Are Hamas as thick as they are evil?!

Can't see many countries being willing to fund reconstruction while Hamas still remain in charge, tbh. At least in the short term. Especially if they still have any hostages but even if they didn't.

The assumption will be that as soon as they get the chance, they'll do another pogrom or at least recommence launching rockets, eventually kill some Israelis and the place will become a war zone again. I expect these views will be common regardless of whether the country in question happens to side with Israel, Hamas or neither. It would essentially be a pause in hostilities in an ongoing conflict, which doesn't make using resources on reconstruction attractive.

@statsfun

A fair summary and in response to your question:

"Very happy to hear achievable alternatives."

I think there needs to be an option for those Palestinians that have simply had enough and voluntarily wished to move abroad to pursue a more peaceful and stable life for them and their families.

Of course anyone wishing to stay can do so but sending aid into Gaza whilst it's still controlled by Hamas will simply see the money ending up in Hamas' pockets and not helping the civilian population.

Forcing Hamas out or trying to destroy them is not going to work (as Israel has found out). So as harsh as it seems if the ordinary innocent Gazan population wants stability, aid and rebuilding they are going to have to be the ones calling for the overthrow of Hamas. It's not easy but it's been recently done in Syria.

A 2SS including Gaza is idealism. It may have been possible 20 years ago, but not now or for several generations to come.

Israel allowing Gazans back into Israel to work after October 7th is idealism.

Any country spending billions to rebuild Gaza whilst Hamas still control it - and will attack Israel again - is idealism.

Living in a gated wasteland is a pretty hellish future for Gazans.

Very happy to hear achievable alternatives.

Agree that Jordan already does a great deal. Several of the gulf states are rich, and there's a common language. The Qataris are already diverting significant funds to Hamas, so they can afford it.

Alas, there is of course about as much chance of them taking in any Palestinian volunteers for relocation as there is of pigs flying.

I agree that Jordan isn't a suitable host @1dayatatime . I'm not sure about Egypt.

Wealthier countries would definitely be more suitable, and presumably a bigger draw to Palestinians. There would need to be a requirement on the host country to integrate them properly, which would be a harder transition without a common language.

The last thing any country would want is ghettos of resentful, non-integrated immigrants from a culture where violent terrorism is considered a normal way to bring about change.

@Ilovemytulips
@statsfun

"Ilovemytulips
@statsfun I don't totally disagree. If any Palestinians wanted to leave and a host country was willing to accept them then I don't see the harm.

But threatening countries like Egypt and Jordan with consequences if they don't take Palestinians in, is absolutely wrong. And that is what Trump is doing right now."

Whilst I am strongly opposed to any forced movement of Palestinians out of Gaza (which let's be clear is clear cut ethnic cleansing) I can't see why anyone would disagree or prevent any Palestinian that voluntarily wished to leave and there was a host country willing to accept them.

However I would strongly oppose the movement (voluntarily or involuntarily) of Palestinians into either Egypt or especially Jordan.

Jordan despite being one of the poorest, has done more than any other country in the Middle East in taking in refugees- firstly with the Palestinians (who then turned on their hosts hospitality with an attempted coup) then Iraqis and most recently Syrians. These refugees already place considerable financial burden and social problems on Jordan and taking Palestinians from Gaza risks turning Jordan from an oasis of stability into civil chaos and war. If Trump wants to pull the plug on financial aid to Jordan in retaliation then I hope King Abdullah II says fine go ahead.

Surely if there are any Palestinian Gazans that voluntarily want to leave then places like wealthier Ireland that are sympathetic to their cause would be more suitable.

I agree with this.

Then you condemn the Gazans to further generations of suffering, @newbutoldfather

It wasn't a kindness to the Palestinians 20 years ago when idealistic Westerners encouraged them to hold out for the 'inalienable right' for everyone who had left to return. Compromise might have delivered a 2SS solution - not everything they wanted, but some of it. Do you not think the Gazans of today would have been better off if Arafat had accepted that?

There is increasing conflict in the world, and climate change and competition for resources will make the world harsher in 30 years time, not more generous.

It's not a kindness for idealistic Westerners to encourage this new generation of Palestinians to hold out for something unachievable instead of securing a future for their families today.

Every country negotiates for its own interests.

The US gives huge amounts of aid to Egypt and Jordan ($1.5 Billion and $1.7 Billion a year respectively).

It's not wrong for a country to make aid dependent on the recipient organising things in the donor's favour. It's naive to think that isn't part of the deal.

We'll see.

@statsfun I don't totally disagree. If any Palestinians wanted to leave and a host country was willing to accept them then I don't see the harm.

But threatening countries like Egypt and Jordan with consequences if they don't take Palestinians in, is absolutely wrong. And that is what Trump is doing right now.

I think that forcibly removing Palestinians from Gaza would be a bad idea, and would be ethnic cleansing.

I wouldn't consider it ethnic cleansing for host countries to accept voluntary migration of Palestinians from Gaza - with the deal being that the migrants are accepted as citizens of the host country and that in return they renounce any right of return.

If it could be managed, it could be the best of a bunch of even worse (for everyone) alternatives.

If Trump uses his influence to negotiate that with host countries because there's a pretty big prize in it for him, it's a bit grubby - but the outcome is still better than any of the (worse for everyone) alternatives.

Countries aren't magic. They're not some great, immutable right. They're a place for people to live their lives with their families.

How many Jews live in Gaza?

How many Arabs live in Israel?

How then can you accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing?

Quoting a terrorist organisation isn't the win you think it is.

Do you think Hamas' campaign of violence had been the best way of advocating for a Palestinian state?

Do you think rape, murdering and hostage taking is resistance? Because you called it that

If Israel is to be accused of apartheid then what of the Israeli Arabs living in Israel? How can it then be apartheid?

1

I've checked through them. The only question I can see is "what have Palestinians been doing for the last 75 years"

Living under occupation and ethnic cleansing

I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of any Hamasnik mouth. Would you?

It would certainly be acceptable to me if they all commited mass suicide, yes. Although I'd argue a death of their own choosing would be a step too kind for me.

Indeed the poster doesn't.

"Prior to the Oslo Accords, the PLO's militant wings engaged in acts of violence against both the Israeli military and civilians, within Israel and abroad.[22][23][24] The United States designated it as a terrorist group in 1987, though a presidential waiver has permitted American–PLO contact since 1988.[25][26]" just a little information.

Just a little more information. Tell the victims and their families that the PLO weren't terrorists

'The PLO began their militancy campaign from its inception with an attack on Israel's National Water Carrier in January 1965.[26] The group used guerrilla tactics to attack Israel from their bases in Jordan (which then included the West Bank), Lebanon, Egypt (Gaza Strip), and Syria.[29]
The most notable of what were considered terrorist acts committed by member organizations of the PLO were in the 1970s. The 1970 Avivim school bus massacre by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), killed nine children, three adults and crippled 19. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the second-largest PLO faction after al-Fatah, carried out a number of attacks and plane hijackings mostly directed at Israel, most infamously the Dawson's Field hijackings, which precipitated the Black September crisis."

I've given you a source that states Hamas would accept a two state solution. Here's another that says they're willing to disarm.

https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438

At no point does they say they want perpetual power?

What would be acceptable to you, if they all Committed mass suicide?

You know nothing of the PLO then.

@statsfun regardless of our differing viewpoints, I hope we can atleast agree that Trump's plan to take over Gaza and cleanse over two million Palestinians is a immoral and bad idea overall.

My apologies, I don't know how to tag. My questions are above.

No they are not showing very clearly that they don't. There was a conference last year in Jerusalem to state that Israel should occupy and settle Gaza. This was attended by a third of Netanyahu's party. Trump has said US boots won't be needed in this ethnic cleansing plan. Israel isn't going to risk the lives of IDF soldiers just to then hand over the land with complete control and benefits to Trump.