rafa, the boundary between egypt and gaza

[Bruce Tuncks]

Why are the israelis not pushing the refugees into egypt there? It wouldn't make that much difference to the refugees just who shot them, but it would make a big difference in who got the blame. I would order the guards to immediately remove obstacles in the way of the refugees entering egypt.

[facthunter]

That's pretty much  what Netanyahu would want. Don't forget the Egyptians issued a warning to Israel that "SOMETHING" was going to happen before the first Hamas attack.. THAT will get Investigated eventually.   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree nev to the extent that I reckon netanyahu was negligent at the helm. But that doesn't effect the idea much. There must be a big reason I don't know about as to why it hasn't happened.

[pmccarthy]

The Egyptians have closed the border from their side. Thay don't want Hamas and Palestinian refugees.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep pmc, and I understand why not. But Egypt is still a moslem country, and I reckon the Israelis should risk upsetting them by opening up their ( Israeli ) side to let refugees escape.

[old man emu]

The people of Egypt might be predominantly Muslim, but you also have to remember that Egypt is an independent nation with its own political goals which may not align with those of the Palestinians - both HAMAS and non-Hamas. 

 

Have you ever noticed that when a natural disaster happens in a Muslim country, it is the Christian West that immediately offer aid, while the neighbouring Muslim countries don't?

[facthunter]

Indonesia has offered help.   Nev

[old man emu]

Good on Indonesia, but they aren't oil soaked next-door neighbours, are they?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Do you mean that indonesia is willing to accept refugees from gaza?  If so, I reckon its good news and we should be helping to move them there.

[facthunter]

It was mentioned they (Indonesia) were prepared to send people there to help.. When Palestinians leave Israel they are not allowed back, Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

It used to interest me that (before October 7) Israel would come under criticism for not opening the gates to Palestinians and everyone remained silent about Egypt. Israel did open the gates to mainly workers and Palestinians had to go through check points, yet Egypt stood firm. I understand Egypt don't want Hamas any moe than anyone other than, I guess Iran, but what about not criticing them on receiving some (if not all) innocent Palestinian refugees of a war? Or even providing safe passage so they could go to a third country more willing to accept them? So, while I get they may not want Hamas and a little Palestine within their country, Egypt is, after all, a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1669 Refugee Protocol (https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4cd96bae2c.pdf).

 

So why, if all of the protests are about human rights (which, I don't think is the main driver of the protests to be honest - although I absolutely am against the intesity Israel have shown lately), are there no innternational, press or protest calls for Egypt to step up to the plate in internatioal law? It is one of the reasons I don't think human rights is the main driver.

[Litespeed]

Keep in mind if the Egyptians allow the Israelis to open the the borders, the Palestinians would be forced out of Gaza and either into the sea or Egypt.

 

Either way it would mean forcing the Palestinians out of their land and this is a War crime under the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Ie die or leave the country.

 

Even if the Eygptians wanted the refugees, it would be aiding Israel in war crimes and ensure the complete destruction of Palestinian hopes for a separate state.

 

And why should Indonesia get involved, they have never aided and abetted Israel in their persecution of Palestinians.

 

The countries that have aided Israel in arms and political cover should accept the refugees on the basis they help created the problem and must be part of the  solution.

[spacesailor]

The partners of " hamas " should take them , 

As they started this ' round ' of the war .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

Keep in mind if the Egyptians allow the Israelis to open the the borders, the Palestinians would be forced out of Gaza and either into the sea or Egypt.

My comment is both in the context of before the war and since the war. It is understanable that people think Israel wants to eject the Palestinians holus bolus, and there are probablly more since Oct than prior. However, bear in mind, the official position of Israel for most of the time since 1948 (declaring independence) was a two state solution which was repeatedly rejected through wars that attemoted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth (Inftidata, I have read means exermination of Jews, not just Israel).  But, therefore, it is understandable that after all this time, and the many rejections as continued terrorism, that Israel is less accommodating than previously about a Palestinian nation state. However, that does not mean they want to drive Palestinians out of Israel or the Gaza strip either.

 

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

Either way it would mean forcing the Palestinians out of their land and this is a War crime under the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Ie die or leave the country.

I think you may want to check your history, and I doubt a purely objective assessment would even consider the current war ethnic cleansing. Remember that, unlike general assertions of aparthied, Palestinian Arabs are free to vote, there have been elected members of government, and they have all citizen rights. Yes, life has become more tough for them in Israel lately, especially the West Bank. And, they even serve in the IDF, though are not forced to. There has also been in previous years, a Palestinian Arab as the chief justice of the Israeli high court (as I recall - can't be bothered looking it up as I have done this to death on these fourms already). So, ethnic cleansing is hardly a valid assertion. However, different interpretations of Infitada are taken to mean extermination of Jews, not just Israel, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.. it does mean moving all Jews from the land of Israel, which is Hamas Covenant, anf that is ethnic cleansing, is it not?

 

And now, yes, there are a lot of innocent civilians dying.. And Israel warn the Gazans that they are going to strike at Hamas and where, and tell them to move to a safer area. The problem is, Hamas are corawdly terrorsits and move with the civilian population. So, to get to the enemy, the Israelis have "little choice", except if they want to unnecessarily risk their personnel, to create collateral damage to Palestinians. Pardon my cynicism, but I may be thinking this is a deliberate ploy - why would you risk your civilians lives unnecessarily, otherwise? The day the world call Hamas out for its tactics and ask it to stop doing what it does - that is draw a military fight unto the innocent population, and if Israel continue - then yes, I will agree it is genocide. Could Israel take more precautions without unduly risking their personnel? Probably.. but I am not a war tactics expert, so will defer to better informed people.

 

It is easy to cast these allegations, but look through the veneer of the reports and protests, and it is a lot more nuanced. Also, if you are talking ethnic cleansing, then surely what Hamas is attempting and want to acheieve is exactly that.. no? And remember, their attack targeted civilians.. not a military hiding behind them..

 

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

Even if the Eygptians wanted the refugees, it would be aiding Israel in war crimes and ensure the complete destruction of Palestinian hopes for a separate state.

By that logic, no country should take refugees from simialr situations like Syria, Yemen, the Congo, etc... Does that really make sense?

 

Re the separate Palestinian state... How many tiimes was it offered  to the Palestinians, but rejected. The UN resolution of the two states was accepted by Israel, but rejected by the Palestinians and most other Arab states. The day after Israel declared independence, it was invaded by 5 Arab nations.. and they lost and with that some  territory to put a buffer between them and the Israeli population. Further diplomatic attempts continued in which the Israelis were willing to have a two state solution... This culminated in the 67 war where Egypt and Syria (I think) were given a very short and sharp defeat.. Israel took the Sinai and I think in the early 70s handed it back as an olive branch for peace and a two-state solution. Instead, they were invaded again in 1978 and it almost went to the wire, because the USA, who were not involved in previous wars told Israel not to take a pre-emptive strike after Jordan warned the Israelis of the impending attach.. In each of these wars, Israel, after being attacked would take more land.. This is one of the consequences of war - if you lose, you may lose more land - I don't see too many people worrying about Prussia not returning to Germany.

 

After the '78 war, there were at least three almost diplomatic breakgrhroughs that would have increeased the land to the Palestinians compared to what they had, but they still kept rejecting it. The cry, from the River to the Sea... is the Jordanian River to the Med.. And that is the WHOLE of the land of Israel and what is left for the Palestinians - Gaza. Well, the world is now crying a two-state solution is required as if Israel rejected it all along. But the facts (and I do like facts) beg to differ. While Netanyahyu is saying no tw-state solution at the moment, most of what I have read is qualified by until Hamas is done with and there is a way to guarantee (as much as that can be done) Israeli security.. I dort of don't blame them on that one.

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

Israel in their persecution of Palestinians.

I hope the above has dealt with that assertion - though I do concede, as with the rest of the world at the moment, there is persecution everywhere and Palestinians are not immune to it.

 

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

The countries that have aided Israel in arms and political cover should accept the refugees on the basis they help created the problem and must be part of the  solution

I would word this, the countries that created the ongoing Palestinian problem should accept responsibility and take them as refugees (except, of course, we don't want them to, because that would aid and abet Israel in their ethnic cleansing, right? But what are the countries that made the problem for the Palestinians? Was it the USA and Europe in terms of arming Israel? Again, history would show this is not the case. The wars up until 1978 were fought without any international aid to Israel.. they purchased all their arms.. the 1948 war was Czech WW2 tanks and I think French aircraft. Most of 67 was French Aircraft and possibly tanks. In 1978, Israel didn't act unitl it was too late on the promise that if they were invaded, the US would come to assist.. which they, like Ukraine, didn't (immedately, anyway). It wasn't unitl the Israeli PM threatened to use the nukes they neither confirmed or denied having that the US started sending supplies. And even today, the US dodn't just given them to Israel; As I understand Israel pays for them (or at least most of them).

 

So, who are the countries that are causing the problem for the Palestinians? Well, how about themsleves (although not a country), and the Arab countries that piled into Israel repeatedly and have until very recently not been interested in working with Israel. How I came to know what I know (and admit I have a lot more to know than I do), is that on here there was a comment about how the Palestinians were pissed off the UAE sold them out and normalised relations with Israel. My comment was simply if Israel has been there that long and were not goig anywhere, wouldn'y it be in everyone's intrest to come to a treaty or something.. that was met with quite a rebuke, so I did a bit of research as I knew literally nothing on the sibject.. and it yielded the above..

 

And before we go onto Israel being a colonial power.. I didn't know this, but Zionism started in the mid 1800s with the purchase of land from Arabs and Greeks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sursock_Purchases). There are different accounts, from the Jews had purchased all the land afforded Israel in the UN resolution to 2% of it, but what is not disputed was that land was purchased and I am guessing it was somewhere in between. The land taken since the declaration of independence is a result of wars raged against Israel and continual guerilla type terrorism and warfare. There was no doubt some of the land taken that was unfair, but who is crying over Crimea at the moment? The Jews have not in a systematic way tried to eliminate Palestinians from lands (yes, there are isolated incidents - but not systematic).

 

So, the facts do not point to a black-and -white persecution, disposession, not ethnic cleansing of the land. It is arguable whether the current acts are genocide, but what is not arguable is too many civilians have been killed; but I would equate or give more of the responsibility to Hamas than Israel at this stage for this war, but am very happy to change my mind in th elight of evidence.

 

This came up in my feed.. I think it makes sense. Bill Maher is a historian, too, so knows a little more about how to assess history than I do:

 

 

Edited June 2 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

I understand that forcing palestinians to go might be considered a war crime. But what about keeping them in? I'm proposing that israel just no longer does this, and leaves it to the egyptians to stop them coming in.

[facthunter]

I doubt WE are in the category of people they'd take notice of and we don't need to import the Hates that exist over there.. After all people come here to get away from that stuff.   Nev

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

we don't need to import the Hates that exist over there.. After all people come here to get away from that stuff. 

Will it be the same after 5th November when refugees start pouring out of the USA? I bet Mexico will close it borders to that sort of refugee.

[Marty_d]

If Trump wins, the refugees fleeing the US will be a better class of people 

[pmccarthy]

It took 600,000 deaths to “resolve” the north versus south issue in the USA. 160 years later it is still an issue and could still destroy the USA. So there is no reason to expect a resolution in the Middle East.

Edited June 7 by pmccarthy

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Marty_d said:

better

"better" - a comparative adjective.

[facthunter]

An Adjective is a qualifying word.. So would be Good and Best. Do you wish to expand?  Nev

[old man emu]

There are different types of adjectives - colour, sound etc. "Comparative" is a type. "Better" helps form the scale by which things are compared.

[facthunter]

I notice we are off topic.  Nev

[willedoo]

Yes, we'd better get back on topic.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I don't want them {IMMIGRANTS}  here on account of them being moslems who want to boss me around with sharia law etc. So I reluctantly have to agree with OME.

While on the subject, How can it be that people who should know better are openly anti jew nowadays? I would have hoped that all that stuff died along with hitler etc.

There was a great refutation of the anti-israel stuff by this moslem woman who said that her quality of life was far better under the jews of israel than under some lot like the taliban. She gave lots of examples which have not been refuted.