There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
"Israel will likely aim to destroy Hamas completely following today's massacres & mass kidnappings of Israelis. Palestinian affairs expert @issacharoff makes the point: Assault on Israel succeeded far beyond what Hamas hoped, and this will now backfire."
Probably some embarrassed bluster in there. The Israeli intel and military have been surprised and humiliated, this is a pretty calamitous failure
However the diagnosis might be right - Israel will now seek to eliminate Hamas once and forever, whatever it takes
Yes, this is a personal disaster for Netanyahu, who framed himself as a Putinite 'democracy is for wimps' strongman. Of course, Hamas will know that's his raison d'etre, so a great judo move by them.
The pressure on Netanyahu from his hard right, to do something TERMINAL, will be intense. Can Israel allow Gaza to survive if iGazan militants can simply wander over the frontier and slaughter Israelis in their beds, or kidnap women and children to be tortured in Gaza?
No, it can't. And, in fact, I am not sure any country could tolerate this. Plus, Netanyahu has been deeply humiiated by this dreadful intel failure. No way this is a false flag, it's a disaster for the Israeli military
We must brace for something pretty apocalyptic in response
Regular readers will know that being braced for apocalypse is your default position.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
"Israel will likely aim to destroy Hamas completely following today's massacres & mass kidnappings of Israelis. Palestinian affairs expert @issacharoff makes the point: Assault on Israel succeeded far beyond what Hamas hoped, and this will now backfire."
Probably some embarrassed bluster in there. The Israeli intel and military have been surprised and humiliated, this is a pretty calamitous failure
However the diagnosis might be right - Israel will now seek to eliminate Hamas once and forever, whatever it takes
Yes, this is a personal disaster for Netanyahu, who framed himself as a Putinite 'democracy is for wimps' strongman. Of course, Hamas will know that's his raison d'etre, so a great judo move by them.
The slaughter is one thing - you can retaliate in kind. But the kidnappings... think Carter, Iran.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Egypt or Jordan should take them in since they're the ones who denied Palestine's right to exist originally, or possibly Iran since they're the ones who have fuelled Hamas for decades and encouraged Arafat to turn his back on peace when it was so close.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Egypt or Jordan should take them in since they're the ones who denied Palestine's right to exist originally, or possibly Iran since they're the ones who have fuelled Hamas for decades and encouraged Arafat to turn his back on peace when it was so close.
But Hamas et al hide in the civilian populations. So evacuate the civilians and you evacuate the terrorists as well.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Maybe the Middle East needs a proper hegemon, like the Ottomans.
Indeed. Or the judgement of Solomon (Sulaiman) should be an acceptable model for both Jews and Muslims. They both claim something precious - the disputed land Barty refers to if not the Golden Temple Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. So the all-powerful US/Biden threatens to nuke it unless they agree on its ownership and stop their war. The side that then declares that the other may have it in order to save the precious from destruction is awarded the prize.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It exists - but it isn't a state. A two state solution was achievable - was. I don't think that has been true for a while. Even if Israel forcibly evicts the illegal settlers and they accept this, the other side demands genocide.
Lets be very clear about this. Hamas and the rest (Iran!) want to sweep Israel into the sea. And refuse any compromise on that. So how can any two state solution ever work when one state - and neighbours - want the annihilation of the other state?
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
Russia started another invasion of Ukraine and now they might lose Crimea. That's fair.
Hamas started yet another invasion of Israel. Now if they lose Gaza that's just as fair as if Russia lose Crimea.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Egypt or Jordan should take them in since they're the ones who denied Palestine's right to exist originally, or possibly Iran since they're the ones who have fuelled Hamas for decades and encouraged Arafat to turn his back on peace when it was so close.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Given that Arafat died less than twenty years ago that illustrates much of the problem.
"Residents near Gaza Strip beg for IDF help as they fight off terrorists Speaking from safe rooms close to the infiltrated Gaza border, locals say there is little military presence in their communities as gunmen freely move house-to-house"
A resident of Kibbutz Be’eri told Channel 12 news that residents were barricaded in their homes, and believed they have been abandoned by the security forces as Hamas terrorists infiltrated their community.
“Please send troops,” Eli Messika said, using the television channel as a conduit in a desperate attempt to speak to the authorities. “There are wounded here,” he said. “There are burning houses.”
In an Instagram story timed to 9:55 a.m. cited by Ynet, a resident of Kfar Aza wrote: “I’m begging you!!! We can’t catch anyone! There are terrorists in Kfar Aza, send forces to Kibbutz Kfar Aza!!!”
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
In any case is ‘country status’ a recognised legal thing?
1. It is likely that the other parties around Israel that are hostile to it, in the West Bank & Lebanon are in on this.
2. The Israelis put a very high price on their people, civilian & military. They now face a dilemma of having to accept the possibility that to prosecute a counter offensive sizeable enough to put Hamas military capabilities back to the stone age they are going to lose a lot of their own people espcially those citizens held hostage. Personally I think they just have to accept that the hostages are as good as dead and any rescues are a bonus, anything else means making a choice to hold off and means Hamas & PIJ will come out smelling of roses.
3. Everyone is talking about the intelligence failure, and it is. Its a real feather in the cap for Hamas & PIJ that their OPSEC appears to have held together well. I suspect, however, that any inquiry will indicate some pick up of intelligence that was either a) too sporadic or b) just didnt get put together. That happens alot
4. The defence of the border settlements is actually a bigger issue than the intelligence failure. Plenty of armed capabilities Israeli side, military, law and civilian. Much of it didnt function and thats a big big set of questions.
5. Bibi may well see the demise of his career over this. All the talk, none of the delivery.
6. For the post below on how come Israel hasnt stuffed Hamas, its very hard to eliminate a terrorist/militia movement of that type by military means. You can knock them back far in terms of this kind of large scale attack capability but you can only reduce the low level stuff, rocket fire, shooting and ambushes to a point. For those who need a history lesson about what Israel could do to Hamas and PIJ, go back to the 2006 Hizbollah- Israel shoot out. People focus on the Hizbollah success but they paid heavily for it, losing a generation of their most well trained and motivated fighters and the ability to mount something like it did in 2006 for many years, something Hizbollah representatives admitted themselves
7. It will take Israel at least 48 hours to muster if they are going to go for broke and drive into Gaza in force. It will take 6-8 hours before the Israelis will have sufficient insight into the full picture and develop a full plan & actions about getting the settlements cleaned out and what they intend to do next. Everything now is highly local & reactive. Fires will keep popping up over the next 24 conrtubuting to a sense of lack of control but their public will need to be patient.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Given that Arafat died less than twenty years ago that illustrates much of the problem.
Yes, perhaps, but again it's nobody's fault that they were born.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
I agree. Ask them. But to get an honest opinion you probably have to eliminate corrupt and evil scum like Hamas, who benefit from the Gazans staying cowed and angry in Gaza
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Ethnic cleansing!
Yes that is the stated objective of Hamas and it's predecessors for the past 70 years, to wipe Israel off the map and drive the Jews into the sea. It's what the Germans did, it's what the other Arab states did.
In that context Israel has been remarkably restrained and tolerant. However ultimately when the Germans were defeated they were driven from Eastern Europe and forced to relocate to Germany.
If the Arabs in what is today gets called Palestine get driven from the disputed territory after yet another war they started against Israel is defeated, then that would be a shame but quite fitting with history.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
I agree. Ask them. But to get an honest opinion you probably have to eliminate corrupt and evil scum like Hamas, who benefit from the Gazans staying cowed and angry in Gaza
Yes, Hamas are scum. Wipe them out. Just let's not go from THAT to pushing innocent civilians into the desert.
Israel has every right to defend itself, but there are things it could do that would be going too far. For example, by becoming more like Hamas. That would obviously be both wrong AND a mistake.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
"Israel will likely aim to destroy Hamas completely following today's massacres & mass kidnappings of Israelis. Palestinian affairs expert @issacharoff makes the point: Assault on Israel succeeded far beyond what Hamas hoped, and this will now backfire."
Probably some embarrassed bluster in there. The Israeli intel and military have been surprised and humiliated, this is a pretty calamitous failure
However the diagnosis might be right - Israel will now seek to eliminate Hamas once and forever, whatever it takes
If it were so easy I’m surprised they haven’t eliminated Hamas before now. What they’ll do is increase air and drone strikes with (even) less concern for collateral civilian damage.
A not entirely rhetorical question, has a terrorist/freedom fighting (delete to taste) group ever been entirely eliminated solely by force of arms?
Tamil Tigers?
It's probably too soon to say that with certainty. You can wipe out a guerilla group if you are willing to be sufficiently brutal, including killing thousands of innocent civilians. But if the cause they are fighting for still seems valid to enough people (and the risk is it may seem more valid after you've slaughtered thousands of innocent men, women and children) then it will probably reemerge. In the Sri Lankan situation the LTTE were crushed militarily but I wouldn't say the situation is fully resolved. And in that case the international community was willing to turn a blind eye, pretty much. I can't see that happening in the case of Israel, which has more powerful enemies than Sri Lanka as well as more powerful friends. There isn't a military solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But I'm not sure there is a solution of any kind, it is really an intractable conflict.
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
it doesn't look good, and it is ongoing
"As of half an hour ago. “The IDF has not yet gained control in any of the locations that involve terrorist infiltration in southern Israel. Residents are still in shelters and report that no Israeli security forces nor available medical staff are on site.”"
"Horrific. ‘"We are being slaughtered. There is no army. It has been 6 hours. People are begging for their lives," one Israeli in a southern kibbutz said.’"
The IDF will retake these places, that is certain. The question is what do they do next?
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
Evacuate those civilians from Gaza and relocate them to an Arab or similar state where they can live in peace?
Ethnic cleansing!
Yes that is the stated objective of Hamas and it's predecessors for the past 70 years, to wipe Israel off the map and drive the Jews into the sea. It's what the Germans did, it's what the other Arab states did.
In that context Israel has been remarkably restrained and tolerant. However ultimately when the Germans were defeated they were driven from Eastern Europe and forced to relocate to Germany.
If the Arabs in what is today gets called Palestine get driven from the disputed territory after yet another war they started against Israel is defeated, then that would be a shame but quite fitting with history.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
"Israel will likely aim to destroy Hamas completely following today's massacres & mass kidnappings of Israelis. Palestinian affairs expert @issacharoff makes the point: Assault on Israel succeeded far beyond what Hamas hoped, and this will now backfire."
Probably some embarrassed bluster in there. The Israeli intel and military have been surprised and humiliated, this is a pretty calamitous failure
However the diagnosis might be right - Israel will now seek to eliminate Hamas once and forever, whatever it takes
If it were so easy I’m surprised they haven’t eliminated Hamas before now. What they’ll do is increase air and drone strikes with (even) less concern for collateral civilian damage.
A not entirely rhetorical question, has a terrorist/freedom fighting (delete to taste) group ever been entirely eliminated solely by force of arms?
Tamil Tigers?
It's probably too soon to say that with certainty. You can wipe out a guerilla group if you are willing to be sufficiently brutal, including killing thousands of innocent civilians. But if the cause they are fighting for still seems valid to enough people (and the risk is it may seem more valid after you've slaughtered thousands of innocent men, women and children) then it will probably reemerge. In the Sri Lankan situation the LTTE were crushed militarily but I wouldn't say the situation is fully resolved. And in that case the international community was willing to turn a blind eye, pretty much. I can't see that happening in the case of Israel, which has more powerful enemies than Sri Lanka as well as more powerful friends. There isn't a military solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But I'm not sure there is a solution of any kind, it is really an intractable conflict.
The "Good" IRA gave the "Naughty" IRA a good thrashing in 1923, the latter haven't really operated in the Free State/Republic ever since.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Netanyahu is finished. This is the worst failure of the Israeli military/political elite in 50 years. The one thing an Israeli leader has to do is secure the nation, above all else
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
Neither was it ok in just about every Arab state post-1947 but it's good to know that now you are springing to life about ethnic cleansing in the middle East.
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
Neither was it ok in just about every Arab state post-1947 but it's good to know that now you are springing to life about ethnic cleansing in the middle East.
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There is a whole lot of upset on X because India has made an announcement supporting Israel. If that's who you mean by the non-aligned South and not Guildford.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
But they're the aggressors.
They're the ones, like the Germans, who started the conflict. Both this year and every time for the past seventy years.
At what point does Israel like Eastern Europe get to say enough is enough and deport those who won't live in peace, just like Eastern Europe did to the Germans after the second world war?
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
Neither was it ok in just about every Arab state post-1947 but it's good to know that now you are springing to life about ethnic cleansing in the middle East.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Netanyahu is finished. This is the worst failure of the Israeli military/political elite in 50 years. The one thing an Israeli leader has to do is secure the nation, above all else
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
And he'd already alienated and infuriated every democrat and liberal in Israel and beyond. Hamas knew exactly what they were doing.
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
What do you propose gets done to force Hamas to lay down its arms?
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
What do you propose gets done to force Hamas to lay down its arms?
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Netanyahu is finished. This is the worst failure of the Israeli military/political elite in 50 years. The one thing an Israeli leader has to do is secure the nation, above all else
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
The Yom Kippur War ultimately finished off Meir & Dayan even though they plucked victory from the jaws of defeat.
Still lots of time for Bibi to indulge in disastrous and compensatory wreaking of vengeance unfortunately.
Maybe the Middle East needs a proper hegemon, like the Ottomans.
Indeed. Or the judgement of Solomon (Sulaiman) should be an acceptable model for both Jews and Muslims. They both claim something precious - the disputed land Barty refers to if not the Golden Temple Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. So the all-powerful US/Biden threatens to nuke it unless they agree on its ownership and stop their war. The side that then declares that the other may have it in order to save the precious from destruction is awarded the prize.
I see a material risk - 20%+ - that Israel nukes Iran. Takes out its oil production and export facilites. It's uranium enrichment facilities whilst it is at. Bomb the Iranian economy back to the Dark Ages.
What's the point in having nukes if they don't deter, says the great bulk of Israeli opinion. If anyone is going to use nukes, it's Bibi. Now.
(Another consequence of this may well be Putin seeing it as the perfect time to nuke Kyiv. Then we really will have the hottest October on record._
If the stories about mass kidnapping are true, this is could be a disaster. Let's hope Hamas don't go full ISIS.
Think it's a bit late for that, alas. Looks like they're going to force Israel to send ground forces in to try and rescue hostages. Given how well-prepared the attack seems to have been, you imagine that won't be easy for the Israeli army to do. There's going to be a horrific amount of bloodshed, and it isn't going to get Hamas anywhere.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
But they're the aggressors.
They're the ones, like the Germans, who started the conflict. Both this year and every time for the past seventy years.
At what point does Israel like Eastern Europe get to say enough is enough and deport those who won't live in peace, just like Eastern Europe did to the Germans after the second world war?
Well that's one way of sugarcoating what the Red Army did in 1945.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Netanyahu is finished. This is the worst failure of the Israeli military/political elite in 50 years. The one thing an Israeli leader has to do is secure the nation, above all else
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
The Yom Kippur war ultimately finished off Meir & Dayan even though they plucked victory from the jaws of defeat.
Still lots of time for Bibi to indulge in disastrous and compensatory wreaking of vengeance unfortunately.
He will be toppled, but it is highly likely - after this - that he will be replaced by someone even more hardline. I can’t see Israelis choosing a peacenik
Maybe the successor will at least be more democratic
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
SymeonBrown @symeonbrown · 2h This week the PM cancelled the HS2 from London to Manchester that would reduce overcrowding. Today I’m on a train for Manchester with the driver refusing to depart as “it’s unsafe” due to overcapacity. “The trains going nowhere until passengers leave” he says.
So put more carriages on each train. This has been a problem on the East Midlands cross country lines for years. They reduced the numbers of carriages from 4 to 2 or sometimes even 1 and it is so bad that at times people can't actually get on the train.
Rail capacity is not the big issue. Train capacity is.
The trouble is that the morons who run the railway network have decided to move away from locos + carriages type setups to units of fixed length, mostly too short. They think this is cheaper (it possibly is), but means zero operational flexibility.
One of the many reasons HSTs are so much better than their replacements is that the HST carriages were just that, and all the "making the train go" stuff was in the power cars on the end - over their working lives they have been formed in various different length rakes to suit the uses to which they were put. It also means a faulty vehicle can be swapped out of a set in an hour or so, if you've spare vehicles available, or even sent into traffic a carriage short, rather than be unavailable.
The DFT went completely the wrong direction with the IET/Hitachi stuff that's the current flavour of the month - there should have been tenders for "MK3a" stock that was fully HST compatible, and potentially at some point tenders for some new compatible power cars. If we electrified more of the network, then we could have built matching electric power cars. Instead we got expensive, unreliable, poorly built stock which can only be used in fixed rakes and with noisey diesel engines strapped under every other carriage.
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
What do you propose gets done to force Hamas to lay down its arms?
Killing hundreds of kids in not the answer....
That's what Hamas is doing.
What is the answer?
Deporting from Israel (Inc Gaza and the East Bank) anyone who refuses to lay down their arms and recognise Israel's right to exist increasingly looks like the only viable solution left, considering that Israelis have faced existential destruction for the past ninety years.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
Militarily, they’ve scored a success in the short run. Beyond that, they’ll reap the whirlwind.
In terms of propaganda, they’ll get lots of backing from countries that are useless to them, while Israel will get lots of backing from the countries that matter.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
Hmm
Quite possibly a third or a half of those Germans voted for Hitler before the war
Lots of Gazans support Hamas, and seek the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jew
Which makes things a bit more complicated. morally
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
Gaza is a vast prison, however (cruelly and brutally enforced by Israel but created by multiple actors)
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Ask them! If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes. If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
Neither was it ok in just about every Arab state post-1947 but it's good to know that now you are springing to life about ethnic cleansing in the middle East.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Reminder: Bill Clinton advised George W. Bush not to spend much effort on getting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. His thinking should be obvious: Among other things, Hamas is unwilling to make peace with PLO, much less the Israelis.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
Militarily, they’ve scored a success in the short run. Beyond that, they’ll reap the whirlwind.
In terms of propaganda, they’ll get lots of backing from countries that are useless to them, while Israel will get lots of backing from the countries that matter.
More interesting is: what does Iran want? I am certain Iran is behind this. Hamas have been assisted, massively, by a major player, and that must be Iran
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
I don't feel any sympathy for Netanyahu, but I certainly feel a lot of sympathy for Israeli civilians having their lives torn apart by the attack from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Netanyahu is finished. This is the worst failure of the Israeli military/political elite in 50 years. The one thing an Israeli leader has to do is secure the nation, above all else
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
I think the closest parallel is not the Yom Kippur War despite the date, as that was a much larger war between states, but because of the audacity and the shock factor it is more like the Munich Olympics attack. Israel never gave up going after the perpertrators of that murderous attack, their policy in response to that was simply vengeance.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
Militarily, they’ve scored a success in the short run. Beyond that, they’ll reap the whirlwind.
In terms of propaganda, they’ll get lots of backing from countries that are useless to them, while Israel will get lots of backing from the countries that matter.
More interesting is: what does Iran want? I am certain Iran is behind this. Hamas have been assisted, massively, by a major player, and that must be Iran
Those saying this is a stroke of genius like the Stark Raving Mad may be speaking very prematurely.
Seems as rational as Trump saying invading Ukraine was a stroke of genius at the start of the latest invasion last year.
Or calling Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor a stroke of genius.
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There is a whole lot of upset on X because India has made an announcement supporting Israel. If that's who you mean by the non-aligned South and not Guildford.
A shock announcement from the Muslim-hating BJP government.
"Israel will likely aim to destroy Hamas completely following today's massacres & mass kidnappings of Israelis. Palestinian affairs expert @issacharoff makes the point: Assault on Israel succeeded far beyond what Hamas hoped, and this will now backfire."
Probably some embarrassed bluster in there. The Israeli intel and military have been surprised and humiliated, this is a pretty calamitous failure
However the diagnosis might be right - Israel will now seek to eliminate Hamas once and forever, whatever it takes
If it were so easy I’m surprised they haven’t eliminated Hamas before now. What they’ll do is increase air and drone strikes with (even) less concern for collateral civilian damage.
A not entirely rhetorical question, has a terrorist/freedom fighting (delete to taste) group ever been entirely eliminated solely by force of arms?
Very frequently. The UPA, Armia Krajowa, Shining Path, Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff, Mau Mau, Malay Communists, ETA, Polisario Front, Greek Communists, Indonesian insurgents in Sarawak, Tamil Tigers. PIRA were at a low ebb militarily by 1994.
There is a video of an Israeli girl, kidnapped by Hamas, being thrown around by Hamas militants, in and out of a car
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There is a whole lot of upset on X because India has made an announcement supporting Israel. If that's who you mean by the non-aligned South and not Guildford.
A shock announcement from the Muslim-hating BJP government.
I agree huge surprise but the point is that India is part of the non-aligned South that apparently may condemn Israel.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
But when two tribes go to war repeatedly and one refuses another's right to exist then eventually enough is enough. That point was reached in WWII. The Red Army deserves a lot of criticism for most of what it did, including the ethnic cleansing in Crimea for instance deporting the Tatars, but for deporting the Germans who had elected the Nazis and repeatedly sort to exterminate people?
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Yes yes, we both agree that what Israel faces is intolerable and that Israel has every right to defend itself. It's just that ethnic cleansing goes beyond that. If Israel need to send in troops to Palestinian territory, if Israel needs to assassinate leaders of terrorist organisations, these things are drastic but within the realm of acceptability in the face of this kind of provocation.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
I think if you squint you can read @starkdawning's post as saying that the Israelis are getting what they deserve because of Netanyahu. There appears to be no lack of popular support for Hamas. Either in Gaza or indeed on many marches in London. From the river to the sea, I believe is the way it's phrased.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
But when two tribes go to war repeatedly and one refuses another's right to exist then eventually enough is enough. That point was reached in WWII. The Red Army deserves a lot of criticism for most of what it did, including the ethnic cleansing in Crimea for instance deporting the Tatars, but for deporting the Germans who had elected the Nazis and repeatedly sort to exterminate people?
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
It’s an unfortunate fact that ethnic cleansing works. Nobody will ever again dispute the Eastern boundaries of Czechia and Poland, nor the boundaries of Turkey or Greece.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Yes yes, we both agree that what Israel faces is intolerable and that Israel has every right to defend itself. It's just that ethnic cleansing goes beyond that. If Israel need to send in troops to Palestinian territory, if Israel needs to assassinate leaders of terrorist organisations, these things are drastic but within the realm of acceptability in the face of this kind of provocation.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
What is the solution then to terminate the threat from Hamas once and for all?
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There is a whole lot of upset on X because India has made an announcement supporting Israel. If that's who you mean by the non-aligned South and not Guildford.
A shock announcement from the Muslim-hating BJP government.
I agree huge surprise but the point is that India is part of the non-aligned South that apparently may condemn Israel.
Modi has his tongue up Putin's arse. Not as non-aligned as they used to be.
Does the evil Iranian regime support the killing of Jews only in Israel? No: "The AMIA bombing occurred on 18 July 1994 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and targeted the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA; transl. "Argentine Israelite Mutual Association"), a Jewish Community Centre. Executed as a suicidal attack, a bomb-laden van was driven into the AMIA building and subsequently detonated, killing 85 people and injuring over 300.[11] To date, the bombing remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentine history.[12] Argentina is home to a Jewish community of 230,000,[13] making it the largest in Latin America and the sixth-largest in the world outside of Israel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
There is a video of an Israeli girl, kidnapped by Hamas, being thrown around by Hamas militants, in and out of a car
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs did flee their homes both in 1948 and 1967.
You probably think the ethnic cleansing of Arab areas of Haifa, or of many other places after the Deir Yassin massacre, was carried out by "better humans" who were defending themselves. Whilst being generous in not just killing everyone. Or do you apply the "to the victors the spoils" morality you have also deployed here? What a combination.
National and the right-wing Act party don’t look to have the numbers to govern together.
They will need to rely on Winston Peters and his populist NZ First.
The fly in the ointment is that Act’s David Seymour has long opposed dealing with Peters who is a long-time shit-stirrer and charlatan.
Seymour has tried to be more conciliatory of late, but it’s hard to see any policy similarity between Act and NZ First, with the notable exception that they are both against the creeping rise of “co-governance”, the policy by which Māori interest groups are accorded special voting or veto powers over various state bodies.
It’s possible that Act declines to enter formal coalition with National/NZ First and offers only confidence and supply. Act may figure they can only be tarnished by a formal arrangement with NZFirst.
This is surely Winston Peters’ last rodeo. He has been in Parliament on and off since 1979 and might be looking at his legacy. It’s therefore possible that he himself may decline the “baubles of office” in preference for something more dignified, such as the Speakership.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Yes yes, we both agree that what Israel faces is intolerable and that Israel has every right to defend itself. It's just that ethnic cleansing goes beyond that. If Israel need to send in troops to Palestinian territory, if Israel needs to assassinate leaders of terrorist organisations, these things are drastic but within the realm of acceptability in the face of this kind of provocation.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
We've just seen, in the last few weeks, over a hundred thousand people ethnically cleansed from Nagorno-Karabakh.
Whatever the rights of wrongs of that situation how many outside people were interested ?
And how many of those that were thought "Unfortunate but hopefully it will bring an end to the conflict for good" ?
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
But when two tribes go to war repeatedly and one refuses another's right to exist then eventually enough is enough. That point was reached in WWII. The Red Army deserves a lot of criticism for most of what it did, including the ethnic cleansing in Crimea for instance deporting the Tatars, but for deporting the Germans who had elected the Nazis and repeatedly sort to exterminate people?
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
It’s an unfortunate fact that ethnic cleansing works. Nobody will ever again dispute the Eastern boundaries of Czechia and Poland, nor the boundaries of Turkey or Greece.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Yes yes, we both agree that what Israel faces is intolerable and that Israel has every right to defend itself. It's just that ethnic cleansing goes beyond that. If Israel need to send in troops to Palestinian territory, if Israel needs to assassinate leaders of terrorist organisations, these things are drastic but within the realm of acceptability in the face of this kind of provocation.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
What is the solution then to terminate the threat from Hamas once and for all?
What will the World do when Gaza gets pummeled and thousands of innocents die? Let me tell you - nothing! Maybe condemnation from non-aligned South but the duplicitous West will say and do fuck all.
There is a whole lot of upset on X because India has made an announcement supporting Israel. If that's who you mean by the non-aligned South and not Guildford.
A shock announcement from the Muslim-hating BJP government.
I agree huge surprise but the point is that India is part of the non-aligned South that apparently may condemn Israel.
Modi has his tongue up Putin's arse. Not as non-aligned as they used to be.
I find that a bit hard to understand. What does Russia have to offer them?
There is a video of an Israeli girl, kidnapped by Hamas, being thrown around by Hamas militants, in and out of a car
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
Killing everyone is far too far.
The humane thing to do is deport them.
Of course. I AM NOT ACTUALLY SUGGESTING THIS
I am just trying to put nyself in the mind of an Israeli, thinking: our army can no longer defend us, our Iron Dome no longer works, the Palestinians can walk in here at will and when they do they will rape our girls to death
At that point a kind of cold hearted fury would seize me, and I would avow the worst kind of vengeance, such that the Gazans could never do it again
Of course, I am sure Gazans have watched videos of Israeli brutality (and there are far too many) and felt exactly the same thing
I wonder if this ancient conflict is rising to a pitch of violence where it will finally be resolved, one way or the other. It feels like there is no turning back now, for either side
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
After ninety years of facing existential threats seeking to destroy their right to even live, then when is enough enough?
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Yes yes, we both agree that what Israel faces is intolerable and that Israel has every right to defend itself. It's just that ethnic cleansing goes beyond that. If Israel need to send in troops to Palestinian territory, if Israel needs to assassinate leaders of terrorist organisations, these things are drastic but within the realm of acceptability in the face of this kind of provocation.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
We've just seen, in the last few weeks, over a hundred thousand people ethnically cleansed from Nagorno-Karabakh.
Whatever the rights of wrongs of that situation how many outside people were interested ?
And how many of those that were thought "Unfortunate but hopefully it will bring an end to the conflict for good" ?
The tragic reality is that Israel would have been secure for the past half a century had they done this fifty years ago.
Hamas have just given them an opening to do it now, but will Netanyahu take it?
I dislike Netanyahu but if he takes the opportunity, then it will be purely Hamas fault.
Comments
"Now Palestinians are seizing tanks and other vehicles at an IDF military site east of Gaza.
Is the Israeli government still in control?
🤔
#Israel
#IsraelUnderAttack
#Gaza
#Hamas"
https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1710640654928241020?s=20
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Limited strikes on terrorists in Gaza do not work. They will need to do more. Which will be bad for civilians imprisoned in Gaza. But what is the alternative?
If this is really happening, it is completely unprecedented
Egypt or Jordan should take them in since they're the ones who denied Palestine's right to exist originally, or possibly Iran since they're the ones who have fuelled Hamas for decades and encouraged Arafat to turn his back on peace when it was so close.
If given much superior living conditions somewhere nearby, with freedom and peace, would that not be better for Gazans? It would mean they'd have to give up the hope of ever returning to their lands in Israel proper but then that's never going to happen anyway. Israel will never allow it, and Israel has nukes
In an ideal world, you would not start from here, but here is where we are
Lets be very clear about this. Hamas and the rest (Iran!) want to sweep Israel into the sea. And refuse any compromise on that. So how can any two state solution ever work when one state - and neighbours - want the annihilation of the other state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_man_of_Europe
Russia started another invasion of Ukraine and now they might lose Crimea. That's fair.
Hamas started yet another invasion of Israel. Now if they lose Gaza that's just as fair as if Russia lose Crimea.
"Residents near Gaza Strip beg for IDF help as they fight off terrorists
Speaking from safe rooms close to the infiltrated Gaza border, locals say there is little military presence in their communities as gunmen freely move house-to-house"
A resident of Kibbutz Be’eri told Channel 12 news that residents were barricaded in their homes, and believed they have been abandoned by the security forces as Hamas terrorists infiltrated their community.
“Please send troops,” Eli Messika said, using the television channel as a conduit in a desperate attempt to speak to the authorities. “There are wounded here,” he said. “There are burning houses.”
In an Instagram story timed to 9:55 a.m. cited by Ynet, a resident of Kfar Aza wrote: “I’m begging you!!! We can’t catch anyone! There are terrorists in Kfar Aza, send forces to Kibbutz Kfar Aza!!!”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/residents-near-gaza-strip-beg-for-idf-help-as-they-fight-off-terrorists/
If someone wants to be plucked out of there and given land somewhere else, and that land is freely given over to them, then yes.
If they don't want to leave, don't force them.
Honestly, this is ethnic cleansing 101. Clearing populations en masse like this isn't ok.
2. The Israelis put a very high price on their people, civilian & military. They now face a dilemma of having to accept the possibility that to prosecute a counter offensive sizeable enough to put Hamas military capabilities back to the stone age they are going to lose a lot of their own people espcially those citizens held hostage. Personally I think they just have to accept that the hostages are as good as dead and any rescues are a bonus, anything else means making a choice to hold off and means Hamas & PIJ will come out smelling of roses.
3. Everyone is talking about the intelligence failure, and it is. Its a real feather in the cap for Hamas & PIJ that their OPSEC appears to have held together well. I suspect, however, that any inquiry will indicate some pick up of intelligence that was either a) too sporadic or b) just didnt get put together. That happens alot
4. The defence of the border settlements is actually a bigger issue than the intelligence failure. Plenty of armed capabilities Israeli side, military, law and civilian. Much of it didnt function and thats a big big set of questions.
5. Bibi may well see the demise of his career over this. All the talk, none of the delivery.
6. For the post below on how come Israel hasnt stuffed Hamas, its very hard to eliminate a terrorist/militia movement of that type by military means. You can knock them back far in terms of this kind of large scale attack capability but you can only reduce the low level stuff, rocket fire, shooting and ambushes to a point. For those who need a history lesson about what Israel could do to Hamas and PIJ, go back to the 2006 Hizbollah- Israel shoot out. People focus on the Hizbollah success but they paid heavily for it, losing a generation of their most well trained and motivated fighters and the ability to mount something like it did in 2006 for many years, something Hizbollah representatives admitted themselves
7. It will take Israel at least 48 hours to muster if they are going to go for broke and drive into Gaza in force. It will take 6-8 hours before the Israelis will have sufficient insight into the full picture and develop a full plan & actions about getting the settlements cleaned out and what they intend to do next. Everything now is highly local & reactive. Fires will keep popping up over the next 24 conrtubuting to a sense of lack of control but their public will need to be patient.
In that context Israel has been remarkably restrained and tolerant. However ultimately when the Germans were defeated they were driven from Eastern Europe and forced to relocate to Germany.
If the Arabs in what is today gets called Palestine get driven from the disputed territory after yet another war they started against Israel is defeated, then that would be a shame but quite fitting with history.
Israel has every right to defend itself, but there are things it could do that would be going too far. For example, by becoming more like Hamas. That would obviously be both wrong AND a mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank#Jordanian_disengagement
"As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it"
Generally speaking, sitting civilians indiscriminately is not good propaganda. Bit weird that you don't see that.
Hard to exaggerate how bad it is. And it’s still unfurling
Another example of Brexit derangement syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
THAT's ethnic cleansing!
They're the ones, like the Germans, who started the conflict. Both this year and every time for the past seventy years.
At what point does Israel like Eastern Europe get to say enough is enough and deport those who won't live in peace, just like Eastern Europe did to the Germans after the second world war?
Still lots of time for Bibi to indulge in disastrous and compensatory wreaking of vengeance unfortunately.
What's the point in having nukes if they don't deter, says the great bulk of Israeli opinion. If anyone is going to use nukes, it's Bibi. Now.
(Another consequence of this may well be Putin seeing it as the perfect time to nuke Kyiv. Then we really will have the hottest October on record._
Seems like electing Netanyahu cos he's strong on security has gone swimmingly.
How depressing it all is.
Maybe the successor will at least be more democratic
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
One of the many reasons HSTs are so much better than their replacements is that the HST carriages were just that, and all the "making the train go" stuff was in the power cars on the end - over their working lives they have been formed in various different length rakes to suit the uses to which they were put. It also means a faulty vehicle can be swapped out of a set in an hour or so, if you've spare vehicles available, or even sent into traffic a carriage short, rather than be unavailable.
The DFT went completely the wrong direction with the IET/Hitachi stuff that's the current flavour of the month - there should have been tenders for "MK3a" stock that was fully HST compatible, and potentially at some point tenders for some new compatible power cars. If we electrified more of the network, then we could have built matching electric power cars.
Instead we got expensive, unreliable, poorly built stock which can only be used in fixed rakes and with noisey diesel engines strapped under every other carriage.
What is the answer?
Deporting from Israel (Inc Gaza and the East Bank) anyone who refuses to lay down their arms and recognise Israel's right to exist increasingly looks like the only viable solution left, considering that Israelis have faced existential destruction for the past ninety years.
"As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized it."
In terms of propaganda, they’ll get lots of backing from countries that are useless to them, while Israel will get lots of backing from the countries that matter.
Quite possibly a third or a half of those Germans voted for Hitler before the war
Lots of Gazans support Hamas, and seek the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jew
Which makes things a bit more complicated. morally
Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. That's the first priority.
There are plent of other Arab states the Arabs can live in as a last resort if they refuse to live peacefully side by side with Israel. There is no other secure Jewish homeland.
Israelis have been remarkably generous and tolerant. Not that they get much thanks for that. China, Russia etc would have committed ethnic cleansing and made the facts on the ground irreversibly fifty or seventy years ago.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this:
"The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
Seems as rational as Trump saying invading Ukraine was a stroke of genius at the start of the latest invasion last year.
Or calling Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor a stroke of genius.
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
But not shifting populations out of their homes. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing even if you think there a nice options for the ethnics you are cleansing. Doing that would make Israel as bad as that which it opposes. And it would be a gift to its enemies because it would recruit ever more people to the anti-Israel cause. It would be wrong AND a mistake.
It is unseasonably warm.
"The AMIA bombing occurred on 18 July 1994 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and targeted the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA; transl. "Argentine Israelite Mutual Association"), a Jewish Community Centre. Executed as a suicidal attack, a bomb-laden van was driven into the AMIA building and subsequently detonated, killing 85 people and injuring over 300.[11] To date, the bombing remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentine history.[12] Argentina is home to a Jewish community of 230,000,[13] making it the largest in Latin America and the sixth-largest in the world outside of Israel."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
The humane thing to do is deport them.
You probably think the ethnic cleansing of Arab areas of Haifa, or of many other places after the Deir Yassin massacre, was carried out by "better humans" who were defending themselves. Whilst being generous in not just killing everyone. Or do you apply the "to the victors the spoils" morality you have also deployed here? What a combination.
National and the right-wing Act party don’t look to have the numbers to govern together.
They will need to rely on Winston Peters and his populist NZ First.
The fly in the ointment is that Act’s David Seymour has long opposed dealing with Peters who is a long-time shit-stirrer and charlatan.
Seymour has tried to be more conciliatory of late, but it’s hard to see any policy similarity between Act and NZ First, with the notable exception that they are both against the creeping rise of “co-governance”, the policy by which Māori interest groups are accorded special voting or veto powers over various state bodies.
It’s possible that Act declines to enter formal coalition with National/NZ First and offers only confidence and supply. Act may figure they can only be tarnished by a formal arrangement with NZFirst.
This is surely Winston Peters’ last rodeo.
He has been in Parliament on and off since 1979 and might be looking at his legacy. It’s therefore possible that he himself may decline the “baubles of office” in preference for something more dignified, such as the Speakership.
Whatever the rights of wrongs of that situation how many outside people were interested ?
And how many of those that were thought "Unfortunate but hopefully it will bring an end to the conflict for good" ?
I am just trying to put nyself in the mind of an Israeli, thinking: our army can no longer defend us, our Iron Dome no longer works, the Palestinians can walk in here at will and when they do they will rape our girls to death
At that point a kind of cold hearted fury would seize me, and I would avow the worst kind of vengeance, such that the Gazans could never do it again
Of course, I am sure Gazans have watched videos of Israeli brutality (and there are far too many) and felt exactly the same thing
I wonder if this ancient conflict is rising to a pitch of violence where it will finally be resolved, one way or the other. It feels like there is no turning back now, for either side
Hamas have just given them an opening to do it now, but will Netanyahu take it?
I dislike Netanyahu but if he takes the opportunity, then it will be purely Hamas fault.