Did I say they were?
BUT - controlling the borders of a territory is part of any occupation. So while not having troops in the territory, if you control the borders, the occupation never ends.
Take away the scare quotes and I think you will find lots of agreement. Two state solution, one state solution, Egypt takes over Gaza, pretty much everyone has an opinion that isn’t ‘leave them in UNRWA refugee camps indefinitely’.
~Max
A state of affairs which only existed because Israel allowed Hamas to take over in reaction to the “END THE OCCUPATION NOW” crowd. It would have been better for everyone concerned if they hadn’t listened.
Rachel Corrie really did fuck everything up.
Or, you know, actually withdrew from Palestine.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Just call him Smaptanyahu. He hates that.
We literally have a thread in ATMB by Whinegasm about banning usage of the phrase “many people are saying”, and your cite is… That many people are saying this.
You are correct, I don’t think Haaretz would fabricate a story. I do think Breaking the Silence would, and in the past Haaretz have fallen for exactly this kind of story.
I also don’t buy, based on the say so of a couple anonymous idiots, that IDF leadership is condoning things that go against IDF policy. The IDF has been taking extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties. Yes, the Hamas ass lickers will tell you that evacuating civilians isn’t done to save lives, it’s a genocide in and of itself. That’s because the only way to defend Hamas is to engage in that kind of 1984 style logic pretzling. Here is a US urban warfare expert, who has been to Gaza multiple times during the current war, giving his analysis. Note the lack of brain rot, where he doesn’t ask you to believe that evacuating civilians is part of a master plan to genocide them:
If you’re going to ask me to believe that an army that bends over backwards to protect civilians in this way is using Palestinian civilians to set off traps in tunnels* as a matter of policy you’re going to need to provide more evidence than the say-so of a couple anonymous schmucks. Obviously, any individual incidents of inappropriate behavior by IDF personnel should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent of Israeli law.
*I note that the narrative was “there are no tunnels, Israel is lying, all they have are staged photos of empty hallways” and now it has shifted flawlessly into “the tunnels are so dangerous that the IDF sends Gazan civilians into them first”. Simone Biles better watch out!
Depends on what your policy goal is. If your policy goal is to secure a homeland for the Palestinian people, you are right. If your policy goal is to keep the Palestinian people in your back pocket as a tool against Israel, then it’s a brilliant strategy that’s been working very effectively.
You need to check your dictionary’s patch notes. They made that change in the same version where they made “genocide” and “evacuation” synonyms.
So, you are saying the Gazans have been screwed over by most everyone for nearly a century.
At the moment, most of the people there are refugees by any reasonable definition. The buildings have been bombed, lots of refugees from other parts of Gaza are there, and an awful lot of the population is living in recently erected tents.
You’d be a fool to argue against that point. Most of all, they’ve been screwed over by their own leadership.
The point Smapti is trying to make, if I understand it correctly (and if it isn’t it’s the point he should be making) is that this construction - that the Palestinians are permanent refugees in their own territory, even outside of any conflict - is precisely why the current war, and basically every war since 1973, is happening.
Before 1973 the main motivating force behind the Arab-Israeli conflict was pan Arabism. The leadership in Syria, Jordan, even Egypt to an extent wanted to kick Israel out of the region and absorb the Palestinians into a pan Arab state. After repeated military defeats, they gave up on that dream, and ceded Gaza and the West Bank to Israel.
Before this point, the Palestinians didn’t really have a way to steer events. They were a justification for the surrounding Arab powers, and potential subjects to be won, not valued citizens to be protected. But after this point, the Arab countries were no longer driving the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be up to them.
At this point, there were two paths open to the Palestinian people. Seek to regain control over the whole area, “from the river to the sea”; or work to build a country on the land they have.
Many brave and smart Palestinians chose the second option. Unfortunately, they have been killed of silenced by those who chose the first.
There are many ways that the revanchists reinforce their view of the Palestinian conflict. One is with maximalist slogans like “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”. Another is the insistence that Palestinian refugees be granted special status, where the children of (Male, can’t violate that precious Patriarchy) Palestinians are considered refugees in perpetuity, even if they are born in and citizens of other countries with moms native to that country. (Fuck the women I guess?).
This attitude is what creates terrorists (just like the equivalent attitude on the Israeli side is what creates settler fanatics). People in the West, with 0 understanding of either side or either culture, insist on projecting their own values - “oh, this is about self determination, or about being angry that a relative was killed, etc”. And of course, everyone is human, so these are issues that motivate both Palestinians and Israelis, to an extent. But these are not the primary motivators of the conflict.
On that point, you and I are in complete agreement.
Yes, and that’s true. But it’s also not really relevant to Israel’s recent bombing of whatever you chose to call the areas where Gazan refugees have gathered.
I tend to agree that maintaining permanent refugee status for people, and putting up barriers to them and their children becoming citizens somewhere, anywhere, is counter-productive to the people involved. And that’s certainly relevant to this war. And also, I think the death toll of Gazan civilians, and the destruction of their infrastructure, and the number of journalists killed, is a problem for Israel, both morally and practically. Well, morally, no matter what happens. I suppose if Israel actually does displace most of the Gazans, it might not become a practical problem for Israel.
Sure, I didn’t say it was. What’s relevant to that is Hamas’ choice to operate against Israel out of those zones set up for civilians to evacuate to.
And if the Moon Men come down and conquer the whole planet, a scenario that’s about as likely as all the Palestinians being driven out of Gaza, then we won’t have to worry about any conflicts anymore.
Even if you view events through the most Hamas colored lenses possible, I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that this is a remotely realistic outcome.
This 50+ post sidetrack about the refugee status of the Palestinians is irrelevant to the original comment of Smapti.
The Israelis bombed camps of people who had had their permanent homes destroyed, but who had been bouncing from one “safe” place to another over the last 8 months, are living in tents with limited access to food, clean water, and medicine.
If it makes Smapti feel better we can say that Israelis bombed internally displaced person camps. I am sure that makes all the difference.
90% of Gazans have already been displaced at least once. So its not like its an impossibility.
Because the IDF has been bending over backwards to get civilians out of the areas of heaviest fighting, yes. Somehow this is twisted into proof that Israel is trying to kill or drive out all of the Palestinians.
If Israel wanted to do that, the expedient thing to do would be not to evacuate the Palestinian civilians before bombing them.
You’ll note that all those displaced Palestinians are still in Gaza.
I’m not sure how you reconcile your belief that Israel would never drive the Palestinians from their land with the settlements in the West Bank. It’s not exactly far-fetched to think they might want to do it when they’re already doing the same thing openly in the WB.
To be fair, for my snarky
to be true, they’d need to drive the Gazans completely out of Gaza, not just reduce the size of Palestinian Gaza.
I kinda made that point above, although you were more explicit.
Yeah I saw your post after I had already posted.
The settlers who believe that by settling in the West Bank they can eventually claim it for themselves are delusional fools. Their ‘plan’, if you could call it that, literally relies on divine intervention. I don’t believe that they will ever be successful, either.
I’m not asking if they will be successful. The point is that the government is supporting an attempt to forcibly take land from Palestinians.
Argue that Gaza is completely different if you want. But don’t base your argument on “Israel would never do that, and it’s blood libel to suggest it,” because they already are.