1. If Palestinians are allowed to move, but free to stay, that doesn't violate human rights.
2. If Palestinians are forced to move, that violates human rights.
3. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term of art for a particular kind of mass human rights violation.
This essay is very inadequate in its focus on the distinction between (1) and (2). If we're really just talking about "letting" Palestinians leave, as the title suggests, that's fine. The entire reason why people are worried about ethnic cleansing is because Trump's plan tends to suggest that leaving won't be optional. In that case, all the moral fulminations against the monstrosity of ethnic cleansing are totally justified. That's unacceptable.
Exactly. "Letting" the Palestinians leave omits multiple factors that probably won't be found in dictionary.com. The primary factor is leave or be slaughtered in the tens of thousands. True that Hamas and Bibi cynically use the slaughter to ensure that hate and desire for further bloodshed will continue for years to come, but that doesn't erase the threat that Palestinians live under.
Then you have the West Bank Palestinians. Of course they have the "option" of leaving, but I'm pretty sure the consequences of staying need to factored in. The consequences for farmers include not having water for crops or simply having their land expropriated to make room for settlers -- settlers who happen to be armed religious zealots whose strategy is not that different from Hamas'. Sure, sacrifice a few lives here and there to justify attacks on their Palestinian neighbors. Sustained antagonism is a great strategy and the lost lives are clearly good for the cause.
But all these words will go for naught as soon a Mr. Hanania finds a pic of a hot Palestinian woman because in TrumpWorld, points are proven by aesthetics.
I've lived in different cities separated by thousands of miles. None of them were my ancestral homeland. I'm doing great.
The fixation on a tiny bit of crappy real estate that used to have some village on it is just ridiculous. The Palestinians need to win. It's core to their identity.
If they wanted to simply enjoy normal lives, that is eminently feasible. It's just not their aim. The most humane thing to do might involve coercing them on this point.
Does that mean in Israel or will they just be dumped somewhere in the Sinai? Or maybe a comfortable ghetto so they can continue their quaint tradition of being part of community -- you know: where they maintain relations with extended family and life-long friendships.
I'm sorry, you don't know. you apparently have no clue about that since you believe that you can impose your own sense of uprooted isolation on them. It's so easy to pack up your laptop, travel a thousand miles to an AirBnB close to a Starbucks and a Chili's. Home sweet home, right?
I care about Palestinian well-being and observe that relocation would be in their best interests. At the very least, they should be given the option. I think the utter unwillingness of their supposed allies to even consider granting them that option is very telling.
100% correct Nathan! One need not even use the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ for it to be immoral, unjust, impractical, etc.
It’s strange too because I feel like we just went through 18 months of people whining about how any desire to take Israeli territory was ‘holocaust, extinction, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, etc.’ but now with Palestinians it’s a whole new tune.
How is the Palestinian slogan "from the river to the sea" supposed to be interpreted, aside from ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the area?
Doesn't the alleged illegitimacy of the Jewish presence in the region basically imply that the Jews should be ethnically cleansed, since the Palestinians "got there first"?
So isn't it a bit hypocritical to oppose Palestinian resettlement on principle?
I view Israel's actions in Palestine as deeply immoral. Yet it seems to me that being forced to move is *more* merciful than having your home destroyed, your children killed, your relatives starved, etc. As tragic as these events were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world it seems to me that they're less traumatic than what the Palestinians are currently going through.
In an ideal world, resettlement wouldn't be necessary. In an ideal world, Israel and Palestine would do a gigantic group LSD trip and learn to live in harmony. But that's not the world we live in, and from a humanitarian perspective, resettlement seems like an upgrade on the status quo. So it seems weird to oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
If you look closely at the two major players in this conflict (Hamas and Bibi's coalition) you'll find it hard to support either side without advocating ethnic cleansing. For Hamas, it's overtly explicit in their stated goals and actions. For Bibi, it's sometimes explicit according to some in his coalition and implicit in the strategy of allowing settlements of the most extreme Zionists on land illegally expropriated.
Not everyone who uses that "from the river..." phrase means the same thing by it, but many people mean it to support the elimination of the state of Israel and support for a multiethnic one state solution, not the ethnic cleansing of Jews. You can argue that in practice this would be the result, but that's debatable and not required in a one state solution.
And you can make reasonable counterarguments. And even if your argument were right, the people who disagree don't all know that. They could be naive - or, they could be envisioning a more gradual and historically effective process for reconciliation/coexistence than you give them credit for.
The point is not your opinion on the outcome, the point is whether it's fair to beg that question in interpreting the intent/motives of people with a different opinion.
It's naiveté, certainly, but a special kind of naiveté that considers potentially very negative consequences for Israelis as either immaterial or even desirable.
Yeah, the reason why people freaked out about Trump's "Gaza Riviera" comment wasn't primarily that he was saying we should take in Palestinian refugees but that it at least came across as forcibly and permanently removing all or nearly all Palestinians from Gaza. Those are two very different things.
You can also make a distinction between supporting refugees fleeing and supporting the activity that makes them flee. We wouldn't say Russia's invasion of Ukraine is fine, and the problem is just that the Ukrainian government has decided to fight rather than just have their entire nation apply for refugee status elsewhere (well, Tucker Carlson might, but I wouldn't). The order of preference probably should be 1) eliminate the conditions creating refugees; 2) allow refugees to leave; 3) force refugees to stay. This post seems to ignore (1).
This is obviously made more complicated by the fact that Israel has legitimate reasons for fighting in Gaza, but you can also ask that, to the extent reasonably possible, they handle that fighting in a way limits the extent to which Palestinians civilians are forcibly displaced with the expectation that those that are are allowed to return home when the fighting is over, which is how we've expected wars to be prosecuted at least since WWII. Not everyone has followed this expectation, but we've typically considered people who don't to be bad actors.
They want to leave they were paying 5 to $10,000 to be smuggled out through Egypt
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
I think I read that the word 'Palestinian' in Hebrew means 'invaders'. Or else 'Philistines'. If the shoe fits, have them wear it. I am so angry with groups like the Muslims attacking Israel verbally and physically. Leave Israel the fuck alone. It left the Gazans in peace and plenty, yet it seems Hamas continually whines and claims victimhood, and wants 'the West' to support it, and cries like a baby for food and money. These are grown men! Go get jobs! I'm about to lose my composure, as I'm sure most of us are. Fear our loss of composure, Iran.
If the government forces me to move due to eminent domain, is that a monstrosity?
Does the morality of such eminent domain action change if eminent domain is invoked for an entire neighborhood which just happens to be ethnically homogenous, which is legitimately sitting in the perfect place for a stadium / railway / etc.? Or is such "ethnic cleansing" for the purpose of building municipal infrastructure acceptable? Why should the morality of such an act change depending on the ethnic composition of the neighborhood?
I just don't see why being forced to move is such a terrible thing. I don't think it should rate nearly as high as other crimes against humanity.
You have due process and compensation for eminent domain. And the use of it to destroy ethnic neighborhoods is actually a pretty big part of the history of systematic racism! "Highways are racist" was wildly mocked a few years ago but it was talking about exactly this, which happened across America in the 1950s and 1960s
So due process and compensation turns it from "crime against humanity" to "basically OK"? Would you say the same thing for any other crime against humanity? And, why shouldn't we have due process and compensation for the Palestinians?
If we gave Palestinians due process and compensation it would not be a war crime. Yes, it's a crime for me to pin you down in handcuffs and put you in a cell for funsies. But if it is done through a legitment system of government with due process, it's okay. It's a war crime to gas helpless civilians, but it's okay to put your own soldiers through tear gas training because they agreed to do it.
Trump's plan, as he announced, is to forcibly clear everyone out at gunpoint, put them "somewhere", flatten everything left and build a beautiful riveria resort possibly owned by the United States. That is ethnic cleansing, particularly when you consider that gaza, right now, is a stateless ethnic group crowded into land controlled by but not politically enfranchised by Israel. Now, maybe you disagree with the idea that ethnic cleansing is any worse than anything else that happens in war. But this action is definitionally ethnic cleansing.
Cool. So perhaps the synthesis of your position and my position is: Don't automatically reject this idea on the basis of it being "ethnic cleansing". Instead, specify what sort of due process and compensation would make it ethical (e.g. can we put together a random citizen's assembly of Gazans and hold a referendum on a proposal where they get a profit share on the resort?) Maybe then we could actually get somewhere on this intractable conflict.
Yep, it sucks. Getting evicted sucks. Getting deported if you overstay your visa sucks. You're not a victim of a crime against humanity though.
In this case, it could be the least cruel realistic alternative in this situation, like tearing off the bandaid. Imprisoning Palestinians in the hellscape that's Gaza seems cruel as fuck.
Let's expand it to a trichotomy then. What's your proposal for the Palestinians? If I recall correctly, majorities in both countries are against a 2-state solution.
Opinions & positions on it in the region have shifted this way and that for 30 years, but the above is always the aim of all good faith parties, and there have been a handful of moments where there was hope. I have no inclination to lower aspirations in order to accommodate patently evil men like Netanyahu.
This is not correct. #2 is totally wrong. It is NOT a violation of human rights to force people to relocate. It is only a violation if the relocation is done without a legitimate purpose, such as based on ethnicity. There are many valid reasons for forcibly relocating people. One such reason is if they continuously make war on their neighbor and refuse to stop. Saying that people have a right to stay in that situation is madness and morally insane.
Morally, you are claiming that one group of people are more entitled to land than the other group of people are entitled to *live*. This is nuts.
Which historical forced relocations would you not support, based on these criteria? Was the Trail of Tears justified? What about the expulsion of Armenians?
Hanania is arguing 1. Hence the opinion polls showing high support for emigration. Did Trump actually say “we will force all of them to move”? He said that the area is uninhabitable and that they should move. And Trump often says outrageous things to move the Overton window and get a “good deal”. Netanyahu was saying that Gazans should be *allowed to move*.
Trump bullshits constantly to the point that no one believes a thing he says. This is not “moving the Overton window” unless you just mean that everyone knows he is full of shit.
Is it inadequate in its distinction? I think it pretty clearly advocates for (1) which is currently not happening. The Egyptian government position is actually that (1) is ethnic cleansing.
Worth adding that the goal of the UN Refugee Agency, covering everywhere except Palestine, considers resettlement a durable solution. Only in one part of the world is resettlement taken off the table.
The problem with voluntary resettlement is that, precisely in proportion to how voluntary it is, it is the smartest, most reasonable, least fanatic Palestinians who will leave. That's good for them, but it would only make the local problem worse.
Yeah the Palestinian society has degenerated from halfway in between Greece and Somalia, with EHC Christians like Tawfiq Canaan, to being something maybe marginally better than Somalia.
Is that actually true though? If your hypothesis was true then Israeli Muslims would be significantly dumber than Palestinian Muslims. Any evidence that’s the case?
I guess there you had less fleeing from big cities like Haifa and Jaffa so the selection effect might have gone the other way. Not to mention Christian and Druze were more likely to stay.
I am fairly certain that more Palestinians have left the occupied territories than Israel over the past 50 years.
In 1948, the selection effect was the opposite, certainly, because the vast majority of cases where Palestinians had to flee was because their town or village was being used as a paramilitary base. The smarter ones didn't allow that, or just went to live somewhere else in Palestine/Israel. I remember once listening to story about an Arab who got kicked out in 1948, and they were going to walk it to Lebanon, but then they figured they would just go stay with their cousins in another Arab village, and they did and built themselves a house. Leaving in 1948 demonstrated low agency, not high; the opposite of today.
Interesting. I do know that Christians in 1948 were more likely to stay. The Haganah/IDF was more careful around Christian villages.
When you look at Israeli Muslims vs Palestinian Muslims, I guess you have to control for the fact that a nontrivial number of Israeli Muslims are Bedouin, who are sadly inbred and lower IQ.
Everyone is also ironically forgetting that Palestinian desire to leave is just one part of the multifaceted equation. What if Egypt doesn't want them? What if Hamas starts shooting? What if Israel decides to keep it for themselves? None of this has even been considered much less explained!
Settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing are magic words (used more for emotional effect). The underlying reality is two tribes of people fighting over land.
I agree that those are being used as magic words. I also agree that it's two tribes fighting.
The problem is that the modern world lacks the means to deal with these kinds of conflicts. In previous eras, Israel would conquer Gaza and impose its will on the territory and people. Those people would stay or leave as they were able and interested, and the world would accept the equilibrium. We no longer approve of one people conquering another, and the Gazans are far too weak to resist Israel, so we're in an awkward stalemate. As Richard mentioned, this situation is also very unique in that refugees are not being allowed to leave. Hamas doesn't want them to leave, and the rest of the world doesn't want to take them. Even Syrians were able to leave, and did so in vast numbers.
It feels like there are forces being brought to bear on this case to try to prevent any resolution. Either a "natural" resolution like Israeli takeover and refugee dispersion, or something like Trump's plan where the people are permitted/forced to leave even without a military occupation by the conqueror.
What a strange essay. As other commenters like Nathan Smith have pointed out, the only distinction that matters here is "letting" them leave versus "making" them leave. Why you completely ignore this distinction is hard for me to understand.
Homogeneous societies do best and with 57 Islamic Nations and 22 of them being Arab there's plenty of room for them to be absorbed into the infrastructure of Qatar which built in hotels for the recent games and Saudi Arabia has its long skinny City qataristinians 👌
71°
5G
E Menu
2 new comments above.
2
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in Australia. They're happy in the West but never really happy
They’re happy in Gaza, I think you just made that up. Their issue is they don’t have freedom of movement and no ability to control their own borders. Hence, the Oct 7 attack. If Israel removes the blockade then that’s the easiest solution and wouldn’t require mass importing 1.7 million into the west.
Gazans are pretty industrious and had a high literacy rate pre War despite terrible conditions. For example the standard of living in Gaza isn’t all that worse than the standard of living in Egypt pre war. Are we sure their lives actually improve in Jordan and Egypt?
You used “terrible conditions” and “the standard of living in Gaza isn’t all that worse than the standard of living in Egypt pre war”. LOL. Which one is it? Are they industrious? Modern hospitals and schools and universities there were all built with money and help the entire world provided. That “open air prison” supplied them with quality education, healthcare and decent per capital income.
How in practicality can they stay in Gaza? There is nothing left. It will take years to rebuilt.
Since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza following Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023, more than 100,000 Palestinians have crossed the border into Egypt.
However, the exact number of Gazans leaving through Egypt per year is not specified in the provided context. The current situation involves Palestinians paying thousands of dollars to travel agencies or brokers to escape Gaza, but upon reaching Egypt, they face uncertain futures without jobs, rights, or the ability to leave.
Why not resettle them in Canada, as it will soon become our 51st state? Alas, despite Trump's anti-immigrant policies, I think a large percentage will wind up as political refugees somewhere in the lower 48.
That isn't a terrible idea. One of my coworkers at my old job was a Palestinian-American. He was a nice guy and did good work. I wouldn't mind having more people like him in the country, as long as the government did a good job of vetting them to make sure no crazy terrorists managed to slip in with them.
Richard himself is a Palestinian American on his dad’s side. His mom is Jordanian. But of course he’s Christian by background so it’s a different population.
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
I’m not knowledgeable about the circumstances or the history. I’m just trying to understand how Richard defines his terms. Forced migration happened in Yugoslavia in the nineties and I remember it commonly being referred to as ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing is what happened when the Jews moved out the Jews from Gaza in 20o7.
Or when they had to flee the Arab countries after Israel.
For clarity
Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced population transfer but has distinct goals and methods. Ethnic cleansing involves the systematic forced displacement of a persecuted population from a specific territory, often accompanied by violence and atrocities, with the intent to remove the targeted group entirely.
In contrast, population transfer can be a more neutral relocation of people between states or regions, without the specific intent to exterminate or forcibly remove an ethnic group.
Ethnic cleansing is often described as part of a continuum of violence, where the most extreme form is genocide, which aims to destroy an entire group.
While both ethnic cleansing and genocide may involve forced displacement, ethnic cleansing specifically aims to displace a group rather than destroy it.
The term "ethnic cleansing" has been used to describe various historical events, including the forced migrations and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
These events involved widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law, leading to the establishment of international tribunals to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
Despite these definitions, there is ongoing debate and controversy over the precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing within international bodies.
Yes and tragic. If you look at a map though you quickly see it becoming a part of Armenia or being autonomous was never going to happen. It’s literally encircled by Azeri land and shares no border with Armenia.
Also Israel is an Azeri ally and aided the ethnic cleansing through arms sales. Jews and Muslims working together to cleanse Christians. Only in the Middle East.
Aliyev is a terrible dictator but he's no jihadist. This is about nationalism, not Islam. Religion is not really used as a rallying cry. The Muslim world doesn't care much about the conflict.
To say that they aided the ethnic cleansing by arms sales is vague but not a clean analogy.
I remember at the time seeing normal folks being sent to the border by the thousands and thought how is this happening and then it was over in the world shrugged
Speaking of a Christian perspective from the Middle East
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
I feel for you and for Lebanon. It’s a tragedy and deeply unfortunate.
This is why Egypt shouldn’t be forced to take in Gazans. They have a persecuted and beleaguered Christian minority along with huge radical Islam problems and the last thing they need is more Muslim radicals. Same for the Jordanians.
I posted a video of a Jordanian legislator who identifies as a Palestinian who points out all kinds of truths that I as a team Israel dude did not know.
Historically Jordan is Palestine and he wants to illegalize incitement of any religious sort in the same way that bukele took on the gangs in his homeland. He intends to be prime minister / president and is calling out the hashemite Muslim Brotherhood connection which I was unaware of the nuances and subtleties in intricacies of levels of evil within Islam
Agree fully with you on Egypt who needs to be held accountable for what you mentioned and much more.
I've been reading Raymond Ibrahim for years and now he's on YouTube, he calls it the bandit theology and the Coptic population in Egypt has churches burned regularly.
Trump gave a 2017 speech to the Arab League that I also posted that's a game changer in that he's the first American President to not play along with the Islam is the religion of Peace facade that bush foisted upon us, the same Bush that foisted the PLO from their deserved exile in Tunisia into the heartland of Israel to create more pain and suffering.
An additional note: governments of Arab countries have the same incentives as Hamas. They want to use the Palestinians as weapons against Israel, partly in furtherance of stupid political games and partly in furtherance of an Islamic prophecy that says the Israelis will be exterminated with the aid of trees that will yell out whether Jews are hiding behind them (I am not making that up).
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
Allowing Palestinians to voluntarily leave Palestine is good and moral, and as far as I can tell this is already possible. However Trump has been ambiguous regarding whether Palestinians will be forcibly resettled or not (https://apnews.com/article/trump-gaza-plan-palestinians-israel-3f12eb51869da2221afbb22b0bcf47ba). This second option is inmoral, and many think that this is what Trump has in mind, which is why they criticize the plan.
On top of this, there is the problem of where will Palestinians go; Jordan and Lebanon are cautionary tales for any country. But even if this plan succeeds in removing the people from Gaza, it's unlikely that this will solve the problem long term; Israelis are an example of people who were removed from their homeland, and they spent much of the following two millenia trying to go back.
This plan is infeasible, and possibly (probably?) inmoral and illegal. The tragedy of this conflict is that essentially all other solutions are infeasible, inmoral, or both.
It is not possible for people to leave Gaza. No country is willing to take them, and there are even walls up to keep them in (including one maintained by Egypt). Allowing them to leave would be a huge humanitarian win, but apparently everyone thinks that it would be bad for their own country to allow any in, let alone large numbers.
Normally the western world would agitate against countries who refuse, but there seems to be less appetite for that in this situation. Frankly I don't blame them, Jordan had a very bad experience with their Palestinian population trying to overthrow the country.
When I say that it is possible for Palestinians to leave, I mean that Israel does allow them to leave, at least legally. Of course many countries don't want to allow them in, which is a problem that the Trump plan does not solve.
It certainly doesn't right now, but his efforts appear to revolve around convincing or bullying some country or countries to take them. He seems very aware of that problem.
Since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza following Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023, more than 100,000 Palestinians have crossed the border into Egypt.
However, the exact number of Gazans leaving through Egypt per year is not specified in the provided context. The current situation involves Palestinians paying thousands of dollars to travel agencies or brokers to escape Gaza, but upon reaching Egypt, they face uncertain futures without jobs, rights, or the ability to leave.
I'd like to see Trump for citizenship for them upon where they've been resettled to for decades and held in camps and treated malevolently as a population to be caged and used as a weapon as you said
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
It makes little sense to talk about “Palestinians” either.
There are residents of Gaza and Arab residents of the West Bank.
A Palestinian state in the West Bank is feasible as part of a grand bargain with Israel swapping land for peace.
But as long as Gaza remains a reservoir for permanent anti-Israel aggression there is no feasible way it can be independent either on its own or as part of a union with the West Bank. All
the Arab states know this too.
Gaza needs a creative solution or else the events of the last 18 months will just be repeated for decades to come.
Alamasri is the most common last name in Gaza which means the Egyptian economic migrants from decades ago have a permanent grudge against Israel and are finally being shown reality and Israel being allowed a defeat of the incessant jihad waged against it since it's founding
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in Australia. They're happy in the West
It's actually quite simple - if you're doing the resettling by force it's bad, if you're doing it through incentives it's good. I don't know at what scale resettlement by force becomes "ethnic cleansing" but at any meaningful scale it's probably a war crime and is morally repugnant.
Every other population of war has been resettled except for the malignant knife of the Palestinians being held against the throat of Israel and the West for 70 years after the Arabs started wars and lost repeatedly Trump's 2017 speech calling out the Arab League and demanding its civilizational change in renouncing terrorism was only released recently acknowledging the Muslim Brotherhood has had a plan in place since 1991 to take over North America and the world with a caliphate is elemental foundational knowledge going about the world.
Fight the Jews and Christians until they pay the jizia
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Historically ethnic cleansing has been a great way to solve otherwise intractable problems. No more worries about Germans in Sudetenland or Danzig anymore, are there? And it isn't like their grandkids are sitting around wishing they were there.
Pakistan was created to house India's Muslim population, and both Hindus and Muslims make big moves to resettle in the "appropriate" territory. I don't know if this was a good thing, but from all accounts it appears to have been a *necessary* thing. I don't recall ever hearing it called Ethnic Cleansing.
The 20th century was full of forced migrations as empires broke up and the people were arranged inside the new borders.
What happened to the Palestinians was not the most extreme but not the most gentle example either.
However it’s one of the very few forces migrations outside Sub-Saharan Africa that is still a source of massive grievance today. Everyone else has moved on literally and figuratively.
I think that was because the government didn't force anyone to move. There are still a lot of Muslims in India today. Additionally, the borders were drawn to reduce the amount of people who needed to move. The area that became Pakistan already had the majority of Muslims in it.
1. Hanania claims that instead of looking at definitions, we should look at principles. The principle he lists is: "are the rights of individuals being respected?"
Will Palestinians leaving from Gaza have the right to return to Gaza?
Hanania never asks this question in the article. Even Sean Hannity (not an intellectual heavyweight) asked this to Trump. This is because Hanania knows the answer, which Trump gave an unambiguous answer to:
"No".
2. Hanania claims that "After all, it was never America’s intention to use violence and terror to induce civilians to leave Gaza."
Gee, I wonder: was Gaza hit by an earthquake or something? Somehow the violence of the past 15 months -- which the US supported militarily, diplomatically and financially -- doesn't count?
3. Hanania is also so concerned about humanity towards Palestinians and is angry at people who don't allow them to leave. So why not any anger at Israel, which has put Gaza in a blockade by land, sea and air, for the past 20 years? Israel controls the Palestinian population registry, which means it controls all migration. (https://gisha.org/en/the-population-registry/)
------------------
Hanania's Israel's posts have a "-50 IQ" tag attached to them. Otherwise intelligent people can have such blind spots. Like any woke person discussing transgenderism, IQ or racism.
What other people have a "right of return"? I don't think that was true of the Volksdeutsche in eastern Europe, Greeks & Turks moved in population exchanges, or Hindus & Muslims after the Partition of India.
I already gave the link about the right under international humanitarian law. It's based on the Fourth Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949 after WW2.
All displaced people have a right of return. Sometimes (often), the right is not exercised. But the right exists.
Now, you may say, you don't care about the right. But Hanania says that respecting people's rights is one of his principles. So I was responding to that.
Most of Gazans (about 80%) are there in the first place because they (or their ancestors) were displaced from what is now Israel. They already have, for practical purposes, given up their right to return to Israel.
Now you want them to give up their right to Gaza as well?
---
If you want to apply the partition of India to this case, recognize that it was a two-state solution. The refugees had a state where they could be settled.
Here, there's only one state - Israel. Many Jews from the Arab world settled in Israel.
Palestinians don't have a state, because Israel occupies it and refuses to withdraw.
One little point. The 1948 refugees don’t have a right to return to Israel because no international law guaranteeing such a right was in force at the time. As you said the Geneva Conventions weren’t adopted until August 1949, after the war was over.
However with Gazans today then IHL would take a different view.
You're incorrect in saying that the 1948 refugees don't have a right of return. The position of most international law scholars, as well as the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, is that they do have the right.
It's true that the case is not as clear cut as after 1949. But there were precedents which apply to this case.
In practice, the return is not going to happen, except in a symbolic sense as part of a hypothetical two-state solution. All negotiations accepted this fact. Israel indicated that it will be willing to accept some tens of thousands, while Palestinians wanted it to be in the hundreds of thousands.
The only writing of mine in print is a preface to "The Myth of Natural Rights". Claiming something is a "right" in a normative sense means nothing to me, as I don't believe in objective norms. Descriptively, I don't see any such right existing in practice.
> If you want to apply the partition of India to this case, recognize that it was a two-state solution. The refugees had a state where they could be settled.
When Israel was created the remaining territory was not some second state called "Palestine". Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held the Gaza Strip until the Six Day War in 1967. That's three states. More recently the Gaza Strip & West Bank have been divided between Hamas & Fatah, which again add with Israel to make three states.
1. You're free to not believe in the right. I said that above. I was responding to Hanania's claim that he wants to respect people's rights.
2. I'm afraid your history is rather wonky.
Just like the partition of India, there was supposed to be a partition of Palestine in 1947 into two states. Israel was allotted 55% of the land and the Arab state was alloted 45%.
Both sides disagreed on the plan and there was a war in 1948 -- just like there were several wars between India/Pakistan, for example, in Kashmir and what is today Bangladesh.
In 1948, during the war, Israel expanded to 80%. The rest 20% was occupied by Jordan and Egypt -- which nobody recognized as legitimate occupation.
That expansion of Israel from 55% to 80% is a done deal; nobody talks about it now.
The only question alive today is of the 20%, which Israel conquered -- in a new war in 1967 -- and has held for the last 60 years.
In fact, the 1948 territorial question is so dead, that the comment I was replying to started from 1967, as if 1948 never happened. That's because everyone today starts from 1967.
The only live question from 1948 is the refugee question. Even that, for practical purposes, is mostly symbolic. As I linked above.
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
How do you ignore the militarized wall of Egypt which facilitated profitable human smuggling for Egypt and facilitated arms transfers into Gaza from Egypt yet it was a prison with five star hotels and restaurants in mansions where Hamas leadership dwelled
They were refugees in Gaza yet they lived in Gaza yet never formed a functional state in Gaza therefore they are dysfunctional and now live in a dysfunctional state
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
Egypts and Gazans are both arabs, but I don't think the Gazans would actually make for as good citizens as Ukrainians. Historically they've made a lot of problems.
You asked what seemed to be a non-rhetorical question.
I answered that Egypt is the place that is closest in terms of geography and culture. It is also populous enough to absorb Gazans without too much disruption.
Whether this is desired by any of the parties is another matter.
This aspect of the problem will actually get easier to solve over time, because the more functional Middle Eastern countries are tipping over into negative demographic growth, and will eventually have labour shortages they need filling.
Palestinians don't work. They don't work in Palestine and they don't work in the West. (Oddly the only place where they were once employed in large numbers is Israel, but of course that's over now.)
Jordan was magically created by Britain when it abrogated the San Remo agreement and the Balfour declaration and unilaterally gave away 80% of the land intended for the Jews to a hashemite prince from Saudi Arabia who runs the place now after his father who in 1970 had to deal with the phallustinians as needed by killing 30,000 of them after their hijacking extortion and murderous antics brought scoring upon the illegitimate country intended for the Jews.
71°
5G
E Menu
2 new comments above.
2
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Quibbling over definitions is a ruse. The primary issue is shit people blaming others for their own inadequacies. Because they refuse to honestly reflect on and challenge their own positions, they rationalize and project evilness onto others. Since every attempt to appease the Palestinians has failed, letting them disperse is the best option now with the proviso that they get their shit together and stop blaming others. And we need to stop and challenge the claims of oppression and victimhood.
So this is very simple:
1. If Palestinians are allowed to move, but free to stay, that doesn't violate human rights.
2. If Palestinians are forced to move, that violates human rights.
3. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term of art for a particular kind of mass human rights violation.
This essay is very inadequate in its focus on the distinction between (1) and (2). If we're really just talking about "letting" Palestinians leave, as the title suggests, that's fine. The entire reason why people are worried about ethnic cleansing is because Trump's plan tends to suggest that leaving won't be optional. In that case, all the moral fulminations against the monstrosity of ethnic cleansing are totally justified. That's unacceptable.
Exactly. "Letting" the Palestinians leave omits multiple factors that probably won't be found in dictionary.com. The primary factor is leave or be slaughtered in the tens of thousands. True that Hamas and Bibi cynically use the slaughter to ensure that hate and desire for further bloodshed will continue for years to come, but that doesn't erase the threat that Palestinians live under.
Then you have the West Bank Palestinians. Of course they have the "option" of leaving, but I'm pretty sure the consequences of staying need to factored in. The consequences for farmers include not having water for crops or simply having their land expropriated to make room for settlers -- settlers who happen to be armed religious zealots whose strategy is not that different from Hamas'. Sure, sacrifice a few lives here and there to justify attacks on their Palestinian neighbors. Sustained antagonism is a great strategy and the lost lives are clearly good for the cause.
But all these words will go for naught as soon a Mr. Hanania finds a pic of a hot Palestinian woman because in TrumpWorld, points are proven by aesthetics.
We're talking about moving people a few miles.
I've lived in different cities separated by thousands of miles. None of them were my ancestral homeland. I'm doing great.
The fixation on a tiny bit of crappy real estate that used to have some village on it is just ridiculous. The Palestinians need to win. It's core to their identity.
If they wanted to simply enjoy normal lives, that is eminently feasible. It's just not their aim. The most humane thing to do might involve coercing them on this point.
"...a few miles..."
Does that mean in Israel or will they just be dumped somewhere in the Sinai? Or maybe a comfortable ghetto so they can continue their quaint tradition of being part of community -- you know: where they maintain relations with extended family and life-long friendships.
I'm sorry, you don't know. you apparently have no clue about that since you believe that you can impose your own sense of uprooted isolation on them. It's so easy to pack up your laptop, travel a thousand miles to an AirBnB close to a Starbucks and a Chili's. Home sweet home, right?
Good for you!
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I care about Palestinian well-being and observe that relocation would be in their best interests. At the very least, they should be given the option. I think the utter unwillingness of their supposed allies to even consider granting them that option is very telling.
100% correct Nathan! One need not even use the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ for it to be immoral, unjust, impractical, etc.
It’s strange too because I feel like we just went through 18 months of people whining about how any desire to take Israeli territory was ‘holocaust, extinction, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, etc.’ but now with Palestinians it’s a whole new tune.
How is the Palestinian slogan "from the river to the sea" supposed to be interpreted, aside from ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the area?
Doesn't the alleged illegitimacy of the Jewish presence in the region basically imply that the Jews should be ethnically cleansed, since the Palestinians "got there first"?
So isn't it a bit hypocritical to oppose Palestinian resettlement on principle?
I view Israel's actions in Palestine as deeply immoral. Yet it seems to me that being forced to move is *more* merciful than having your home destroyed, your children killed, your relatives starved, etc. As tragic as these events were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world it seems to me that they're less traumatic than what the Palestinians are currently going through.
In an ideal world, resettlement wouldn't be necessary. In an ideal world, Israel and Palestine would do a gigantic group LSD trip and learn to live in harmony. But that's not the world we live in, and from a humanitarian perspective, resettlement seems like an upgrade on the status quo. So it seems weird to oppose it on humanitarian grounds.
If you look closely at the two major players in this conflict (Hamas and Bibi's coalition) you'll find it hard to support either side without advocating ethnic cleansing. For Hamas, it's overtly explicit in their stated goals and actions. For Bibi, it's sometimes explicit according to some in his coalition and implicit in the strategy of allowing settlements of the most extreme Zionists on land illegally expropriated.
Which brand of poison do you prefer?
Not everyone who uses that "from the river..." phrase means the same thing by it, but many people mean it to support the elimination of the state of Israel and support for a multiethnic one state solution, not the ethnic cleansing of Jews. You can argue that in practice this would be the result, but that's debatable and not required in a one state solution.
You can argue it persuasively, that's the point.
And you can make reasonable counterarguments. And even if your argument were right, the people who disagree don't all know that. They could be naive - or, they could be envisioning a more gradual and historically effective process for reconciliation/coexistence than you give them credit for.
The point is not your opinion on the outcome, the point is whether it's fair to beg that question in interpreting the intent/motives of people with a different opinion.
It's naiveté, certainly, but a special kind of naiveté that considers potentially very negative consequences for Israelis as either immaterial or even desirable.
Yeah, the reason why people freaked out about Trump's "Gaza Riviera" comment wasn't primarily that he was saying we should take in Palestinian refugees but that it at least came across as forcibly and permanently removing all or nearly all Palestinians from Gaza. Those are two very different things.
You can also make a distinction between supporting refugees fleeing and supporting the activity that makes them flee. We wouldn't say Russia's invasion of Ukraine is fine, and the problem is just that the Ukrainian government has decided to fight rather than just have their entire nation apply for refugee status elsewhere (well, Tucker Carlson might, but I wouldn't). The order of preference probably should be 1) eliminate the conditions creating refugees; 2) allow refugees to leave; 3) force refugees to stay. This post seems to ignore (1).
This is obviously made more complicated by the fact that Israel has legitimate reasons for fighting in Gaza, but you can also ask that, to the extent reasonably possible, they handle that fighting in a way limits the extent to which Palestinians civilians are forcibly displaced with the expectation that those that are are allowed to return home when the fighting is over, which is how we've expected wars to be prosecuted at least since WWII. Not everyone has followed this expectation, but we've typically considered people who don't to be bad actors.
They want to leave they were paying 5 to $10,000 to be smuggled out through Egypt
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
I think I read that the word 'Palestinian' in Hebrew means 'invaders'. Or else 'Philistines'. If the shoe fits, have them wear it. I am so angry with groups like the Muslims attacking Israel verbally and physically. Leave Israel the fuck alone. It left the Gazans in peace and plenty, yet it seems Hamas continually whines and claims victimhood, and wants 'the West' to support it, and cries like a baby for food and money. These are grown men! Go get jobs! I'm about to lose my composure, as I'm sure most of us are. Fear our loss of composure, Iran.
If the government forces me to move due to eminent domain, is that a monstrosity?
Does the morality of such eminent domain action change if eminent domain is invoked for an entire neighborhood which just happens to be ethnically homogenous, which is legitimately sitting in the perfect place for a stadium / railway / etc.? Or is such "ethnic cleansing" for the purpose of building municipal infrastructure acceptable? Why should the morality of such an act change depending on the ethnic composition of the neighborhood?
I just don't see why being forced to move is such a terrible thing. I don't think it should rate nearly as high as other crimes against humanity.
You have due process and compensation for eminent domain. And the use of it to destroy ethnic neighborhoods is actually a pretty big part of the history of systematic racism! "Highways are racist" was wildly mocked a few years ago but it was talking about exactly this, which happened across America in the 1950s and 1960s
So due process and compensation turns it from "crime against humanity" to "basically OK"? Would you say the same thing for any other crime against humanity? And, why shouldn't we have due process and compensation for the Palestinians?
If we gave Palestinians due process and compensation it would not be a war crime. Yes, it's a crime for me to pin you down in handcuffs and put you in a cell for funsies. But if it is done through a legitment system of government with due process, it's okay. It's a war crime to gas helpless civilians, but it's okay to put your own soldiers through tear gas training because they agreed to do it.
Trump's plan, as he announced, is to forcibly clear everyone out at gunpoint, put them "somewhere", flatten everything left and build a beautiful riveria resort possibly owned by the United States. That is ethnic cleansing, particularly when you consider that gaza, right now, is a stateless ethnic group crowded into land controlled by but not politically enfranchised by Israel. Now, maybe you disagree with the idea that ethnic cleansing is any worse than anything else that happens in war. But this action is definitionally ethnic cleansing.
Cool. So perhaps the synthesis of your position and my position is: Don't automatically reject this idea on the basis of it being "ethnic cleansing". Instead, specify what sort of due process and compensation would make it ethical (e.g. can we put together a random citizen's assembly of Gazans and hold a referendum on a proposal where they get a profit share on the resort?) Maybe then we could actually get somewhere on this intractable conflict.
Because it is cruel to people.
Yep, it sucks. Getting evicted sucks. Getting deported if you overstay your visa sucks. You're not a victim of a crime against humanity though.
In this case, it could be the least cruel realistic alternative in this situation, like tearing off the bandaid. Imprisoning Palestinians in the hellscape that's Gaza seems cruel as fuck.
Shit dichotomy
Let's expand it to a trichotomy then. What's your proposal for the Palestinians? If I recall correctly, majorities in both countries are against a 2-state solution.
Two-state solution.
Opinions & positions on it in the region have shifted this way and that for 30 years, but the above is always the aim of all good faith parties, and there have been a handful of moments where there was hope. I have no inclination to lower aspirations in order to accommodate patently evil men like Netanyahu.
This is not correct. #2 is totally wrong. It is NOT a violation of human rights to force people to relocate. It is only a violation if the relocation is done without a legitimate purpose, such as based on ethnicity. There are many valid reasons for forcibly relocating people. One such reason is if they continuously make war on their neighbor and refuse to stop. Saying that people have a right to stay in that situation is madness and morally insane.
Morally, you are claiming that one group of people are more entitled to land than the other group of people are entitled to *live*. This is nuts.
Which historical forced relocations would you not support, based on these criteria? Was the Trail of Tears justified? What about the expulsion of Armenians?
I would not support the ones the Nazis carried out?
Hanania is arguing 1. Hence the opinion polls showing high support for emigration. Did Trump actually say “we will force all of them to move”? He said that the area is uninhabitable and that they should move. And Trump often says outrageous things to move the Overton window and get a “good deal”. Netanyahu was saying that Gazans should be *allowed to move*.
Trump bullshits constantly to the point that no one believes a thing he says. This is not “moving the Overton window” unless you just mean that everyone knows he is full of shit.
I think the Trump threat has meaningfully moved the Arab discourse on Gaza reconstruction.
Fair. I doubt tons of people will be forced to leave.
Is it inadequate in its distinction? I think it pretty clearly advocates for (1) which is currently not happening. The Egyptian government position is actually that (1) is ethnic cleansing.
Worth adding that the goal of the UN Refugee Agency, covering everywhere except Palestine, considers resettlement a durable solution. Only in one part of the world is resettlement taken off the table.
The problem with voluntary resettlement is that, precisely in proportion to how voluntary it is, it is the smartest, most reasonable, least fanatic Palestinians who will leave. That's good for them, but it would only make the local problem worse.
too late. this has already been the case for probably decades
Yeah the Palestinian society has degenerated from halfway in between Greece and Somalia, with EHC Christians like Tawfiq Canaan, to being something maybe marginally better than Somalia.
Getting the reasonable people out of the line of fire reduces the # of human shields though
Is that actually true though? If your hypothesis was true then Israeli Muslims would be significantly dumber than Palestinian Muslims. Any evidence that’s the case?
I guess there you had less fleeing from big cities like Haifa and Jaffa so the selection effect might have gone the other way. Not to mention Christian and Druze were more likely to stay.
I am fairly certain that more Palestinians have left the occupied territories than Israel over the past 50 years.
In 1948, the selection effect was the opposite, certainly, because the vast majority of cases where Palestinians had to flee was because their town or village was being used as a paramilitary base. The smarter ones didn't allow that, or just went to live somewhere else in Palestine/Israel. I remember once listening to story about an Arab who got kicked out in 1948, and they were going to walk it to Lebanon, but then they figured they would just go stay with their cousins in another Arab village, and they did and built themselves a house. Leaving in 1948 demonstrated low agency, not high; the opposite of today.
Interesting. I do know that Christians in 1948 were more likely to stay. The Haganah/IDF was more careful around Christian villages.
When you look at Israeli Muslims vs Palestinian Muslims, I guess you have to control for the fact that a nontrivial number of Israeli Muslims are Bedouin, who are sadly inbred and lower IQ.
Evaporative cooling of group beliefs.
Everyone is also ironically forgetting that Palestinian desire to leave is just one part of the multifaceted equation. What if Egypt doesn't want them? What if Hamas starts shooting? What if Israel decides to keep it for themselves? None of this has even been considered much less explained!
Settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing are magic words (used more for emotional effect). The underlying reality is two tribes of people fighting over land.
I agree that those are being used as magic words. I also agree that it's two tribes fighting.
The problem is that the modern world lacks the means to deal with these kinds of conflicts. In previous eras, Israel would conquer Gaza and impose its will on the territory and people. Those people would stay or leave as they were able and interested, and the world would accept the equilibrium. We no longer approve of one people conquering another, and the Gazans are far too weak to resist Israel, so we're in an awkward stalemate. As Richard mentioned, this situation is also very unique in that refugees are not being allowed to leave. Hamas doesn't want them to leave, and the rest of the world doesn't want to take them. Even Syrians were able to leave, and did so in vast numbers.
It feels like there are forces being brought to bear on this case to try to prevent any resolution. Either a "natural" resolution like Israeli takeover and refugee dispersion, or something like Trump's plan where the people are permitted/forced to leave even without a military occupation by the conqueror.
Yes, we are no longer Westphalia and conventions on war between nations. The international system has a strange view on war and also nations
What a strange essay. As other commenters like Nathan Smith have pointed out, the only distinction that matters here is "letting" them leave versus "making" them leave. Why you completely ignore this distinction is hard for me to understand.
It's not hard to understand if you read it as actually calling for forced population transfer and, erm, ethnic cleansing.
If you care about the Palestinians, why not allow them to move to the US? NIMBY?
Homogeneous societies do best and with 57 Islamic Nations and 22 of them being Arab there's plenty of room for them to be absorbed into the infrastructure of Qatar which built in hotels for the recent games and Saudi Arabia has its long skinny City qataristinians 👌
71°
5G
E Menu
2 new comments above.
2
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in Australia. They're happy in the West but never really happy
They just want to pick fights wherever they go. The Arabic nations know this, and decline to import them. Can't blame 'em.
They’re happy in Gaza, I think you just made that up. Their issue is they don’t have freedom of movement and no ability to control their own borders. Hence, the Oct 7 attack. If Israel removes the blockade then that’s the easiest solution and wouldn’t require mass importing 1.7 million into the west.
Gazans are pretty industrious and had a high literacy rate pre War despite terrible conditions. For example the standard of living in Gaza isn’t all that worse than the standard of living in Egypt pre war. Are we sure their lives actually improve in Jordan and Egypt?
You used “terrible conditions” and “the standard of living in Gaza isn’t all that worse than the standard of living in Egypt pre war”. LOL. Which one is it? Are they industrious? Modern hospitals and schools and universities there were all built with money and help the entire world provided. That “open air prison” supplied them with quality education, healthcare and decent per capital income.
How in practicality can they stay in Gaza? There is nothing left. It will take years to rebuilt.
Gazan Arabs Leaving Egypt
Since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza following Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023, more than 100,000 Palestinians have crossed the border into Egypt.
However, the exact number of Gazans leaving through Egypt per year is not specified in the provided context. The current situation involves Palestinians paying thousands of dollars to travel agencies or brokers to escape Gaza, but upon reaching Egypt, they face uncertain futures without jobs, rights, or the ability to leave.
I wonder how well a Gaza with an open border situation will go, especially when it comes to rockets fired towards Israel
Why not resettle them in Canada, as it will soon become our 51st state? Alas, despite Trump's anti-immigrant policies, I think a large percentage will wind up as political refugees somewhere in the lower 48.
Homogeneous societies do best and there's 57 of theirs to chose from
22 Arab of which they are plenty of room in Saudi with the long skinny City and Qatar has an infrastructure from soccer time qataristinians 👌
Why don't you take a few into your own home, and let us know how that goes.
That isn't a terrible idea. One of my coworkers at my old job was a Palestinian-American. He was a nice guy and did good work. I wouldn't mind having more people like him in the country, as long as the government did a good job of vetting them to make sure no crazy terrorists managed to slip in with them.
Richard himself is a Palestinian American on his dad’s side. His mom is Jordanian. But of course he’s Christian by background so it’s a different population.
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
I think all Palestinians who seek asylum to US should be accepted.
What do you call the forced removal of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023? That's commonly referred to as ethnic cleansing too.
That was forced and sudden and was not caused by their actions
And no one cared because Jews are news
Congo Islamic slaughter of Christians continues unabated Sudan also
I’m not knowledgeable about the circumstances or the history. I’m just trying to understand how Richard defines his terms. Forced migration happened in Yugoslavia in the nineties and I remember it commonly being referred to as ethnic cleansing.
Population transfers occur after wars
Ethnic cleansing is what happened when the Jews moved out the Jews from Gaza in 20o7.
Or when they had to flee the Arab countries after Israel.
For clarity
Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced population transfer but has distinct goals and methods. Ethnic cleansing involves the systematic forced displacement of a persecuted population from a specific territory, often accompanied by violence and atrocities, with the intent to remove the targeted group entirely.
In contrast, population transfer can be a more neutral relocation of people between states or regions, without the specific intent to exterminate or forcibly remove an ethnic group.
Ethnic cleansing is often described as part of a continuum of violence, where the most extreme form is genocide, which aims to destroy an entire group.
While both ethnic cleansing and genocide may involve forced displacement, ethnic cleansing specifically aims to displace a group rather than destroy it.
The term "ethnic cleansing" has been used to describe various historical events, including the forced migrations and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
These events involved widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law, leading to the establishment of international tribunals to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
Despite these definitions, there is ongoing debate and controversy over the precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing within international bodies.
https://youtu.be/ej3HWzSX4mY?si=sRfHQQ1gWQ0STyE3
Sargon going into the nuance
Yes and tragic. If you look at a map though you quickly see it becoming a part of Armenia or being autonomous was never going to happen. It’s literally encircled by Azeri land and shares no border with Armenia.
Also Israel is an Azeri ally and aided the ethnic cleansing through arms sales. Jews and Muslims working together to cleanse Christians. Only in the Middle East.
To be fair Azeris are only nominally Muslim. They’re super secular.
Being nominally Muslim won’t inoculate against charges of waging war on Christians and being jihadis.
It’s a dispute over land with religion used as a rallying cry. Tale as old as time.
Aliyev is a terrible dictator but he's no jihadist. This is about nationalism, not Islam. Religion is not really used as a rallying cry. The Muslim world doesn't care much about the conflict.
To say that they aided the ethnic cleansing by arms sales is vague but not a clean analogy.
I remember at the time seeing normal folks being sent to the border by the thousands and thought how is this happening and then it was over in the world shrugged
Speaking of a Christian perspective from the Middle East
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
I feel for you and for Lebanon. It’s a tragedy and deeply unfortunate.
This is why Egypt shouldn’t be forced to take in Gazans. They have a persecuted and beleaguered Christian minority along with huge radical Islam problems and the last thing they need is more Muslim radicals. Same for the Jordanians.
I posted a video of a Jordanian legislator who identifies as a Palestinian who points out all kinds of truths that I as a team Israel dude did not know.
Historically Jordan is Palestine and he wants to illegalize incitement of any religious sort in the same way that bukele took on the gangs in his homeland. He intends to be prime minister / president and is calling out the hashemite Muslim Brotherhood connection which I was unaware of the nuances and subtleties in intricacies of levels of evil within Islam
Agree fully with you on Egypt who needs to be held accountable for what you mentioned and much more.
I've been reading Raymond Ibrahim for years and now he's on YouTube, he calls it the bandit theology and the Coptic population in Egypt has churches burned regularly.
Trump gave a 2017 speech to the Arab League that I also posted that's a game changer in that he's the first American President to not play along with the Islam is the religion of Peace facade that bush foisted upon us, the same Bush that foisted the PLO from their deserved exile in Tunisia into the heartland of Israel to create more pain and suffering.
This could be a game changing time of reckoning
An additional note: governments of Arab countries have the same incentives as Hamas. They want to use the Palestinians as weapons against Israel, partly in furtherance of stupid political games and partly in furtherance of an Islamic prophecy that says the Israelis will be exterminated with the aid of trees that will yell out whether Jews are hiding behind them (I am not making that up).
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
Allowing Palestinians to voluntarily leave Palestine is good and moral, and as far as I can tell this is already possible. However Trump has been ambiguous regarding whether Palestinians will be forcibly resettled or not (https://apnews.com/article/trump-gaza-plan-palestinians-israel-3f12eb51869da2221afbb22b0bcf47ba). This second option is inmoral, and many think that this is what Trump has in mind, which is why they criticize the plan.
On top of this, there is the problem of where will Palestinians go; Jordan and Lebanon are cautionary tales for any country. But even if this plan succeeds in removing the people from Gaza, it's unlikely that this will solve the problem long term; Israelis are an example of people who were removed from their homeland, and they spent much of the following two millenia trying to go back.
This plan is infeasible, and possibly (probably?) inmoral and illegal. The tragedy of this conflict is that essentially all other solutions are infeasible, inmoral, or both.
It is not possible for people to leave Gaza. No country is willing to take them, and there are even walls up to keep them in (including one maintained by Egypt). Allowing them to leave would be a huge humanitarian win, but apparently everyone thinks that it would be bad for their own country to allow any in, let alone large numbers.
Normally the western world would agitate against countries who refuse, but there seems to be less appetite for that in this situation. Frankly I don't blame them, Jordan had a very bad experience with their Palestinian population trying to overthrow the country.
When I say that it is possible for Palestinians to leave, I mean that Israel does allow them to leave, at least legally. Of course many countries don't want to allow them in, which is a problem that the Trump plan does not solve.
It certainly doesn't right now, but his efforts appear to revolve around convincing or bullying some country or countries to take them. He seems very aware of that problem.
Gazan Arabs Leaving Egypt
Since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza following Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023, more than 100,000 Palestinians have crossed the border into Egypt.
However, the exact number of Gazans leaving through Egypt per year is not specified in the provided context. The current situation involves Palestinians paying thousands of dollars to travel agencies or brokers to escape Gaza, but upon reaching Egypt, they face uncertain futures without jobs, rights, or the ability to leave.
I like the solution of Egypt annexing Gaza. Then no one moves anywhere.
I'd like to see Trump for citizenship for them upon where they've been resettled to for decades and held in camps and treated malevolently as a population to be caged and used as a weapon as you said
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
It makes little sense to talk about “Palestinians” either.
There are residents of Gaza and Arab residents of the West Bank.
A Palestinian state in the West Bank is feasible as part of a grand bargain with Israel swapping land for peace.
But as long as Gaza remains a reservoir for permanent anti-Israel aggression there is no feasible way it can be independent either on its own or as part of a union with the West Bank. All
the Arab states know this too.
Gaza needs a creative solution or else the events of the last 18 months will just be repeated for decades to come.
Alamasri is the most common last name in Gaza which means the Egyptian economic migrants from decades ago have a permanent grudge against Israel and are finally being shown reality and Israel being allowed a defeat of the incessant jihad waged against it since it's founding
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in Australia. They're happy in the West
But then they get Sharia desires
I can't hear this enough.
It's actually quite simple - if you're doing the resettling by force it's bad, if you're doing it through incentives it's good. I don't know at what scale resettlement by force becomes "ethnic cleansing" but at any meaningful scale it's probably a war crime and is morally repugnant.
Every other population of war has been resettled except for the malignant knife of the Palestinians being held against the throat of Israel and the West for 70 years after the Arabs started wars and lost repeatedly Trump's 2017 speech calling out the Arab League and demanding its civilizational change in renouncing terrorism was only released recently acknowledging the Muslim Brotherhood has had a plan in place since 1991 to take over North America and the world with a caliphate is elemental foundational knowledge going about the world.
Fight the Jews and Christians until they pay the jizia
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in Australia. They're happy in
97% 5:12
There is no scenario in which it happens at the point of a gun
Well written. Really all the Gazans could for into a suburb of Cairo and no one would even notice and the conflict would be ended.
The simple solution was always there, staring us in the face.
Historically ethnic cleansing has been a great way to solve otherwise intractable problems. No more worries about Germans in Sudetenland or Danzig anymore, are there? And it isn't like their grandkids are sitting around wishing they were there.
Pakistan was created to house India's Muslim population, and both Hindus and Muslims make big moves to resettle in the "appropriate" territory. I don't know if this was a good thing, but from all accounts it appears to have been a *necessary* thing. I don't recall ever hearing it called Ethnic Cleansing.
The 20th century was full of forced migrations as empires broke up and the people were arranged inside the new borders.
What happened to the Palestinians was not the most extreme but not the most gentle example either.
However it’s one of the very few forces migrations outside Sub-Saharan Africa that is still a source of massive grievance today. Everyone else has moved on literally and figuratively.
I think that was because the government didn't force anyone to move. There are still a lot of Muslims in India today. Additionally, the borders were drawn to reduce the amount of people who needed to move. The area that became Pakistan already had the majority of Muslims in it.
1. Hanania claims that instead of looking at definitions, we should look at principles. The principle he lists is: "are the rights of individuals being respected?"
The most basic right of a displaced person is the right to return (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule132).
Will Palestinians leaving from Gaza have the right to return to Gaza?
Hanania never asks this question in the article. Even Sean Hannity (not an intellectual heavyweight) asked this to Trump. This is because Hanania knows the answer, which Trump gave an unambiguous answer to:
"No".
2. Hanania claims that "After all, it was never America’s intention to use violence and terror to induce civilians to leave Gaza."
Gee, I wonder: was Gaza hit by an earthquake or something? Somehow the violence of the past 15 months -- which the US supported militarily, diplomatically and financially -- doesn't count?
3. Hanania is also so concerned about humanity towards Palestinians and is angry at people who don't allow them to leave. So why not any anger at Israel, which has put Gaza in a blockade by land, sea and air, for the past 20 years? Israel controls the Palestinian population registry, which means it controls all migration. (https://gisha.org/en/the-population-registry/)
------------------
Hanania's Israel's posts have a "-50 IQ" tag attached to them. Otherwise intelligent people can have such blind spots. Like any woke person discussing transgenderism, IQ or racism.
What other people have a "right of return"? I don't think that was true of the Volksdeutsche in eastern Europe, Greeks & Turks moved in population exchanges, or Hindus & Muslims after the Partition of India.
I already gave the link about the right under international humanitarian law. It's based on the Fourth Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949 after WW2.
All displaced people have a right of return. Sometimes (often), the right is not exercised. But the right exists.
Now, you may say, you don't care about the right. But Hanania says that respecting people's rights is one of his principles. So I was responding to that.
Most of Gazans (about 80%) are there in the first place because they (or their ancestors) were displaced from what is now Israel. They already have, for practical purposes, given up their right to return to Israel.
Now you want them to give up their right to Gaza as well?
---
If you want to apply the partition of India to this case, recognize that it was a two-state solution. The refugees had a state where they could be settled.
Here, there's only one state - Israel. Many Jews from the Arab world settled in Israel.
Palestinians don't have a state, because Israel occupies it and refuses to withdraw.
One little point. The 1948 refugees don’t have a right to return to Israel because no international law guaranteeing such a right was in force at the time. As you said the Geneva Conventions weren’t adopted until August 1949, after the war was over.
However with Gazans today then IHL would take a different view.
You're incorrect in saying that the 1948 refugees don't have a right of return. The position of most international law scholars, as well as the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, is that they do have the right.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2023/06/right-return-palestinian-refugees-must-be-prioritised-over-political
It's true that the case is not as clear cut as after 1949. But there were precedents which apply to this case.
In practice, the return is not going to happen, except in a symbolic sense as part of a hypothetical two-state solution. All negotiations accepted this fact. Israel indicated that it will be willing to accept some tens of thousands, while Palestinians wanted it to be in the hundreds of thousands.
See this article for the 2000 negotiations, for instance: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467
The only writing of mine in print is a preface to "The Myth of Natural Rights". Claiming something is a "right" in a normative sense means nothing to me, as I don't believe in objective norms. Descriptively, I don't see any such right existing in practice.
> If you want to apply the partition of India to this case, recognize that it was a two-state solution. The refugees had a state where they could be settled.
When Israel was created the remaining territory was not some second state called "Palestine". Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held the Gaza Strip until the Six Day War in 1967. That's three states. More recently the Gaza Strip & West Bank have been divided between Hamas & Fatah, which again add with Israel to make three states.
1. You're free to not believe in the right. I said that above. I was responding to Hanania's claim that he wants to respect people's rights.
2. I'm afraid your history is rather wonky.
Just like the partition of India, there was supposed to be a partition of Palestine in 1947 into two states. Israel was allotted 55% of the land and the Arab state was alloted 45%.
Both sides disagreed on the plan and there was a war in 1948 -- just like there were several wars between India/Pakistan, for example, in Kashmir and what is today Bangladesh.
In 1948, during the war, Israel expanded to 80%. The rest 20% was occupied by Jordan and Egypt -- which nobody recognized as legitimate occupation.
That expansion of Israel from 55% to 80% is a done deal; nobody talks about it now.
The only question alive today is of the 20%, which Israel conquered -- in a new war in 1967 -- and has held for the last 60 years.
"That expansion of Israel from 55% to 80% is a done deal; nobody talks about it now.."
This is just not true. The vast majority of the Palestinians, the Arab world, and Muslim world do not agree with you that it's a done deal.
Not true at all. There is no support anywhere for returning to the 1948 borders.
UN 242, on which all subsequent efforts at the "peace process" are based, is based on the 1967 borders, not the 1948 borders.
The two-state solution is based on the 1967 borders, not the 1948 borders.
The Arab peace plan of 2002, introduced by Saudi Arabia, again is based on the 1967 borders, not the 1948 ones.
Every year, the UN General assembly votes on the "Peaceful resolution of the Palestine question". Here's the latest one: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/peaceful-settlement-of-the-question-of-palestine-general-assembly-draft-resolution-a-79-l-23/ It again is based on the 1967 borders, not the 1948 one.
In fact, the 1948 territorial question is so dead, that the comment I was replying to started from 1967, as if 1948 never happened. That's because everyone today starts from 1967.
The only live question from 1948 is the refugee question. Even that, for practical purposes, is mostly symbolic. As I linked above.
In 1936 (the British Mandate for Palestine lasted from 1920 to 1948) it was the Jews that called enthusiastically adopted the name Palestinian. They named their institutions, like banks and orchestras and newspapers, Palestinian. The Arabs were enraged by this. They complained to the Peel Commission of 1936 that the name Palestine was an offensively Jewish name! Specifically their spokesman said that "Palestine is alien to the Arabs."
Three decades later they became the Ancient Palestinian People. What rubbish!
How do you ignore the militarized wall of Egypt which facilitated profitable human smuggling for Egypt and facilitated arms transfers into Gaza from Egypt yet it was a prison with five star hotels and restaurants in mansions where Hamas leadership dwelled
They were refugees in Gaza yet they lived in Gaza yet never formed a functional state in Gaza therefore they are dysfunctional and now live in a dysfunctional state
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
Where could the Palestinians actually go?
Egypt has a population of 118m. 2m Gazans is about a 1.7% population increase.
That’s about per capita the number of Ukrainian refugees housed in Poland and Ireland since 2022.
Cultural similarity is relatively high and integration is largely uncontroversial.
Egypts and Gazans are both arabs, but I don't think the Gazans would actually make for as good citizens as Ukrainians. Historically they've made a lot of problems.
Gaza is probably as culturally close to Egypt as anywhere else.
Yeah. And that's not enough.
You asked what seemed to be a non-rhetorical question.
I answered that Egypt is the place that is closest in terms of geography and culture. It is also populous enough to absorb Gazans without too much disruption.
Whether this is desired by any of the parties is another matter.
This aspect of the problem will actually get easier to solve over time, because the more functional Middle Eastern countries are tipping over into negative demographic growth, and will eventually have labour shortages they need filling.
Palestinians don't work. They don't work in Palestine and they don't work in the West. (Oddly the only place where they were once employed in large numbers is Israel, but of course that's over now.)
That’s not true, they were working in Kuwait when they got kicked, right?
El Salvador is run by a descendant of the Palestinian diaspora. Maybe someone could ask Bukele to resettle a share of the refugees.
His prison system could probably handle it too lol
Jordan was magically created by Britain when it abrogated the San Remo agreement and the Balfour declaration and unilaterally gave away 80% of the land intended for the Jews to a hashemite prince from Saudi Arabia who runs the place now after his father who in 1970 had to deal with the phallustinians as needed by killing 30,000 of them after their hijacking extortion and murderous antics brought scoring upon the illegitimate country intended for the Jews.
71°
5G
E Menu
2 new comments above.
2
Problem. Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem. Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem. Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem.
Lesson 2(b)
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem. Mus lims living with Buddhists = Problem. Mu slims living with Christians = Problem. Muslims living with Jews = Problem. Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem. Mu slims living with Bahai's = Problem. Mus lims living with Shintos = Problem. Muslims living with Atheists = Problem. MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM.
Lesson (3a)
SO THIS LEADS TO *******
They're not happy in Gaza. They're not
happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Nigeria. They're not happy in Somalia. They're not happy in Sudan.
Lesson 3(b)
SO WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY? **
They're happy in the west
Quibbling over definitions is a ruse. The primary issue is shit people blaming others for their own inadequacies. Because they refuse to honestly reflect on and challenge their own positions, they rationalize and project evilness onto others. Since every attempt to appease the Palestinians has failed, letting them disperse is the best option now with the proviso that they get their shit together and stop blaming others. And we need to stop and challenge the claims of oppression and victimhood.