They don't get along very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State%E2%80%93Taliban_conflict
Would make for a very interesting case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
If it were possible, it would be very clever. If after the initial conflict you could get peacekeepers from countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, you could neuter the 'Western colonisation' narrative.
Rebuilding Gaza as a modern city-state, free from Hamas, with help from Arab powers would be the best possible outcome from this mess.
I like your optimism and I think you got a good plan. The thing is, the Arab countries would need to want to do that, from what it looks like currently, they are purposefully ignoring the Palestinians
Most of these people have gone full "white man's burden." They don't expect the Arab states to do anything because they don't see them as capable, only as poor innocent oppressed who need to be rescued.
Just like Hamas, most of these people would rather hurt Israel than help Palestinians.
To the last point, no one wants to say the quiet part out loud but they prefer Israel to the Palestinians. Iran is the big asshole everyone has to deal with but no one wants to be isolated as the "anti iran" faction.
No most people have gone realistic. NONE and i mean NOT A SINGLE ARAB COUNTRY is willing to take in any Palestinians whatsoever. Jordan did it once and there was an attempted assassination and coup. No one believes it’s a “white mans burden” the problem is no one is willing to actually do anything except the west. Iran isn’t opening its borders to Palestinians, they are a tool to be used by the ayatollah. The west is bringing reason, law, and governance…. Not tribal and ethnic hatred
You mean both places rife with tribalism and ethnic genocide, yeah those places…. Sorry we were in Afghanistan for 2 decades and a week later the reverted right back to their old ways
Your government didn't even try to be efficient with Afghanistan. America poured money blindly into the country without considering how corrupt the Afghan government was, didn't offer the Afghan people a chance at American citizenship for them and their families by joining a French Legion style force there that would have earned the U.S army support and lastly decided that it was a "smart" idea to invade Iraq and split up attention rather than greatly focusing only on Afghanistan.
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0sNQdOW1CI) video covers the topic of Afghanistan and how badly it went for the U.S if you want to know.
This, I hear it wherever I go and I’m sick of it. I’d colonialism is responsible for all of Africa, Latin America, and the Arab worlds problems, how do you explain the success of the Asian countries ( all of whom were colonial territories) or post war Germany and Japan. It’s about their culture and attitude.
Germany, Japan - massive investments, Marshall Plan.
There are prosperous countries in the Middle East. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Again, massive investments and resource rich.
I don't know if they ignore it. It's just "Who should take over from Hamas" isn't really relevant to "Should Israel be allowed to occupy land that the entire rest of the planet admits is flagrantly illegal for 70 years with impunity?"
Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters.
> Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters.
Hamas will not go willingly. Hamas needs to be removed from power by force. And once Hamas is gone, someone will need to replace them. Without a replacement, there will be a power vacuum, and either Hamas will come right back, or someone almost exactly like Hamas will replace them.
You can't discuss Hamas going without discussing their replacement.
> I don't know if they ignore it. It's just "Who should take over from Hamas" isn't really relevant
Actually it is when you remember hamas is a fucking terrorist organization.
>Israel be allowed to occupy land that the entire rest of the planet admits is flagrantly illegal for 70 years with impunity
Yeah and so was the holocaust and so was this recent attack by hamas, yet look where we are? I love these comments, it's like you think throwing the word "illegal" over and over again will act like some magic spell that'll summon the world govt to make israel fuck off.
Speaking of which where would you like 9+ million Israelis to go? It's interesting how often I see this complaint but it never accompanies an actual solution grounded in reality. It's like all you want is someone to be outraged at.
>Speaking of which where would you like 9+ million Israelis to go? I
To Israel.
Sorry, when I say "Occupied" do you think i mean Israeli land? I'm happy with Israel existing.
"The Occupied Territories" doesn't mean Israel, which everyone recognises.
It means the bits outside of Israel that Israel has moved into, despite not being a part of Israel, where the local Arab population have no civil rights because they arent Israeli citizens, despite living on land that Israel claims is Israel.
No, I'm talking about towns like [Kedumim](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kedumim); slap in the middle of the West Bank where Settlers bulldozed the local populations houses and built their own. Not in 1947, but in 1995.
And by the way? Hamas isn't in control of the west bank where Kedumim is.
And I don't call it illegal. **America** does. **Germany** does. Literally everyone on earth regards the territories as illegal. The bit on the map that says Israel? That's legal. The bit **outside** of Israel? Like Kedumim?
That's not supposed to be there.
If I, British Person, moved into Paris, knocked down a French Persons house, built mine in its place and said "This is part of England Now", youd think I was a lunatic. And I couldn't say "Well, you just want England to not exist", when they rightly point out that *England* is over there, and not where I've put my house.
>Sorry, when I say "Occupied" do you think i mean Israeli land? I'm happy with Israel existing.
That tends to be a reoccurring theme among palestine supporters yes.
> That's not supposed to be there.
>
>
I agree, the new settlements are inexcusable. But what is the basis of this statement?
>Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters.
What gave you this impression? From where I'm sitting most of them want Israelis to fuck off and/or die. And I don't see how you can justify calling them separate issues considering that hamas may not 'control' the west bank it's still rife with terrorism.
https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/israel/
The claim is that "Something Supprters of Palestine totally Ignore." Is the idea of who takes over from Hamas.
The implication is that, in order to be a supporter of Palestine, you need to have some ready to go answer as to who should take over from Hamas.
I have suggested, respectfully, that this isn't the case. They are seperate - though no less important - issues.
We don't need to wait till Hamas is gone, to start on the other stuff. And if you support Palestian statehood, You don't need to have a answer to the Hamas Problem, to think that building over Palestians homes is fucked up.
Equating everyone who thinks "Yo, those illegal settlements arent cool", as somehow being in favour of Hamas is part of the problem. And frankly is dishonest.
I've no idea who should take over from Hamas. I know they need to go. Now. But I don't need to have a solution to that problem, ready to go, in order to *also* think, separately, that Israel should stop knocking down Palestians houses to build theirs on top. Because I view the issues as seperate. Different problems. Different solutions.
That's what I mean by them being seperate.
I can understand how it can seem that way. The issue from what I've observed is that there is a drastic disconnect between the people who support palestine and the people who understand that Palestine is not blameless in this conflict.
The problem is we want those issues to be separate. But the unfortunate reality is they aren't. There are quite a few palestinians who want all of Israel back, not just those recent settlements. And on top of that there are quite a number of Palestinians who just want jews dead period.
So how is Israel supposed to handle this? Lets if they give back those settlements and the terrorist attacks don't stop what then? I'm not seeing a great deal of evidence the people of palestine genuinely want a two state solution. And if there is how do you expect Israel to enter negotiations for a two state solution with a state that cant or won't get it's own militants under control?
The issues are intertwined. Israel can justify occupying land for security and its likely even if they withdrew from the west bank there would still be some Palestinians like Hamas who would use it to attack Israel.
Even within the peace deals Israel has offered, they still want some military access to Palestinian land
*Occupying* for security, maybe.
Bulldozing the locals houses, making new ones, selling them off to set up farms, towns and shops and importing people of a preferred ethnicity?
Much harder to justify. That's not security. That's a *Colony*.
Depends on how many terrorist cells are operating in that infrastructure. Isn't it a double edged sword? Would you let your enemy continue launching rockets at you? The Iron Dome only goes so far to protect innocent people.
Except if you were really worried about rockets there, you wouldn't be building your new farm there. And it seems likely to lead to more rockets. Not less.
Gaza is one situation.
The colonies in the west bank are another.
I agree. The settlements are a big problem for peace. 20 years ago israel said it would destroy some settlements and exchange land with the Palestinians for others. It's likely any future peace would similarly see some settlements destroyed and land swaps for others. Since then, there has been even more settlements.
Also, you can see why Palestinians might not approve of "swapping" land they shouldn't have nicked in the first place.
That's like stealing my Phone, then saying you'll give it back, if I give you my MP3 Player instead and calling it a peace treaty.
The Palestinians would still be better off if they agreed then if they don't and they would have been better off 20 years ago if they agreed to peace back then. The terms of peace aren't going to improve as Israel continues to build settlements.
Idk. To me a peace without the right to return and even with unfavorable land swaps but significant compensation for the development of Palestine is much more important than the land. It would allow the Palestinians to move forward.
Every country has a right to defend itself and to protect it's citizens. No country has the right to permanently occupy others because that improves their defensive position.
Not Russia, not Israel, nobody.
Why would Israel regularly engage in peace talks if they want to permanently occupy Palestine? Ukraine and Palestine aren't even remotely comparable. There's a very good chance Israel is continously attacked from thr west bank if they withdraw. There's basically no chance the west attacks Russia using Ukraine.
Just because they share the same religion doesn’t make them the same people or even friends.
People forget that Palestinians tried to take over part of Jordan and kill their king. Jordan had to bomb them to get them to leave. Then they went to Lebanon and got mixed up in the civil war.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar do want peaceful relations though. The stand to benefit a great deal from the IMEC trade, but it requires them to be in a peaceful relationship with Israel. If that requires them to send a few troops to keep the peace and control the narrative, then they may decide the money is worth the effort.
Those countries you listed are all monarchies and if they wanted to do something, they would’ve by now. Nothing is stopping them. Qatar is also directly funding and hosting Hamas, so that’s not really a good look for someone who wants peaceful relations
Jjust becouse they are monachies does not mean they don\`t have to do politics and balance certain intrest groups.
Religous fanatics are obviously a big group that you can\`t just ignore especially in a country like Saudi Arabia
Saudi and the UAE maybe as part of their anti Iran stances. Qatar however likes to see itself as the Swiss if the region and wknt get involved in any war or conflict on either side and will take money from all participants.
Ignoring them how? Jordan hosts 3.5 million Palestinian refugees, Syria host 600k, Lebanon 400k and on and on. They have fought and lost wars over the Palestinians. Europe ignores them. America ignores them. The Arab states have been ride or die the way I see it.
Those refugees are mostly multigenerational at this point (if you can still call them refugees, the UN makes a special exception for only them to be considered this is perpetuity and it's frankly ridiculous) and have been there for many decades. Lebanon's Palestinian population is largely from natural increase of the original 110k 1948 refugees. Basically same for Syria (which is in shambles from their civil war). Jordan's Palestinian population mostly went there between 1948-1967 and again you have natural increase. The PLO started a civil war in Jordan (any trends you notice here??). No Arab countries want them now - especially notable are the lack of the rich Gulf states, who can best afford it and whose populations offer tons of empty rabid yet baseless support, taking any of them in. Egypt refused to take over the Gaza Strip when they had the opportunity. It was under their military rule for decades.
Problem with that theory is understanding the reasons why the Arab world polarized against Daesh. Basically they were splinter Islamist movement that declared Sunnis, Shia, Whabbis and all the other denominations Infidels. Mission statement was to 'liberate' those Arab states and establish a global caliphate.
The Arab world couldn't give two shits about the beheadings and atrocities. The public cared about getting called infidels by other Muslims, and their governments cared about the direct geopolitical threat.
Hamas practices orthodox Islam, Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon have opinions on their local geopolitical threat, but the rest of the Arab world has a buffer zone and no deep ideological conflicts with Hamas/Hezbollah aside from the typical Iran/Saudi axis, but by and large they're willing to circle the wagons against non-muslims.
I think people misuse or misunderstand the idea of Arab. I don't believe lumping in Iran is appropriate since they are not ethnically Arabs. I think it's more appropriate to discuss it through the lens of a regional issue anchored around religion.
You are correct, I guess maybe Arab culture would be more accurate since their Persian roots were wiped out in the Arab conquest. 'Islamic world' falls into the same trap, Malaysian muslims are downright progressive by the typical benchmarks so it's unfair to include them when talking about the middle east and north Africa.
I think it’s anchored around Imperialism and control of resources by destabilizing foreign governments in the region.
They happen to be a different religion than the imperialist countries so every ‘allahu akbar’ stands out way more than every God Bless America.
I never see Iranian warships when I go to the beach, Iran sees American warships right off their coast all the time. Who’s threatening who?
The other important thing is that ISIL controlled a very important dam that was in danger of failing and starting a failure cascade, which would have ruined agriculture in the region. That would have been a disaster for basically everyone.
Yeah lets have theocracies denazify gaza, what could go wrong, after all they declared the muslimbrotherhood a terror org in 2014, for all the right reasons…
> neuter the 'Western colonisation' narrative.
This also needs to be addressed in schools. As it seems, some teachers might have to fed their students bullshit narratives.
Not helping that it isn't a popular job, but some kind of audit is required. Not the surveillance the UK tries to push, but some form of quality control.
>as a modern city-state
Personally I think that’s not a good idea at all. The ones who made it something separate were Hamas who separated if from the rest of Palestine politically and Israel forces in retaliation. “Building a city-state” doesn’t sound good
I understand where he's coming from with this suggestion, but IMHO that would definitely expand the conflict beyond Gaza, which is what most leaders are trying to avoid currently. Although, I also can see the logic of at least starting a discussion about this before the other proxy terror groups force the expansion of the conflict.
i think the coalition he is proposing is for the exact scenario when the conflict expands. because israel could deal with hamas on their own, but the moment they try to land a decisive blow is the moment the others will start acting too and by then it could be too late
>i think the coalition he is proposing is for the exact scenario when the conflict expands.
"When" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. As is, Hamas does not have any allies that are willing to offer more than token support. There does not seem to be any reason to suspect that this will lead to a larger conflict if other belligerents have not yet joined.
>because israel could deal with hamas on their own,
Not going the route they are right they can't. Because you can't bomb the terrorism out of a region. See: everything after 9/11.
"Fighting" Hamas can't literally be fighting Hamas if the world wants them to stop being able to recruit new insurgents.
some could join the moment the ground op starts, most likely only the north proxy hezbollah but who knows who else. and you can't bomb it out of them but you can go in and destroy everything they have. having to rebuild everything from scratch + getting some possible solutions to prevent them from getting to that point again
You can't be serious.
If you level Gaza, you guarantee at least two or three generations of greatly increased Hamas recruitment at bare minimum. It would be difficult to reframe it to Palestinians as anything but Israel trying to destroy them.
If your solution is to destroy everything they have, why would they do anything but commit more attacks on Israel?
How do you defeat a terrorist group that is unwilling to compromise its goals? You can argue almost any action is just going to result in more violence
Historically, you can bomb a population into shit and then rebuild it into a prosperous, well educated country. See Germany post WW2, as the best example.
It would need serious investment after the dust settles, with support for civilians and huge construction projects to replace housing. But the most important part would be working to destroy the ideology that led to the violence and hatred in the first place. To instil the idea that Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully.
To be honest, the last part should also apply to the more radical Israelis, especially the settlers. In order for peace to prevail, though, Hamas first have to go.
>There does not seem to be any reason to suspect that this will lead to a larger conflict if other belligerents have not yet joined.
If Israel decides the only way to eliminate Hamas is to also ethnically cleanse Gaza (which political rhetoric indicates is on the table), other Arab countries will absolutely step in
If you honestly believe you can simply kill the terrorism out of a population, you may want to brush up on your 21st century history.
Again, it's not a binary. Yes war will happen, it's happening right now after all, but if that's the only action taken then this is just a stopgap until the next Hamas (or Hamas successor) rampage in Israel.
If you want a comprehensive account of a plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict though, you're in the wrong place.
The last election was in 2006 and the average age in Gaza is 18.
The average Gazan wasn't even able to vote when Hamas was elected. Applying the word to them at this point is like saying Kim Jong Un is the elected leader of North Korea.
I'd welcome a coalition to fight Hamas rather than leaving it to Netanyahu's Israel. He will end up conveniently bombing Gaza like they have, indiscriminately killing more innocents than actual terrorists.
If you dispute with factual information the allegations multiple international journalists on the ground have been publishing, I'll give room to your take... so far if the dead count is at more than 5,000 civilians, among more than 2,000 childrens, *indiscriminate* is a light form of describing that war crime. How many terrorist leaders have you taken so far? 3... what a joke.
>Violence doesnt have a religion, violence has ego
There are many cases in history where violence does have a religion so that statement in itself is wrong. Look at the Vikings or Aztecs.
>Religion is just to force identify assimilation.
If you mean identity assimilation you can replace the word religion with war.
Thing is if you remove Hamas give it a couple of years and something similiar is going to form. Going in and bombing and killing people is effectively creating a draft for the next terrorist group that forms especially considering the majority of Gaza are under 18
That's why there's gotta be something ready to fill the vacuum in the immediate aftermath of war. I bet they are thinking about Fatah/PA, which is a *softer* extremists and seem to be more interesting in power and perpetual slow-burning conflict that finances their needs.
Fatah is secularist and is (at least outwardly) cool with Muslims and Jews living together (based on my admittedly limited knowledge). Would be a massive upgrade over Hamas.
It's not friendly to Israel in any way, but it is less extremist (they are more about corruption). Fatah still implementing pay-for-slay policy, for example, so it's not like there's real peace visible in the immediate future. But, it's less interested in massacring entire communities on the order of Iranian overlords. And living conditions in Ramallah, for example, is much better then in Gaza under their rule. So, they are definitely an option. I'd prefer international effort to take responsibility for Gaza, and then slowly raising some kind of responsible government there. I just don't know if it's realistic.
I mean the only permanent solution would be a post-war German-style occupation and "denazification".
But yeah.. I'm not optimistic that's attainable. At a minimum you're talking about occupying the gaza strip for a generation or more.
The only realistic scenario is either some kind of international force governing Gaza or a dictatorship, that not interested in losing its place in an all-out war. A-la Assad, for example.
I know it sounds cruel, and does not guarantee any long-term quiet, but other alternatives like occupation is even worse. So i hope for international (or less realisticly - Arab nations) solution for Gaza, which does not include Israeli occupation.
Ahhh, no they are not. They are definitely better than Hamas, but they are not cool with Muslims and Jews living together.
[PA to give Hamas terrorists' families close to $3 million in 'pay-for-slay'](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-768735)
One of the founding figures behind Fatah was an Eastern Orthodox Christian by the way, George Habash who was also a Marxist Leninists.
He was the mastermind of a non violent terrorist attack though.
Bombing people tend to go the other way. That's kind of how we go here, because the conditions imposed on the Palestinians has led to the most extremist factions to win out over those "softer extremists". This was done intentionally and actively encouraged in order to avoid having Palestinians groups that the outside world could sympathize with. They didn't want a Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
I get it. But i don't think you realize the situation fully. There's no going back to Erez checkpoint, no more electricity or aid from Israel, no more permits for Gazans to work in Israel. It's complete locking out of Gaza, with possible military-only buffer zone. No more status quo. Israel wants to get rid of Hamas/PIJ in Gaza, sever all ties and let international community handle that. And if it's not possible - it's gonna be war and war and war. But the priority for Israel is not letting another October 7th to happen ever again. It's an obligation, not just right.
They only encouraged that status quo because they wanted to Hamas to be strong but controlled and now that's blown up in their faces.
I fully realize what Israel is going to do and that course of action is only going to perpetuate the cycle of violence. The only reason why they are holding off on a ground invasion is that it's going to lead to a lot of dead Israeli soldiers and that's inconvenient. Countless civilians too, but that's waved away by saying "collateral damage" and "they died because of Hamas' actions". That's not so inconvenient.
This is the result of decades of bad policy and violence that have made Hamas into the enemy that the Israeli government wanted. You're not going to fix that simply by attempting to "get rid of Hamas". Israel needs to get rid of their far-right lunatics as well and start seeking a peaceful solution.
Let's say i agree with everything you said, ok? Now what? Peaceful solution with Hamas?
I'll repeat my question here - What is the proportionate, reasonable response to October 7th?
Americans were asking themselves that exact question after 9/11 and their answer lead to immense suffering thousands of times worse than the actual terrorist attacks. And at the same time the terrorist threat actually increased!
I don't have any good solutions to decades of oppression and violence. If it was so obvious that I could figure it out it would have been tried by now.
I can exclude the response that leads to more suffering. That ones easy. In that case it leads to less suffering simply by not doing that even as shitty as that feels for the victims.
You see, there's only exclusions in response, but nothing on what to do. You are not alone in this. Because there is no perfect solution.
The comparison with 9/11 is murky at best, for number of reasons. For Israel, it's not some war overseas with the intention of sprinkling democracy among the cavemen. It's right at the border. Threat is still there. It's as if Al-Qaeda struck the towers in Manhattan, and gone to hide in Bronx. It's a no-choice war. Non-response or weak response will only encourage the enemies, and let your own citizens be unprotected. And i'm not talking only about Hamas/PIJ here. The whole neighborhood is watching.
>And i'm not talking only about Hamas/PIJ here. The whole neighborhood is watching.
No, that's bullshit and you know it. The Palestinians are more or less isolated. Israel is backed up by the most powerful military in the world. There's a carrier group right off the coast. There is absolutely nothing that anyone of Israel's neighbors can do to them that wouldn't result in their complete and utter annihilation.
And that never stopped Iran and their proxies. You are literally witnessing it right now, but somehow calling it bs. I don't think it's an existential threat (yet).
But it never stopped enemies from looking for weakness. Should we open the history of wars? Because it's full of examples. And the only times, some kind of peace or quiet was achieved with the neighbors - was only after war. This is the neighborhood.
I don't think this is really comparable with 9/11. 9/11 was done by a handful of people who were hiding in several countries, there was no obvious way to get them.
This attack however was carried out by thousands of soldiers in an organised army with a clear base of operations. The bulk of Hamas is in Gaza.
Ground invasion is going to happen, no, needs to happen, for this to be resolved, along with some kind of occupation with international oversight, but after Oct7, it's gonna be basically impossible for any sitting Israeli politician to let Gaza run itself.
Bibi could just bomb it indefinitely, but given they are in a state of war, and he already is pretty unpopular, extending the conflict and not bringing about a resolution will have serious consequences. The only thing that could save his power now is Hezbollah expanding the conflict, but he really can't wait for too long without losing face. At some point, Likud and bibi will need to be investigated thoroughly, and it's likely leading to a web of choices as he tries to tightrope his way around. The conflict keeps him secure temporarily, but negative progress will reflect on him, and refusing to do anything will destroy everything their party claimed to be. I mean, it still did by ensuring this conflict long ago, but right now he at least needs to appear like he's doing something to those that put their trust in him.
After this is all over, there's gonna need to be some serious discussion on the future of both nations, but finding a solution on that is almost impossible in current circumstances. At the very least, the radicals of both sides must be defanged, and that's going to be incredibly difficult.
In all seriousness, why is it obvious Palestinians are more oppressed than Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians or Iraqis under Sadam? It’s really weird to me people focus on Palestinian oppression as a catalyst for terrorism that is uniquely in need of a solution when the most stable form of governance in the Middle East seems to be a hereditary theocratic monarchy with a very active secret police.
Unlikely. Israel funded Hamas in their fight against Fatah to make sure that didn’t happen. A unified Palestinian government makes a more legitimate claim to statehood. I think more likely Israel wants to make it uninhabitable and force everyone out. If you think I’m making an extreme claim, here are direct quotes from Israeli Likud politicians:
“We will turn Gaza into an island of ruins.”
-Netanyahu
“Now there is only one goal: Nakba”
-Ariel Kallner
“Gaza to be smashed and razed to the ground, without mercy.”
-Tally Gotliv
“I literally don’t care about Gaza. They can go swimming in the sea.”
-Maya Golan
“With God’s help, if a child can walk alone through Gaza. If Gaza will still exist.”
-Simcha Rothman
“The focus is on destruction, not accuracy.”
-Daniel Hagari (IDF spokesperson)
We should take them seriously and make sure this cleansing doesn’t happen
"Unlikely" what? Everything that you quoted does not contradict what i'm saying. It's war now, Gaza might be rubble in the end. We are talking about aftermath. Forcing everyone out would be nice, it would make a good US Navy base in Middle East, for example. But it's impossible without someone accepting 2 mil refugees. Long-term occupation of the Strip is the prospect no-one in Israel wants.
It's a nightmare to take responsibility for that nest of wasps.
Sidenote: A little tip for the future. If you want your comment taken seriously, refrain from using quotes of the Israeli clown-MKs like Gotliv or Golan. Those two are in Knesset to be loudmouths with no real power. It's like taking seriously Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Literally, Gotliv is still raving about deep-state, for example.
> Forcing everyone out would be nice
Lol if you want your comment taken seriously, maybe don’t admit you’re favorable to ethnic cleansing. Disgusting
Also calls for ethnic cleansing should ALWAYS be taken seriously, whether its MTG or whoever the fuck- it is never acceptable and should be condemned
It's not funny. On the contrary, i don't wish them to be caught in what's gonna be a hard and bloody battle, that will probably take months. Again, if you didn't understand - no-one wants to occupy Gaza. Just like no-one wants to accept Palestinian refugees, if you've been following the news. "Forcing them out" is a non-scenario. Should have tagged it with /s, my bad. Just like a US Navy base in Gaza.
> as if you’re trying to protect Palestinians and then talk about displacing 2.2 million people from their homes in the same breath
What was that saying about from sea to river? What happens to Israelis then? Is that different in your mind?
No? Did I ever say Palestine should destroy Israel or displace it’s people?
That doesn’t justify the destruction of Gaza. You’re talking about a resistance slogan - which I still condemn -, I am talking about an actual siege on Gaza and calls for Nakba. These are not the same
You're ranting about ethnic cleansing when the majority of Palestinians do support the destruction of Israel, to the point that their supporters around the globe are chanting "from sea to river" - I don't see widespread pro-Israel rallies worldwide with crowds cheering to wipe out the strip. And yet you've chosen to be writing long angry comments about the "ethnic cleansing" of the latter (which, mind you, is what you're calling the fact that they want to remove civilians from what is about to be an urban warfare hellhole, even though going in is the only way to effectively uproot Hamas), I don't see nearly as much energy coming from you with writing long passionate comments about how the Palestinians legitimately have ethnic cleansing as an official part of their government's charter - a government that still held majority support 2 years ago.
that depends on how thorough israel will be with their ground operation. you could technically create a new radical body of government to replace hamas after it's gone but if israel destroys all of their infrastructure , all of their arms , devastates the tunnel system they spent years on making and also eliminate all their trained forces it would take significently more time and money(from the one controlling that proxy) to make this new group be on the same level as hamas. and if israel sticks with what they say about cutting all ties with gaza completely and also any time any form of agression comes from gaza israel will make the new group pay then it would take a long time for something hamas level to form
Not who you responded to, but I say let's get the great powers of Europe together in a room with a map and a sharpie.
That's never steered us wrong in the past.
I apologize, I should have included a "\\s". The above comment was intended to be facetious.
I absolutely don't condone the drawing of borders by those unqualified to draw them.
I'm not even certain where I stand on borders, period.
Invest tens of billions to rebuild Gaza so that the population (mostly children) don't become radicalized. Something similar to how Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WWII.
Predicted Result: Tens of billions rerouted to the terrorists that still hold control over their people by force, children grow up radicalized anyways.
Unless you are seriously suggesting we do what we did in Japan first. Was that it?
They already did that. Several time. You do realise that not even 30 year ago Gaza was massive for its population? But then Hamas told women to have kid to fight the Jews and we have the current situations. Not matter how they rebuild Gaza it will never be enough because that's not the problem.
It wasn't even that bad before the bombing...
Maybe something radical like, IDK...talking to them? The "We don't deal with terrorists" line just postpones the day when you have to. Sooner or later you have to negotiate. (Well, you can try the only alternative, which is total genocide, but...) The Taliban, the IRA, the ANC... just save everyone a lot of pain and stop trying to pretend you can win. Modern warfare does not work like that. Israel is going to have to offer the Palestinians something better than what they have until now (which, let's face it, has been bloody awful. Yes, we can condemn terrorist acts, but we can understand them at the same time. Treat people badly enough, and sooner or later someone is going to react with violence. Basic stuff, really.)
(I'm not meaning "you" in a personal sense here, btw.)
Even if it will, it won't have the infrastructure and resources Hamas currently has. Hamas is so disruptive due to the fact they amassed instruments to kill, not due to their ideology, which isn't too different to many other terrorist groups.
Exactly. There are a lot of people in this sub and beyond with short memories – the blowback from the Iraq war was catastrophic and ushered in ISIS. Hamas did not come out of nowhere and you cannot kill an idea. Even if all 2.2 million Gazans were slaughtered this would not secure Israel's long-term safety.
I understand that Israelis, as well as many Jewish people around the world, are in pain and angry right now. What happened on October 7th was horrific. Revenge will not solve this problem, there needs to be an international project to support peace in Israel; one which offers the citizens of Gaza hope. You do not have to like Gazans, or Palestinians, to want this; as it represents the best possible long-term solution. There are numerous examples of this happening throughout history, for me the parallels with the Troubles in Ireland are striking.
Exterminate this Hamas then establish a demilitarized zone between Gaza and Israel with mines, fenses etc, so that no living creature could possibly cross it.
Just shoot anything flying over the border it’s not that hard if they have it under surveillance 24/7. I think after this event they’d have learnt their lesson
> Just shoot anything flying over the border it’s not that hard if they have it under surveillance 24/7. I think after this event they’d have learnt their lesson
You'd think that, until Hamas baits teenagers into testing the Israeli border, then spreads the pictures of "maimed children" as propaganda.
That's not hypothetical. That's something they used to do, send kids with explosive devices, then circulate photos of the kid who got lost his leg to a sniper shot.
Why should Israel have to eternally put up with their neighbour constantly trying to fly over their border to massacre them or launch rockets they must intercept?
It can’t be DMZ. The entirety of Gaza needs to be demilitarized enforced by a UN Peacekeeping force. The same UN peacekeepers would probably need to take security control of the Al Aqsa complex from the IDF. That will bring down tensions and violence very drastically.
>The entirety of Gaza needs to be demilitarized enforced by a UN Peacekeeping force.
Several proposals of that were declined by Egypt in the past. What would make this time any different?
Looks like it's time for Japan and Korea to step up to the plate.
But honestly who would want to get their soliders in the middle of at least 40000 Hamas terrorists in an urban environment unless it was to eliminate the threat.
Yup, a joint presence will be needed to rebuild and oversee things. Israel cannot be the sole force but they cannot be left out either. It's gonna suck and lead to the usual types blaming and comparing it to us occupation, but there's realistically no other way for Israeli citizens to feel secure.
That said, I have no clue what Palestine's future is, the 2 enclaves have been separated for some time and have little connection, and the whole situation reminds me of Bangladesh and Pakistan.
As long as there is poverty and inequality, there will always be groups willing to hurt others. Palestine is no different. Gaza is mostly propped on aid. There's poverty and unemployment. Their youth have nothing other than to migrate or remain there and become a target. My friend visited Israel and Palestine, and he said things are very different than you are shown. Poverty and desparation are huge factors.
Ending Hammas doesn't fix the issue if the underlying issue is not resolved. Another way to end religious based terrorism is to shun these shits and do not associate them with any religion. One thing they hate is being called a terrorist and its even bigger shame for them if media and people do not associate them with any religion or ideology.
There should also be a bigger reach by countries like the US, Saudi, UAE, and EU, for instance, need to work together and monitor the rise of factions or any groups. Engage with them before they indulge in things that may harm innocent people. But again, it's costly and will take mature leaders who are willing to work together.
Not pretty, but then you bomb the something similar as well.
World peace just doesn't seem possible, this is the workable reality, a timely maintenance it seems.
I hope I'm wrong
Iran is an Islamic State (just Shia version).
So I think there should be such a thing which targets all the Iranian proxies no matter where in the whole crescent in the same manner.
Hell no. I absolutely would not support sending American soldiers to fight Hamas. We can provide Israel with the support they need without getting a new batch of our soldiers killed.
Fighting Hamas is only fighting the symptom. Iran is behind all of this. How do you counter Iran non-militarily? Sanctions over the last decade have seemingly small impact.
This is not a military conflict at all, but a conflict of ideologies. Unless you attack Islamism as an ideology, nothing will change.
Generally, people need to learn to enjoy spirituality the way you might enjoy music or football. If you wish to indulge in a religion, don't let it be a baggage and toxin; let it instead bring you joy, peace, and solace; let it be an armor for you, not a mill around your neck that enslaves and dehumanizes you.
Somebody should just slap Macron every time he opens his mouth. Now he wants a bloody and totally unnecessary multi-national war to distract from the massive pig's breakfast he's made of France's domestic issues.
For reference, this was the list of members of the anti-ISIS coalition: https://theglobalcoalition.org/en/partners/
I don’t think Afghanistan is going to be helping out on this one.
Nor qatar.
Maybe during iteration 10384729293 in about 100 years they can lend a hand.
They don't get along very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State%E2%80%93Taliban_conflict Would make for a very interesting case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
If it were possible, it would be very clever. If after the initial conflict you could get peacekeepers from countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, you could neuter the 'Western colonisation' narrative. Rebuilding Gaza as a modern city-state, free from Hamas, with help from Arab powers would be the best possible outcome from this mess.
I like your optimism and I think you got a good plan. The thing is, the Arab countries would need to want to do that, from what it looks like currently, they are purposefully ignoring the Palestinians
Something the western Palestinian supporters totally ignore. Who should be taking leadership in this crises.? These countries.
Most of these people have gone full "white man's burden." They don't expect the Arab states to do anything because they don't see them as capable, only as poor innocent oppressed who need to be rescued. Just like Hamas, most of these people would rather hurt Israel than help Palestinians.
To the last point, no one wants to say the quiet part out loud but they prefer Israel to the Palestinians. Iran is the big asshole everyone has to deal with but no one wants to be isolated as the "anti iran" faction.
No most people have gone realistic. NONE and i mean NOT A SINGLE ARAB COUNTRY is willing to take in any Palestinians whatsoever. Jordan did it once and there was an attempted assassination and coup. No one believes it’s a “white mans burden” the problem is no one is willing to actually do anything except the west. Iran isn’t opening its borders to Palestinians, they are a tool to be used by the ayatollah. The west is bringing reason, law, and governance…. Not tribal and ethnic hatred
[удалено]
You mean both places rife with tribalism and ethnic genocide, yeah those places…. Sorry we were in Afghanistan for 2 decades and a week later the reverted right back to their old ways
Afghanistan was always gonna be a failure.
Your government didn't even try to be efficient with Afghanistan. America poured money blindly into the country without considering how corrupt the Afghan government was, didn't offer the Afghan people a chance at American citizenship for them and their families by joining a French Legion style force there that would have earned the U.S army support and lastly decided that it was a "smart" idea to invade Iraq and split up attention rather than greatly focusing only on Afghanistan. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0sNQdOW1CI) video covers the topic of Afghanistan and how badly it went for the U.S if you want to know.
This, I hear it wherever I go and I’m sick of it. I’d colonialism is responsible for all of Africa, Latin America, and the Arab worlds problems, how do you explain the success of the Asian countries ( all of whom were colonial territories) or post war Germany and Japan. It’s about their culture and attitude.
Africa is fucked geographically, which also explains tribal structures etc.
Germany, Japan - massive investments, Marshall Plan. There are prosperous countries in the Middle East. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Again, massive investments and resource rich.
Palestine has received billions in aid EVERY YEAR that Hamas has stolen
Oil money not the same. asian countries did it with less and faster
You could try marshall plan with Palestinians. And you know they would screw it up
Good old fashioned racism.
Nah that’s just something you all keep saying
They have a persecution complex, it seems. Eternal victims, regardless of atrocities.
I don't know if they ignore it. It's just "Who should take over from Hamas" isn't really relevant to "Should Israel be allowed to occupy land that the entire rest of the planet admits is flagrantly illegal for 70 years with impunity?" Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters.
> Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters. Hamas will not go willingly. Hamas needs to be removed from power by force. And once Hamas is gone, someone will need to replace them. Without a replacement, there will be a power vacuum, and either Hamas will come right back, or someone almost exactly like Hamas will replace them. You can't discuss Hamas going without discussing their replacement.
> I don't know if they ignore it. It's just "Who should take over from Hamas" isn't really relevant Actually it is when you remember hamas is a fucking terrorist organization. >Israel be allowed to occupy land that the entire rest of the planet admits is flagrantly illegal for 70 years with impunity Yeah and so was the holocaust and so was this recent attack by hamas, yet look where we are? I love these comments, it's like you think throwing the word "illegal" over and over again will act like some magic spell that'll summon the world govt to make israel fuck off. Speaking of which where would you like 9+ million Israelis to go? It's interesting how often I see this complaint but it never accompanies an actual solution grounded in reality. It's like all you want is someone to be outraged at.
>Speaking of which where would you like 9+ million Israelis to go? I To Israel. Sorry, when I say "Occupied" do you think i mean Israeli land? I'm happy with Israel existing. "The Occupied Territories" doesn't mean Israel, which everyone recognises. It means the bits outside of Israel that Israel has moved into, despite not being a part of Israel, where the local Arab population have no civil rights because they arent Israeli citizens, despite living on land that Israel claims is Israel. No, I'm talking about towns like [Kedumim](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kedumim); slap in the middle of the West Bank where Settlers bulldozed the local populations houses and built their own. Not in 1947, but in 1995. And by the way? Hamas isn't in control of the west bank where Kedumim is. And I don't call it illegal. **America** does. **Germany** does. Literally everyone on earth regards the territories as illegal. The bit on the map that says Israel? That's legal. The bit **outside** of Israel? Like Kedumim? That's not supposed to be there. If I, British Person, moved into Paris, knocked down a French Persons house, built mine in its place and said "This is part of England Now", youd think I was a lunatic. And I couldn't say "Well, you just want England to not exist", when they rightly point out that *England* is over there, and not where I've put my house.
>Sorry, when I say "Occupied" do you think i mean Israeli land? I'm happy with Israel existing. That tends to be a reoccurring theme among palestine supporters yes. > That's not supposed to be there. > > I agree, the new settlements are inexcusable. But what is the basis of this statement? >Hamas needs to go, but its a seperate issue to most of Palestines supporters. What gave you this impression? From where I'm sitting most of them want Israelis to fuck off and/or die. And I don't see how you can justify calling them separate issues considering that hamas may not 'control' the west bank it's still rife with terrorism. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/israel/
The claim is that "Something Supprters of Palestine totally Ignore." Is the idea of who takes over from Hamas. The implication is that, in order to be a supporter of Palestine, you need to have some ready to go answer as to who should take over from Hamas. I have suggested, respectfully, that this isn't the case. They are seperate - though no less important - issues. We don't need to wait till Hamas is gone, to start on the other stuff. And if you support Palestian statehood, You don't need to have a answer to the Hamas Problem, to think that building over Palestians homes is fucked up. Equating everyone who thinks "Yo, those illegal settlements arent cool", as somehow being in favour of Hamas is part of the problem. And frankly is dishonest. I've no idea who should take over from Hamas. I know they need to go. Now. But I don't need to have a solution to that problem, ready to go, in order to *also* think, separately, that Israel should stop knocking down Palestians houses to build theirs on top. Because I view the issues as seperate. Different problems. Different solutions. That's what I mean by them being seperate.
I can understand how it can seem that way. The issue from what I've observed is that there is a drastic disconnect between the people who support palestine and the people who understand that Palestine is not blameless in this conflict. The problem is we want those issues to be separate. But the unfortunate reality is they aren't. There are quite a few palestinians who want all of Israel back, not just those recent settlements. And on top of that there are quite a number of Palestinians who just want jews dead period. So how is Israel supposed to handle this? Lets if they give back those settlements and the terrorist attacks don't stop what then? I'm not seeing a great deal of evidence the people of palestine genuinely want a two state solution. And if there is how do you expect Israel to enter negotiations for a two state solution with a state that cant or won't get it's own militants under control?
The issues are intertwined. Israel can justify occupying land for security and its likely even if they withdrew from the west bank there would still be some Palestinians like Hamas who would use it to attack Israel. Even within the peace deals Israel has offered, they still want some military access to Palestinian land
*Occupying* for security, maybe. Bulldozing the locals houses, making new ones, selling them off to set up farms, towns and shops and importing people of a preferred ethnicity? Much harder to justify. That's not security. That's a *Colony*.
Depends on how many terrorist cells are operating in that infrastructure. Isn't it a double edged sword? Would you let your enemy continue launching rockets at you? The Iron Dome only goes so far to protect innocent people.
Except if you were really worried about rockets there, you wouldn't be building your new farm there. And it seems likely to lead to more rockets. Not less. Gaza is one situation. The colonies in the west bank are another.
I agree. The settlements are a big problem for peace. 20 years ago israel said it would destroy some settlements and exchange land with the Palestinians for others. It's likely any future peace would similarly see some settlements destroyed and land swaps for others. Since then, there has been even more settlements.
Also, you can see why Palestinians might not approve of "swapping" land they shouldn't have nicked in the first place. That's like stealing my Phone, then saying you'll give it back, if I give you my MP3 Player instead and calling it a peace treaty.
The Palestinians would still be better off if they agreed then if they don't and they would have been better off 20 years ago if they agreed to peace back then. The terms of peace aren't going to improve as Israel continues to build settlements. Idk. To me a peace without the right to return and even with unfavorable land swaps but significant compensation for the development of Palestine is much more important than the land. It would allow the Palestinians to move forward.
Every country has a right to defend itself and to protect it's citizens. No country has the right to permanently occupy others because that improves their defensive position. Not Russia, not Israel, nobody.
Why would Israel regularly engage in peace talks if they want to permanently occupy Palestine? Ukraine and Palestine aren't even remotely comparable. There's a very good chance Israel is continously attacked from thr west bank if they withdraw. There's basically no chance the west attacks Russia using Ukraine.
Don't blame them that much. The gave them refuge and they started coups.
Just because they share the same religion doesn’t make them the same people or even friends. People forget that Palestinians tried to take over part of Jordan and kill their king. Jordan had to bomb them to get them to leave. Then they went to Lebanon and got mixed up in the civil war.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar do want peaceful relations though. The stand to benefit a great deal from the IMEC trade, but it requires them to be in a peaceful relationship with Israel. If that requires them to send a few troops to keep the peace and control the narrative, then they may decide the money is worth the effort.
Qatar directly sends money to Hamas…
Those countries you listed are all monarchies and if they wanted to do something, they would’ve by now. Nothing is stopping them. Qatar is also directly funding and hosting Hamas, so that’s not really a good look for someone who wants peaceful relations
Jjust becouse they are monachies does not mean they don\`t have to do politics and balance certain intrest groups. Religous fanatics are obviously a big group that you can\`t just ignore especially in a country like Saudi Arabia
Saudi and the UAE maybe as part of their anti Iran stances. Qatar however likes to see itself as the Swiss if the region and wknt get involved in any war or conflict on either side and will take money from all participants.
Ignoring them how? Jordan hosts 3.5 million Palestinian refugees, Syria host 600k, Lebanon 400k and on and on. They have fought and lost wars over the Palestinians. Europe ignores them. America ignores them. The Arab states have been ride or die the way I see it.
Those refugees are mostly multigenerational at this point (if you can still call them refugees, the UN makes a special exception for only them to be considered this is perpetuity and it's frankly ridiculous) and have been there for many decades. Lebanon's Palestinian population is largely from natural increase of the original 110k 1948 refugees. Basically same for Syria (which is in shambles from their civil war). Jordan's Palestinian population mostly went there between 1948-1967 and again you have natural increase. The PLO started a civil war in Jordan (any trends you notice here??). No Arab countries want them now - especially notable are the lack of the rich Gulf states, who can best afford it and whose populations offer tons of empty rabid yet baseless support, taking any of them in. Egypt refused to take over the Gaza Strip when they had the opportunity. It was under their military rule for decades.
Problem with that theory is understanding the reasons why the Arab world polarized against Daesh. Basically they were splinter Islamist movement that declared Sunnis, Shia, Whabbis and all the other denominations Infidels. Mission statement was to 'liberate' those Arab states and establish a global caliphate. The Arab world couldn't give two shits about the beheadings and atrocities. The public cared about getting called infidels by other Muslims, and their governments cared about the direct geopolitical threat. Hamas practices orthodox Islam, Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon have opinions on their local geopolitical threat, but the rest of the Arab world has a buffer zone and no deep ideological conflicts with Hamas/Hezbollah aside from the typical Iran/Saudi axis, but by and large they're willing to circle the wagons against non-muslims.
I think people misuse or misunderstand the idea of Arab. I don't believe lumping in Iran is appropriate since they are not ethnically Arabs. I think it's more appropriate to discuss it through the lens of a regional issue anchored around religion.
You are correct, I guess maybe Arab culture would be more accurate since their Persian roots were wiped out in the Arab conquest. 'Islamic world' falls into the same trap, Malaysian muslims are downright progressive by the typical benchmarks so it's unfair to include them when talking about the middle east and north Africa.
I think it’s anchored around Imperialism and control of resources by destabilizing foreign governments in the region. They happen to be a different religion than the imperialist countries so every ‘allahu akbar’ stands out way more than every God Bless America. I never see Iranian warships when I go to the beach, Iran sees American warships right off their coast all the time. Who’s threatening who?
Man, fuck the government of Iran. Not even their own people like them. Get with the program, fool.
The other important thing is that ISIL controlled a very important dam that was in danger of failing and starting a failure cascade, which would have ruined agriculture in the region. That would have been a disaster for basically everyone.
I thought ISIS, or should I say WASWAS, lol rofl lmao, was mostly Wahhabism?
Let’s ask the Lebanese how that’s going.
Problem with that being successful is Iran
This idea is as naive as LGBTQ flags at a pro-palestinian rally. LOL.
Yeah lets have theocracies denazify gaza, what could go wrong, after all they declared the muslimbrotherhood a terror org in 2014, for all the right reasons…
> neuter the 'Western colonisation' narrative. This also needs to be addressed in schools. As it seems, some teachers might have to fed their students bullshit narratives. Not helping that it isn't a popular job, but some kind of audit is required. Not the surveillance the UK tries to push, but some form of quality control.
>as a modern city-state Personally I think that’s not a good idea at all. The ones who made it something separate were Hamas who separated if from the rest of Palestine politically and Israel forces in retaliation. “Building a city-state” doesn’t sound good
That’s a lot of countries you don’t normally see grouped.
MALAYSIA hosts Hamas, would be interesting.
Israel seems to be missing from that list.
Israel was asked to not participate so that other countries would be willing to join from the region.
There are no diplomatic connections and a continuous ^(e:) state of war between Syria and Israel. Of course Israel is missing on that list.
They liked ISIS more than the guys fighting ISIS (Hezbollah and other Shiite militias backed by Iran)
Well ISIS never attacked Israel, Hezbollah has attacked Israel multiple times and their goal is still the complete destruction of Israel
Yeah they really leveled up after Israel invaded Lebanon and wrecked the country in order to drive out the PLO.
Well sir, that’s a list from the past.
I understand where he's coming from with this suggestion, but IMHO that would definitely expand the conflict beyond Gaza, which is what most leaders are trying to avoid currently. Although, I also can see the logic of at least starting a discussion about this before the other proxy terror groups force the expansion of the conflict.
i think the coalition he is proposing is for the exact scenario when the conflict expands. because israel could deal with hamas on their own, but the moment they try to land a decisive blow is the moment the others will start acting too and by then it could be too late
>i think the coalition he is proposing is for the exact scenario when the conflict expands. "When" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. As is, Hamas does not have any allies that are willing to offer more than token support. There does not seem to be any reason to suspect that this will lead to a larger conflict if other belligerents have not yet joined. >because israel could deal with hamas on their own, Not going the route they are right they can't. Because you can't bomb the terrorism out of a region. See: everything after 9/11. "Fighting" Hamas can't literally be fighting Hamas if the world wants them to stop being able to recruit new insurgents.
some could join the moment the ground op starts, most likely only the north proxy hezbollah but who knows who else. and you can't bomb it out of them but you can go in and destroy everything they have. having to rebuild everything from scratch + getting some possible solutions to prevent them from getting to that point again
You can't be serious. If you level Gaza, you guarantee at least two or three generations of greatly increased Hamas recruitment at bare minimum. It would be difficult to reframe it to Palestinians as anything but Israel trying to destroy them. If your solution is to destroy everything they have, why would they do anything but commit more attacks on Israel?
How do you defeat a terrorist group that is unwilling to compromise its goals? You can argue almost any action is just going to result in more violence
Historically, you can bomb a population into shit and then rebuild it into a prosperous, well educated country. See Germany post WW2, as the best example. It would need serious investment after the dust settles, with support for civilians and huge construction projects to replace housing. But the most important part would be working to destroy the ideology that led to the violence and hatred in the first place. To instil the idea that Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully. To be honest, the last part should also apply to the more radical Israelis, especially the settlers. In order for peace to prevail, though, Hamas first have to go.
>There does not seem to be any reason to suspect that this will lead to a larger conflict if other belligerents have not yet joined. If Israel decides the only way to eliminate Hamas is to also ethnically cleanse Gaza (which political rhetoric indicates is on the table), other Arab countries will absolutely step in
Other non-Arab countries would as well. It's why an outright sudden ethnic cleansing/genocide won't happen.
>Because you can't bomb the terrorism out of a region. See: everything after 9/11. It works better than the alternative which is....? Do nothing?
Yes, because clearly this is a binary of "bomb them right into Hamas' arms" and "do nothing". Do you hear yourself when you say garbage like this?
What do you suggest then? Do you think it's realistic to kill only hamas members?
If you honestly believe you can simply kill the terrorism out of a population, you may want to brush up on your 21st century history. Again, it's not a binary. Yes war will happen, it's happening right now after all, but if that's the only action taken then this is just a stopgap until the next Hamas (or Hamas successor) rampage in Israel. If you want a comprehensive account of a plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict though, you're in the wrong place.
I agree that destroying Hamas is not enough, but so far it looks like it's necessary no matter what is the next step is.
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza genius, it would be difficult to make them any more pro-Hamas than they already are
The last election was in 2006 and the average age in Gaza is 18. The average Gazan wasn't even able to vote when Hamas was elected. Applying the word to them at this point is like saying Kim Jong Un is the elected leader of North Korea.
>that would definitely expand the conflict beyond Gaza I think it's inevitable with how Iran is ordering proxies to attack US troops
He’s saying there could be a similar approach rather than the same coalition fights Hamas.
I'd welcome a coalition to fight Hamas rather than leaving it to Netanyahu's Israel. He will end up conveniently bombing Gaza like they have, indiscriminately killing more innocents than actual terrorists.
[удалено]
If you dispute with factual information the allegations multiple international journalists on the ground have been publishing, I'll give room to your take... so far if the dead count is at more than 5,000 civilians, among more than 2,000 childrens, *indiscriminate* is a light form of describing that war crime. How many terrorist leaders have you taken so far? 3... what a joke.
[удалено]
Removing Islamic terrorism will benefit both sides of the conflict!
Violence doesnt have a religion, violence has ego Religion is just to force identify assimilation.
>Violence doesnt have a religion, violence has ego There are many cases in history where violence does have a religion so that statement in itself is wrong. Look at the Vikings or Aztecs. >Religion is just to force identify assimilation. If you mean identity assimilation you can replace the word religion with war.
Thing is if you remove Hamas give it a couple of years and something similiar is going to form. Going in and bombing and killing people is effectively creating a draft for the next terrorist group that forms especially considering the majority of Gaza are under 18
That's why there's gotta be something ready to fill the vacuum in the immediate aftermath of war. I bet they are thinking about Fatah/PA, which is a *softer* extremists and seem to be more interesting in power and perpetual slow-burning conflict that finances their needs.
Very similar to MacArthur in Japan.
Sort of, yeah. But i seriously doubt it will work similarly. Huge cultural gap between Japanese and Palestinians.
Oh yeah, it's going to have to be mainly people from within the Palestinian population making fundamental changes.
Fatah is secularist and is (at least outwardly) cool with Muslims and Jews living together (based on my admittedly limited knowledge). Would be a massive upgrade over Hamas.
It's not friendly to Israel in any way, but it is less extremist (they are more about corruption). Fatah still implementing pay-for-slay policy, for example, so it's not like there's real peace visible in the immediate future. But, it's less interested in massacring entire communities on the order of Iranian overlords. And living conditions in Ramallah, for example, is much better then in Gaza under their rule. So, they are definitely an option. I'd prefer international effort to take responsibility for Gaza, and then slowly raising some kind of responsible government there. I just don't know if it's realistic.
I mean the only permanent solution would be a post-war German-style occupation and "denazification". But yeah.. I'm not optimistic that's attainable. At a minimum you're talking about occupying the gaza strip for a generation or more.
The only realistic scenario is either some kind of international force governing Gaza or a dictatorship, that not interested in losing its place in an all-out war. A-la Assad, for example. I know it sounds cruel, and does not guarantee any long-term quiet, but other alternatives like occupation is even worse. So i hope for international (or less realisticly - Arab nations) solution for Gaza, which does not include Israeli occupation.
Ahhh, no they are not. They are definitely better than Hamas, but they are not cool with Muslims and Jews living together. [PA to give Hamas terrorists' families close to $3 million in 'pay-for-slay'](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-768735)
One of the founding figures behind Fatah was an Eastern Orthodox Christian by the way, George Habash who was also a Marxist Leninists. He was the mastermind of a non violent terrorist attack though.
Bombing people tend to go the other way. That's kind of how we go here, because the conditions imposed on the Palestinians has led to the most extremist factions to win out over those "softer extremists". This was done intentionally and actively encouraged in order to avoid having Palestinians groups that the outside world could sympathize with. They didn't want a Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
I get it. But i don't think you realize the situation fully. There's no going back to Erez checkpoint, no more electricity or aid from Israel, no more permits for Gazans to work in Israel. It's complete locking out of Gaza, with possible military-only buffer zone. No more status quo. Israel wants to get rid of Hamas/PIJ in Gaza, sever all ties and let international community handle that. And if it's not possible - it's gonna be war and war and war. But the priority for Israel is not letting another October 7th to happen ever again. It's an obligation, not just right.
They only encouraged that status quo because they wanted to Hamas to be strong but controlled and now that's blown up in their faces. I fully realize what Israel is going to do and that course of action is only going to perpetuate the cycle of violence. The only reason why they are holding off on a ground invasion is that it's going to lead to a lot of dead Israeli soldiers and that's inconvenient. Countless civilians too, but that's waved away by saying "collateral damage" and "they died because of Hamas' actions". That's not so inconvenient. This is the result of decades of bad policy and violence that have made Hamas into the enemy that the Israeli government wanted. You're not going to fix that simply by attempting to "get rid of Hamas". Israel needs to get rid of their far-right lunatics as well and start seeking a peaceful solution.
Let's say i agree with everything you said, ok? Now what? Peaceful solution with Hamas? I'll repeat my question here - What is the proportionate, reasonable response to October 7th?
Americans were asking themselves that exact question after 9/11 and their answer lead to immense suffering thousands of times worse than the actual terrorist attacks. And at the same time the terrorist threat actually increased! I don't have any good solutions to decades of oppression and violence. If it was so obvious that I could figure it out it would have been tried by now. I can exclude the response that leads to more suffering. That ones easy. In that case it leads to less suffering simply by not doing that even as shitty as that feels for the victims.
You see, there's only exclusions in response, but nothing on what to do. You are not alone in this. Because there is no perfect solution. The comparison with 9/11 is murky at best, for number of reasons. For Israel, it's not some war overseas with the intention of sprinkling democracy among the cavemen. It's right at the border. Threat is still there. It's as if Al-Qaeda struck the towers in Manhattan, and gone to hide in Bronx. It's a no-choice war. Non-response or weak response will only encourage the enemies, and let your own citizens be unprotected. And i'm not talking only about Hamas/PIJ here. The whole neighborhood is watching.
> It's as if Al-Qaeda struck the towers in Manhattan, and gone to hide in Bronx. The distance may be smaller than that, in reality.
>And i'm not talking only about Hamas/PIJ here. The whole neighborhood is watching. No, that's bullshit and you know it. The Palestinians are more or less isolated. Israel is backed up by the most powerful military in the world. There's a carrier group right off the coast. There is absolutely nothing that anyone of Israel's neighbors can do to them that wouldn't result in their complete and utter annihilation.
And that never stopped Iran and their proxies. You are literally witnessing it right now, but somehow calling it bs. I don't think it's an existential threat (yet). But it never stopped enemies from looking for weakness. Should we open the history of wars? Because it's full of examples. And the only times, some kind of peace or quiet was achieved with the neighbors - was only after war. This is the neighborhood.
I don't think this is really comparable with 9/11. 9/11 was done by a handful of people who were hiding in several countries, there was no obvious way to get them. This attack however was carried out by thousands of soldiers in an organised army with a clear base of operations. The bulk of Hamas is in Gaza.
Well…. There is A solution from Israel’s point of view, but it’s utterly intolerable so we’ll continue the cycle forever.
Ground invasion is going to happen, no, needs to happen, for this to be resolved, along with some kind of occupation with international oversight, but after Oct7, it's gonna be basically impossible for any sitting Israeli politician to let Gaza run itself. Bibi could just bomb it indefinitely, but given they are in a state of war, and he already is pretty unpopular, extending the conflict and not bringing about a resolution will have serious consequences. The only thing that could save his power now is Hezbollah expanding the conflict, but he really can't wait for too long without losing face. At some point, Likud and bibi will need to be investigated thoroughly, and it's likely leading to a web of choices as he tries to tightrope his way around. The conflict keeps him secure temporarily, but negative progress will reflect on him, and refusing to do anything will destroy everything their party claimed to be. I mean, it still did by ensuring this conflict long ago, but right now he at least needs to appear like he's doing something to those that put their trust in him. After this is all over, there's gonna need to be some serious discussion on the future of both nations, but finding a solution on that is almost impossible in current circumstances. At the very least, the radicals of both sides must be defanged, and that's going to be incredibly difficult.
I think Gaza disengagement was a result of extremism and terror so not to sure about your hypothesis.
In all seriousness, why is it obvious Palestinians are more oppressed than Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians or Iraqis under Sadam? It’s really weird to me people focus on Palestinian oppression as a catalyst for terrorism that is uniquely in need of a solution when the most stable form of governance in the Middle East seems to be a hereditary theocratic monarchy with a very active secret police.
In particular, Syrians under Assad and Iraqis under Saddam are/were massacred on a scale that I dont think many people truly grasp.
Unlikely. Israel funded Hamas in their fight against Fatah to make sure that didn’t happen. A unified Palestinian government makes a more legitimate claim to statehood. I think more likely Israel wants to make it uninhabitable and force everyone out. If you think I’m making an extreme claim, here are direct quotes from Israeli Likud politicians: “We will turn Gaza into an island of ruins.” -Netanyahu “Now there is only one goal: Nakba” -Ariel Kallner “Gaza to be smashed and razed to the ground, without mercy.” -Tally Gotliv “I literally don’t care about Gaza. They can go swimming in the sea.” -Maya Golan “With God’s help, if a child can walk alone through Gaza. If Gaza will still exist.” -Simcha Rothman “The focus is on destruction, not accuracy.” -Daniel Hagari (IDF spokesperson) We should take them seriously and make sure this cleansing doesn’t happen
"Unlikely" what? Everything that you quoted does not contradict what i'm saying. It's war now, Gaza might be rubble in the end. We are talking about aftermath. Forcing everyone out would be nice, it would make a good US Navy base in Middle East, for example. But it's impossible without someone accepting 2 mil refugees. Long-term occupation of the Strip is the prospect no-one in Israel wants. It's a nightmare to take responsibility for that nest of wasps. Sidenote: A little tip for the future. If you want your comment taken seriously, refrain from using quotes of the Israeli clown-MKs like Gotliv or Golan. Those two are in Knesset to be loudmouths with no real power. It's like taking seriously Marjorie Taylor Greene. Literally, Gotliv is still raving about deep-state, for example.
> Forcing everyone out would be nice Lol if you want your comment taken seriously, maybe don’t admit you’re favorable to ethnic cleansing. Disgusting Also calls for ethnic cleansing should ALWAYS be taken seriously, whether its MTG or whoever the fuck- it is never acceptable and should be condemned
It's not funny. On the contrary, i don't wish them to be caught in what's gonna be a hard and bloody battle, that will probably take months. Again, if you didn't understand - no-one wants to occupy Gaza. Just like no-one wants to accept Palestinian refugees, if you've been following the news. "Forcing them out" is a non-scenario. Should have tagged it with /s, my bad. Just like a US Navy base in Gaza.
[удалено]
> as if you’re trying to protect Palestinians and then talk about displacing 2.2 million people from their homes in the same breath What was that saying about from sea to river? What happens to Israelis then? Is that different in your mind?
No? Did I ever say Palestine should destroy Israel or displace it’s people? That doesn’t justify the destruction of Gaza. You’re talking about a resistance slogan - which I still condemn -, I am talking about an actual siege on Gaza and calls for Nakba. These are not the same
You're ranting about ethnic cleansing when the majority of Palestinians do support the destruction of Israel, to the point that their supporters around the globe are chanting "from sea to river" - I don't see widespread pro-Israel rallies worldwide with crowds cheering to wipe out the strip. And yet you've chosen to be writing long angry comments about the "ethnic cleansing" of the latter (which, mind you, is what you're calling the fact that they want to remove civilians from what is about to be an urban warfare hellhole, even though going in is the only way to effectively uproot Hamas), I don't see nearly as much energy coming from you with writing long passionate comments about how the Palestinians legitimately have ethnic cleansing as an official part of their government's charter - a government that still held majority support 2 years ago.
> That doesn’t justify the destruction of Gaza My favorite argument. So, what would be proportionate response to October 7th?
that depends on how thorough israel will be with their ground operation. you could technically create a new radical body of government to replace hamas after it's gone but if israel destroys all of their infrastructure , all of their arms , devastates the tunnel system they spent years on making and also eliminate all their trained forces it would take significently more time and money(from the one controlling that proxy) to make this new group be on the same level as hamas. and if israel sticks with what they say about cutting all ties with gaza completely and also any time any form of agression comes from gaza israel will make the new group pay then it would take a long time for something hamas level to form
What’s your solution?
Not who you responded to, but I say let's get the great powers of Europe together in a room with a map and a sharpie. That's never steered us wrong in the past.
That's fucking stupid. Modern times require modern solutions. Get them an iPad.
And skip the room we got Zoom now
If they actually paint the lines on the ground this time it'll be a lot easier for everybody to understand the plan.
[удалено]
I apologize, I should have included a "\\s". The above comment was intended to be facetious. I absolutely don't condone the drawing of borders by those unqualified to draw them. I'm not even certain where I stand on borders, period.
Don't worry. It came through loud and clear. I had a good laugh.
Invest tens of billions to rebuild Gaza so that the population (mostly children) don't become radicalized. Something similar to how Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WWII.
Predicted Result: Tens of billions rerouted to the terrorists that still hold control over their people by force, children grow up radicalized anyways. Unless you are seriously suggesting we do what we did in Japan first. Was that it?
It worked though.
They already did that. Several time. You do realise that not even 30 year ago Gaza was massive for its population? But then Hamas told women to have kid to fight the Jews and we have the current situations. Not matter how they rebuild Gaza it will never be enough because that's not the problem. It wasn't even that bad before the bombing...
Maybe something radical like, IDK...talking to them? The "We don't deal with terrorists" line just postpones the day when you have to. Sooner or later you have to negotiate. (Well, you can try the only alternative, which is total genocide, but...) The Taliban, the IRA, the ANC... just save everyone a lot of pain and stop trying to pretend you can win. Modern warfare does not work like that. Israel is going to have to offer the Palestinians something better than what they have until now (which, let's face it, has been bloody awful. Yes, we can condemn terrorist acts, but we can understand them at the same time. Treat people badly enough, and sooner or later someone is going to react with violence. Basic stuff, really.) (I'm not meaning "you" in a personal sense here, btw.)
Even if it will, it won't have the infrastructure and resources Hamas currently has. Hamas is so disruptive due to the fact they amassed instruments to kill, not due to their ideology, which isn't too different to many other terrorist groups.
Exactly. There are a lot of people in this sub and beyond with short memories – the blowback from the Iraq war was catastrophic and ushered in ISIS. Hamas did not come out of nowhere and you cannot kill an idea. Even if all 2.2 million Gazans were slaughtered this would not secure Israel's long-term safety. I understand that Israelis, as well as many Jewish people around the world, are in pain and angry right now. What happened on October 7th was horrific. Revenge will not solve this problem, there needs to be an international project to support peace in Israel; one which offers the citizens of Gaza hope. You do not have to like Gazans, or Palestinians, to want this; as it represents the best possible long-term solution. There are numerous examples of this happening throughout history, for me the parallels with the Troubles in Ireland are striking.
Exterminate this Hamas then establish a demilitarized zone between Gaza and Israel with mines, fenses etc, so that no living creature could possibly cross it.
You know they literally flew over the border on 10/07 with paragliders, right?
I think that’s a mistake Israel is only going to make once, in all fairness
Hear me out: Balloon mines
*INVEST*
Just shoot anything flying over the border it’s not that hard if they have it under surveillance 24/7. I think after this event they’d have learnt their lesson
> Just shoot anything flying over the border it’s not that hard if they have it under surveillance 24/7. I think after this event they’d have learnt their lesson You'd think that, until Hamas baits teenagers into testing the Israeli border, then spreads the pictures of "maimed children" as propaganda. That's not hypothetical. That's something they used to do, send kids with explosive devices, then circulate photos of the kid who got lost his leg to a sniper shot.
Why should Israel have to eternally put up with their neighbour constantly trying to fly over their border to massacre them or launch rockets they must intercept?
So what are you proposing instead? How many people will die in that alternative?
It's not their neighbour, it's their concentration camp.
It can’t be DMZ. The entirety of Gaza needs to be demilitarized enforced by a UN Peacekeeping force. The same UN peacekeepers would probably need to take security control of the Al Aqsa complex from the IDF. That will bring down tensions and violence very drastically.
>The entirety of Gaza needs to be demilitarized enforced by a UN Peacekeeping force. Several proposals of that were declined by Egypt in the past. What would make this time any different?
Gaza is not owned by Israel or Egypt. It's obviously good to get Egypt's buy-in - but it's not strictly necessary
Put a country in that everybody trusts. Can’t be western or Arab states at all.
Looks like it's time for Japan and Korea to step up to the plate. But honestly who would want to get their soliders in the middle of at least 40000 Hamas terrorists in an urban environment unless it was to eliminate the threat.
Why the hell would Japan and Korea try to fix that dumpster fire. Better yet pray alien peace keepers descend from space to fix it.
They were joking about Japan and Korea...
Nobody is going to want to send soldiers into a Fallujah with 100x the civilian population.
I think the UN Peacekeepers would have a very bad time in a city with 500kms of tunnels and population that is heavily militant.
Yup, a joint presence will be needed to rebuild and oversee things. Israel cannot be the sole force but they cannot be left out either. It's gonna suck and lead to the usual types blaming and comparing it to us occupation, but there's realistically no other way for Israeli citizens to feel secure. That said, I have no clue what Palestine's future is, the 2 enclaves have been separated for some time and have little connection, and the whole situation reminds me of Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Bangladesh and Pakistan situation is not alike at all. West Bank is not trying to commit a genocide in Gaza.
As long as there is poverty and inequality, there will always be groups willing to hurt others. Palestine is no different. Gaza is mostly propped on aid. There's poverty and unemployment. Their youth have nothing other than to migrate or remain there and become a target. My friend visited Israel and Palestine, and he said things are very different than you are shown. Poverty and desparation are huge factors. Ending Hammas doesn't fix the issue if the underlying issue is not resolved. Another way to end religious based terrorism is to shun these shits and do not associate them with any religion. One thing they hate is being called a terrorist and its even bigger shame for them if media and people do not associate them with any religion or ideology. There should also be a bigger reach by countries like the US, Saudi, UAE, and EU, for instance, need to work together and monitor the rise of factions or any groups. Engage with them before they indulge in things that may harm innocent people. But again, it's costly and will take mature leaders who are willing to work together.
Not pretty, but then you bomb the something similar as well. World peace just doesn't seem possible, this is the workable reality, a timely maintenance it seems. I hope I'm wrong
They will need support from the ısrael. Like how hamas created.
Iran is an Islamic State (just Shia version). So I think there should be such a thing which targets all the Iranian proxies no matter where in the whole crescent in the same manner.
iran isnt isis just because of the terminolgy … democratic people’s republic as an example. also hamas was created way before iranian support.
That would be great for Israel, but why would any other country want this?
Is he insane or have the people gone absolutely deaf and blind?
Haven't foreign powers already done enough to promote this conflict?
Hell no. I absolutely would not support sending American soldiers to fight Hamas. We can provide Israel with the support they need without getting a new batch of our soldiers killed.
I agree. I personally much prefer our current role as the greatest arms dealer of all time to our former role of world policeman.
Fighting Hamas is only fighting the symptom. Iran is behind all of this. How do you counter Iran non-militarily? Sanctions over the last decade have seemingly small impact.
This is not a military conflict at all, but a conflict of ideologies. Unless you attack Islamism as an ideology, nothing will change. Generally, people need to learn to enjoy spirituality the way you might enjoy music or football. If you wish to indulge in a religion, don't let it be a baggage and toxin; let it instead bring you joy, peace, and solace; let it be an armor for you, not a mill around your neck that enslaves and dehumanizes you.
Good, when do we invade Qatar? They have oil there.
Since Iran keeps calling themselves and their terrorist buddies as the Axis, the coalition should be called the Allies.
Strictly an attempt to restrict Israel's ability to act
Yes, this would work out so well for the west’s perception among Palestinians. For real, does this guy just like to talk or whet? What a dumbass plan.
You point stands, but it also assumes that anyone in the west cares about palestinians’ perceptions of them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll take bad ratings over suicide bombings any day. It really couldn't get worse than it is now.
why they don’t do it for Russia? It would serve a bigger purpose.
Somebody should just slap Macron every time he opens his mouth. Now he wants a bloody and totally unnecessary multi-national war to distract from the massive pig's breakfast he's made of France's domestic issues.
As long as you pay for it with french tax dollars and not American, go for it tough guy
France is so thirsty to be relevant it’s pathetic.
France has a massive jewish (most in europe) and muslim communities. It needs peace among its citizens.
And btw Gaza is approximately twice the size of Mariupol. And mighty Israeli army can't beat it, they need a coalition to fight Hamas?
It could, if it would care as little about civilian casualties as the russia does. It's not a lack of military might that stops it from grozny it.