taxi than it probably does to fly. I just looked it up. This isn't the Brits trying to relocate people to Rwanda.

Is this meant to be a joke? If not, I have a dinky piece of land a short flight from your current home to offer you in exchange for your place. Take the deal, then talk. 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Err, when have I ever said that? Pretty sure I've said the exact opposite. 
 

You're arguing the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is the best of bad options, right? Or have you changed your position mid-post?

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I actually want them to end. You seem to want them to continue by encouraging scenarios that will drag things out. Someone in the medical field (and I spent nearly a decade in it) should know know how a flowchart of bad ideas works.  

The medical profession thanks you for not spending any more time in it, then. Your flowchart seems to be the kind the Angel of Mercy types follow. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really, but I'm looking for solutions, not virtue signaling. 

At least you are honest in that regard. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip is certainly a solution with little regard to virtue or human rights. 

 

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, but what's the best choice when working with a lot of bad options? 

One that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing for starters. If your solution involves ethnic cleansing, then that's probably a bad idea, since that violates human rights. It seems like if there is any nation in the world that should be sympathetic and sensitive to matters of ethnic cleansing, it should be Israel. If you are going to accuse me of "virtue signaling" for wanting a solution that does not involve ethnic cleansing, then I think that you have lost a fundamental sense of perspective as a result of digging yourself into a hole while trying to defend indefensible, inhumane actions. 

[Ran]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Tywin is proposing forced removal. Rather, I think he's talking about a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

 

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Tywin is proposing forced removal. Rather, I think he's talking about a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

A "grand bargain" that involves mass deportation from their native lands at gunpoint after Israel destroys their lands, infrastructure, and homes in the Gaza Strip is not as voluntary or magnanimous as either you or Tywin may think it sounds nor is it any less ethnic cleansing, especially since the destruction of territory to make it less desirable often accompanies ethnic cleansing efforts. But Tywin's "solution" comes with the admission that Israel is destroying Gaza to kingdome come and that Palestinians are likely left disadvantaged in any efforts in rebuilding Gaza, unlike Israel would have. These are giant red flags of ethnic cleansing. 

[polishgenius]

 

Yeah, there's a certain amount of (I think partly deliberate tbh) talking past each other going on here.  I don't think Tywin's plan is remotely plausible, but anyone accussing him of wanting to ethnicly cleanse Palestinians is arguing in bad faith- he's clearly stated on multiple occasions that it's only viable if Gazans are persuaded to move voluntarily. Arguing against it by saying that's just never going to happen is fine, arguing against it by saying that's just never going to happen and therefore by saying that he thinks it's the most likely way to go Tywin must actually just want to force them out and is just in it hurt Palestinians is... just fuck off, man, that's dishonest argument. 

 

The opposite way goes too, mind- I don't think dismissing anyone who thinks Gazans aren't going to relocate and therefore the plan has no realistic basis as farting about refusing to consider difficult options as particularly helpful. 

 

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

mass deportation from their native lands at gunpoint after Israel destroys their lands

That's your take on it. If the people of Gaza held a referendum and all those who voted yes to settle in the West Bank went, why are they being "deported" or at "gunpoint"?

It's nonsensical.

Personally, it'd have to be entirely voluntarily, and I think while many might opt for it, many wouldn't, and I don't think the will of the majority should force the minority to do anything, or vice versa. In particular, actual native Gazans (a rather small percentage of the whole) seem to me to be less likely to go.

But that said, if like ... 80% said they'd prefer to live in the the future Palestinian state of the West Bank, the remaining 20% could be pretty easily given Israeli residence/citizenship without too much of a demographic problem, I suppose.

What are the actual numbers of who'd volunteer to go, though? No idea.

 

[kissdbyfire]

37 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

if Gazans are persuaded to move voluntarily

I think part of the issue is that there are degrees to how truly voluntary this move would be. I don’t think anyone is arguing in bad faith, just looking at this differently. If Gazans agree because Gaza has been razed to the ground and they are starving, contagious diseases are rampant and the aquifers have been rendered useless and they’re being bombed to kingdom come daily, that’s not really a voluntary decision but rather the only decision left if you want to survive. 

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Tywin is proposing forced removal. Rather, I think he's talking about a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

 

 

Can you tell me if they've volunteered for the current bombing campaign? Have they volunteered to be driven from their homes?

Then they cannot volunteer to bargain, or leave Gaza. If Gaza is rebuilt, and these refugees are resetteled, and then this bargain is proposed, they would have a chance to volunteer for it. 

This is definitely not Tywin's plan, since he's proposing moving them to the West Bank in (stated) part because it would apparently be cheaper than trying to rebuild Gaza, in his calculations. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Tywin is proposing forced removal. Rather, I think he's talking about a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

 

 

Why do the Gazans not have a Right of Return to Gaza?

If there is sincerity in that Gazans need to be disperse for the area is now since it is so unhabitable, than while the rehabilitation in that time than when those conditions are improve than the Gazans will be able to return to the new rehabilitated area.

Making Gaza unhabitable is very foreseeable based on Israel's action and considered to be a course of action which do see as illegal. The idea at any point Israel will settle after the destruction it deliberated caused make the action an act of Genocide.

[karaddin]

To be fair to Tywin he raised that particular plan basically day 1 of this round of the conflict before the IDF had destroyed most of the infrastructure and displaced most of the population. I think it's reasonable for him to argue the morality of that proposal on the basis of the pre war position since he's really just been defending having suggested it then.

I still disagree with it, I don't think a people that have been in the circumstances that have existed for a long time in Gaza can be to be truly volunteering for a land swap. It's the same principle that says you can't consent to sex under exploitative circumstances, or that we can't be subject to medical procedures without informed consent. Just because someone is forced to accept something under extreme duress doesn't mean it's truly voluntary.

And (not at Tywin here but others in the thread) it should be really fucking clear that the Palestinians in Gaza cannot truly volunteer for that after all the bombing.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

If there is sincerity in that Gazans need to be disperse for the area is now since it is so unhabitable

I don't think it's uninhabitable at all, and I'm not sure discussion of their considering moving to the West Bank is predicated on that. I think Tywin's argument has more to do with the technical difficulties about balancing a Palestinian state that's non-contiguous with Israel's reasonable concerns for security.

Personally, I think Gaza is perfectly capable of becoming a second Palestinian state on its own. There are smaller states than that in the world, and its access to the Mediterranean has value. But if the path to statehood were quicker for just a single state in the Judea and Samaria region, then many Gazans might prefer to go there rather than languish as a stateless territory.

Or not. It's all hypothetical, since I don't think anyone has polled Gazans on any of these notions. 

[Jace, Extat]

It seems to me that there are only two likely outcomes.

Your best case is that the Israeli government and some coalition of U.N.-led allies participate in a reconstruction of Gaza and support of a responsible government therein. Think Berlin in 1946, with different governments taking responsibility for different projects and management. This is your path towards something that maybe could be long term peace.

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Jace, Extat

[Hmmm]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I don't think it's uninhabitable at all, and I'm not sure discussion of their considering moving to the West Bank is predicated on that. I think Tywin's argument has more to do with the technical difficulties about balancing a Palestinian state that's non-contiguous with Israel's reasonable concerns for security.

Personally, I think Gaza is perfectly capable of becoming a second Palestinian state on its own. There are smaller states than that in the world, and its access to the Mediterranean has value. But if the path to statehood were quicker for just a single state in the Judea and Samaria region, then many Gazans might prefer to go there rather than languish as a stateless territory.

Or not. It's all hypothetical, since I don't think anyone has polled Gazans on any of these notions. 

My impression is that it is a pretty pointless discussion, since the Israelis who are opposed or skeptical to Palestinian statehood seem to be more negative to a Palestinian state in the West Bank than one in Gaza. For starters, the West Bank was the heartland of the old Jewish kingdoms, whereas the Gaza Strip always belonged to other rivalling states.

But the main reason for skepticism regarding the West Bank seem to be security concerns. The Gaza Strip's small size and location on the edge of Israel territory means that if necessary, it could basically be sealed off in a way that would make invasions like on October 7 practically impossible. Think 2 kilometres of minefields, walls, barbed wire, trenches, drone turrets, etc. The borders with the West Bank on the other hand are far longer, and located right next to most major Israeli population centers. For example, the distance between the West Bank and downtown Tel Aviv is just 20 kilometres. 

To be clear, I think the Palestinians should get both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, if ever, though. 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Hmmm

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Tywin is proposing forced removal. Rather, I think he's talking about a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

Exactly, and have said several times the ones that actually need to be forcefully removed are the Israeli settlers in the WB. It's amazing how that just gets ignored when talking about a larger plan. 
 

7 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Palestinians remaining in Gaza? 

In the short term I fear it will be hard for anyone to remain in Gaza. If you want it to be an independent country, fine, but again who is going to pay to fix it up and what do you do with Hamas? If you don't solve the latter we're just going to see a repeat of Oct 7th and then more of this. 

[Zorral]

An aspiring journalist documented Gaza’s beauty, then its destruction

"The world’s attention turned to Gaza during the early days of the war. But Israel’s blockade made it impossible for foreign journalists to enter. Palestinian reporters and photographers have been providing the only window into the carnage."

Gift link, freeing content from behind pay wall:

https://wapo.st/3REosHd

This story is a tragedy, but only one tragedy among millions. So why should anybody care.  Anyway, she asked for it, it is her fault.  And her family's fault, and all their fault, nobody else's, right?

 

[Ran]

Imagine how much richer and more beautiful Gaza would have been if militant groups didn't funnel untold hundreds of millions of dollars into weapons, terrorism, and underground tunnel networks, and instead spent it on good governance, public works, economic expansion, etc.

A real shame.

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

a grand bargain in which the Gazans voluntarily leave Gaza for the West Bank in return for various inducements that they would not otherwise get. That's not ethnic cleansing.

Um, except that is exactly how a great deal of Native American ethnic cleansing of territories operated, and in the end the Native Americans did not receive the 'inducements' either.  Getting shut into Reservations as the bits of land that were 'gifted' to them was indeed another in the forms of ethnic cleansing as most scholars, historians and those who work in the realms of human rights agree.  There are so many forms and aspects that make-up ethnic cleansing, of which out-and-out murder is only the most blatant one, and usually used in company with the multitude of others such as prohibition of practicing one's traditional religions, speaking one's native language, studying the history of how we got here, etc.

And ya, she asked for it after all.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Zorral