Why call it "so-called", if Trump helps Netanyahu's dream to be fulfilled? The next issue will be to argue that "ethnic cleansing" isn't genocide, because it isn't mentioned in the definition of a genocide (as is for example of forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, which Russia is doing in Ukraine). For the Netanyahu government, removal of Palestinians from the borders of Isreal (which include Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights) seems to be a plausible long term solution. And obtainable. — ssu
If the destabilization of especially Jordan (and Egypt) is the next issue on the agenda, then hardly anything else would be more effective that this. The last thing that the governments of these two countries want to be is willing participants and enablers of the ultra-nationalist zionists plans for moving all Palestinians out of Israel. As Jordan had to fight earlier the PLO earlier and the Egyptians are no backers of Hamas, the last thing for the two countries is to have huge refugee camps of Palestinians with Hamas.
Also, the fact that the border between Jordan and Egypt have stayed peaceful is because both of the countries armed forces can ensure their side of the peace deal with Israel. That's what an actual peace means. Hamas in the refugee camps won't have none of that. — ssu
Your enemy in a conflict is naturally destabilizing. How could it be something else, because it's your enemy?But if Palestinians (not Hamas, Palestinians) are destabilising for Jordan and Egypt despite being mostly all charitable arab-muslim brothers, then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that Palestinians ruled by Hamas can be destabilising for Israel, right? — neomac
I disagree. The PLO doesn't have it's roots in Islamism, as Hamas has. — ssu
And of course in the 1948 the neighboring Arab states weren't defending the Palestinians, but trying to carve up the former British Mandate.
And here lies the absurdity of the situation: you are referring to PA and Palestinians under Hamas, but then again would they have then their independent statehood? No. — ssu
Israel's basic paradox is that it would need a strong state capable of defending it's territory (as Egypt and Jordan) in order for there to be peace. These two countries can keep non-state actors out. Lebanon is a perfect example of a weak state incapable of controlling it's borders. Yet as there is no trust or faith in the other side, this won't happen. A Palestinian state capable of controlling it's borders would also present a threat to Israel. Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term.I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel. — BitconnectCarlos
Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term. — ssu
Yet you can see the obvious problem with let's say with the PLO and Jordan. Yes, King Hussein did give them sanctuary. But having a large independent armed force (or separate forces) in a little country isn't something very secure. The whole thing ended up with Black September, or what sometimes is called Jordanian Civil War. This event from history should be remembered, when people just assume that other Arab states should happily bare the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — ssu
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(Alarabiya News/AFP)Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Sunday welcomed US President Donald Trump’s idea to “clean out” Gaza by relocating Palestinian residents of the territory to Egypt and Jordan.
Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. — ssu
Forced removal of people where they have always lived is a vicious, hateful idea that shows how unethical or lacking moral character a person is. Refugees are given sanctuary with the idea of them being really refugees, people that go back from where they fled once there's peace. Migrants are tolerated, if they bring something to the economy. Forced transfer people aren't refugees or migrants, because they have not opted to do this in any way voluntary. It was a hideous thing for Stalin to do and would be a similar thing now for us to do or to accept. It seems that we are just racing to lower our ethical standards. No wonder values of the Enlightenment are under attack in the West.
If you desperately want to instantiate and aide the religious extremists in Israel in their dream of creating an Israel only for the Jews, then do their dirty work and assist them by opening your home to those people forced out from their homeland. Be the willing henchman yourself. Do not imagine that the forced transfer wouldn't be wrong, or that someone else would happily assist in this — ssu
Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. — ssu
Neomac, that is the issue here.Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, — neomac
Lol.Appeal to national self-determination and national statehood historically emerged and worked better at time of empires. But neither Palestine nor Israel (however shaped as a colonialist project in modern times) are empires. That’s also why comparisons to Stalin’s Russia (which actually deported Crimean Tatars) or Putin’s Russia (which actually deported Ukrainians), both motivated by imperialist ambitions, aren’t as compelling as you think. — neomac
If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.Are there more desirable outcomes? — neomac
They likely would want to come to the US. Still you can "become" American, even if Trump is making a great effort to stop that idea and go with the more traditional nativity. Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians.I think quite a few Gazans would choose to leave voluntarily if it were purely their own decision and they were promised stability elsewhere. — BitconnectCarlos
The whole Israeli objective is to make living unbearable and basically impossible in Gaza. As long as Israel's trading partners don't be upset about it as long there is no media outrage. I think that's the way the final solution for the Palestinians is implemented. — ssu
Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians. — ssu
Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, — neomac
Neomac, that is the issue here.
When have Palestinian refugees that have fled had the ability to come back?
Never.
Not after 1948, not after 1967. Hence it is simply ridiculous to assume that "Simply move the people away while the place is refurbished". It's not a naive idea, it's an astoundingly stupid, ignorant idea. Besides, if this would really would be so "temporary", then have the Palestinian camp inside Israel, built in the Negev. There's vacant room there. — ssu
Ruanda isn't an Empire. And Azerbaijan isn't an empire and neither is Burma. Yugoslavia wasn't an emprie, but killing people and cleansing the "unwanted people" away has happened in them. This isn't just done on imperial motives. So it's your argument that isn't at all compelling. — ssu
If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.
The so called "Oslo Peace process" was an oddity of a moment that won't come back. Those Israeli politicians that attempted a peace aren't getting back to power. Or then Bibi would have to fail again miserably. What we are seeing is moderate Israelis leaving the country and the previously secular Israel changing to a more religious country. And of course Israel's actions don't make it any easier for a Palestinian "moderate" to surface. — ssu
I'm not following your reasoning here at all. It doesn't make any sense.And while we can invoke national self-determination and statehood to counter imperial ambitions (see Soviet Union and Russia), we can’t do the same when national self-determination and statehood can be achieved only at the expense of other people’s national self-determination and statehood like in Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yugoslavia. That’s the impasse I was talking about and the reason why the cycle of violence can easily re-emerge, escalate and get vicious. — neomac
as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this. — ssu
I guess that the reasoning of remember 10/7 will have the lifespan as 9/11 was the reason for intervening everywhere. About two decades at most.I get it; you don't want to believe that this is the case. It would be too ugly. Many of the 10/7 victims living on those kibbutzim on the border felt the same. We can see the world how we want to, or how it is. — BitconnectCarlos
First of all, any secessionist movement where one people get independence from another is a loss to the previous state, be it Imperial Russia, Yugoslavia or Sweden (with Norway). The former state loses territory and citizens to the new state, whatever kind of state it is. — ssu
Yet states and countries have the ability to be in peace afterwards. The violent nationalism and jingoism can be put aside and relations be improved, even after a war. Norwegians and Swedes come along well, even if Sweden fought it's last war against Norway, which in turn got it's independence from Sweden with a popular vote. (Notice that Norway has been part of both Sweden and Denmark.) — ssu
The obvious fact is that Palestinians already have accepted the loss of pre-1967 territories and hold on to the UN ruling about the conquered territories during the Six Day war. The Oslo peace process was about dividing this remaining part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, to form a Palestinian state. But now that is out of the question. So I don't understand at all your idea here.
Or then you take granted the Israeli propaganda that there cannot be peace as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this. — ssu
It really isn't so different. It's just marketed as such.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization. — neomac
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization. — neomac
It really isn't so different. It's just marketed as such. — ssu
Do notice that Israel has expanded the jewish colonies in order to make more clear that the land is in doubt. — ssu
All I'm saying that this is quite similar as many other reasons given for conflicts. I agree that it's totally unfruitful to ponder who is right and wrong. The fact is that Jews moved into Israel and established their state on a former British mandate that earlier was part of the Ottoman Empire. That there is no will (on both sides, I guess) to assimilate the population that lived there causes a problem.Unfortunately it’s very much different, Jews can hold Samaria, Judea and Jerusalem their “native” land given their culturale heritage. — neomac
All I'm saying that this is quite similar as many other reasons given for conflicts. — ssu
The fact is that Jews moved into Israel and established their state on a former British mandate that earlier was part of the Ottoman Empire — ssu
This conflict could have ended as the Cold War ended in a negotiated peace, but it didn't. And now it is extremely unlikely.
That the US is an integral part of the conflict (as an ally of Israel) and Arab countries and later Iran has made the conflict a question for themselves doesn't help. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.