bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
where do they go to?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Middle East Conflict
- Thread starter The blue phantom
- Start date
where do they go to?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,076
where do they go to?
Egypt. Temporarily, of course, but then they won't be allowed back. Will never happen, imo, and I didn't say it makes much sense. None of it does to me. But it seems to me to be the likeliest objective of the Israelis, if you assume that removing Hamas from Gaza is the aim.
Let's see if we get any pressure from the US or the international community in Egypt to take in refugees "temporarily" in the next few days, then we will have our answer.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Egypt. Temporarily, of course, but then they won't be allowed back. Will never happen, imo, and I didn't say it makes much sense. None of it does to me. But it seems to me to be the likeliest objective of the Israelis, if you assume that removing Hamas from Gaza is the aim.
Let's see if we get any pressure from the US or the international community in Egypt to take in refugees "temporarily" in the next few days, then we will have our answer.
why should Egypt take them in? Because everyone else says they should? Isn't Egypt a sovereign state with a right to determine and control its own borders?
Example - something kicks off in NI. We say "well Republicans should just move south into ROI". Scotland and Wales agree with us. Does that mean ROI should just accept refugee's from the North because it suits the rest of us? Housing. Medical and educational provisions. Meh - it suits us if they just leave. The world isn't like that.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,037
Egypt. Temporarily, of course, but then they won't be allowed back. Will never happen, imo, and I didn't say it makes much sense. None of it does to me. But it seems to me to be the likeliest objective of the Israelis, if you assume that removing Hamas from Gaza is the aim.
Let's see if we get any pressure from the US or the international community in Egypt to take in refugees "temporarily" in the next few days, then we will have our answer.
Egypt has already rejected that notion. They don't want a Palestinian national movement on their land which would inevitably use Egypt as platform for attacks as they did in Lebanon and Jordan in the past.
It wouldn't be temporary either. Israel has a long history of displacing Arabs and not welcoming them back. It's foundational.
If you want peace you help build up the economy and improve their standard of living, not have a policy of persecuting them in perpetuity.I think you need provable intent to accuse someone of genocide, rather than ethnic cleansing. Intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. Not sure you (as in "one" not you personally) can say there is that intent just now. And you certainly can't prove it.
On the other hand, I am not completely sure what the intent actually is, if you assume that the ideology of Hamas can't be removed by force, which is what I believe. That is why I can only think that removing the Palestinians en masse from Gaza is the likeliest. We will see, I suppose.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,076
If you want peace you help build up the economy and improve their standard of living, not have a policy of persecuting them in perpetuity.
Well, agreed, but the discussion was about whether what the Israelis are doing is genocide or not.
Two points:
1: Why do Hamas not surrender and put an end to this particular round of slaughter?
2: International Law. What's the point if no one has the balls to enforce the law? Without Israel breaking International Law where is the downside for Hamas having an annual mass massacre of Jews? What is the downside for Israel responding with overwhelming force?
1: Why do Hamas not surrender and put an end to this particular round of slaughter?
2: International Law. What's the point if no one has the balls to enforce the law? Without Israel breaking International Law where is the downside for Hamas having an annual mass massacre of Jews? What is the downside for Israel responding with overwhelming force?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,076
Egypt has already rejected that notion. They don't want a Palestinian national movement on their land which would inevitably use Egypt as platform for attacks as they did in Lebanon and Jordan in the past.
It wouldn't be temporary either. Israel has a long history of displacing Arabs and not welcoming them back. It's foundational.
Everybody starts with their position. Those positions can change. Relentless destruction of Gaza, loss of over 10,000 people and intense lobbying from the UN, the US and Arab states could change their position. Not sure it will, but it could be that is what Israel are aiming for. Can't imagine what their end game is otherwise.
And I did say it wouldn't be temporary, at least not from the Israeli side, no matter how it was dressed up.
I also said it wouldn't solve the underlying problem, just move it and make it somebody else's.
Anyway, all speculation on my part. Probably bollocks.
I thought you were advocating a forced exodus as the only solution. I was offering another one. My apologies.Well, agreed, but the discussion was about whether what the Israelis are doing is genocide or not.
I think this is true as well, the constant attempt to paint everyone supporting Palestinians is an antisemitic Hamas fan boy just simply stops working when there’s hundreds of thousands of them week after week in London, Paris, New York, Glasgow, Belfast, Manchester and it’s clear 99% are not Islamic extremists but normal people who can see that what’s being done to civilians is wrong.
Unfortunately that's the way arguments go. Everyone tries to grab the moral high ground, assume victimhood and question their opponents values. Remember the Brexit wars where anyone daring to vote Leave was accused of being both racist and xenophobic? Very, very few on the Remain side argued with that because it got them a bit further up the moral high ground mountain. Human nature I'm afraid.