I think a lot of people misunderstand this aspect of the situation re why civilians are staying in Gaza

And for those that aren't aware, here's a copy of my post on this topic from another thread -
After being expelled from Jordan, Yasser Arafat and the PLO established a new headquarters in Lebanon, creating a powerful enclave known as "Fatahland" in the south. Their presence upset Lebanon's fragile multi-religious demographic balance and eroded the central government's authority.
.In 1975, long-standing tensions in Lebanon erupted into a complex civil war. The PLO allied with the Lebanese National Movement (a coalition of leftist and Muslim factions) to fight against the Lebanese Christian militias (the Lebanese Front) and, at various points, clashed directly with the Lebanese Army and invading Syrian forces. The PLO maintained its military dominance in portions of Lebanon until the 1982 Israeli invasion forced them to evacuate to Tunisia.

The Lebanon - the only Christian Country in the Middle East was effectively wrecked.

Remember what happened to Lebanon when they took thousands of Palestinian 'refugees'

Moving back to modern day concerns, the Gaza population is stuck between rubble and rough politics. Nothing is allowed in to help them rebuild. They can't get out. The Arab nations will not offer money without a lasting peace process. Neither Israel nor Hanas are that interested in making it happen - Hamas will not disarm or step down and a desperate populace is one who can be recruited or terrorised into obeying. Netanyahu has his own calculus with the Knesset. America could help (in theory), but in practice Trump is more preoccupied with Iran and extracting bribes.

My guess is that there will be a slow puncture of Palestinians leaving however they can, for housing, jobs and schools alongside greater radicalisation of the ones left behind.

Israel won't absorb them nor govern them . It would be suicide to allow in millions of people who celebrated Oct 7th massacre and rape.

Interesting. I will stand by that comment because I said realistically. If you can find me any military analyst/historian who would say that an army could defend itself against three battle ready armies and defeat them in 6 days, I will literally eat my shoe. Note battle ready which is the crux of the argument.

Hitler’s main ideology was to expand eastwards, but he actually expanded north, south, east and west. You rely too much on the Nazi propaganda and not enough on their actions. Hitler started WWII that is historical fact.

The thing is, most of what you say is opinion, not fact at all!
You just have a habit of presenting your opinions as facts.
eg “no one realistically believes they "defended themselves" against three battle ready armies in 6 days. It was a land grab just like what is going on in Lebanon right now.”

Well, save your outrage, because it's true. And while you're doing that read some history books - especially concerning the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.
Adolf Hitler did not originally plan to attack or invade Britain; he initially hoped to reach a peace agreement or alliance with the British Empire.
Hitler originally admired the British Empire and viewed it as a fellow "Aryan" power.He wanted Germany to dominate continental Europe while Britain kept its overseas empire.
His main ideological goal was expanding eastward into the Soviet Union for Lebensraum (living space), not fighting a war against Britain.
After defeating France in June 1940, Hitler expected Britain—now isolated—to negotiate a peace treaty.
Winston Churchill and the British government refused to surrender or enter peace talks.
Realizing Britain would fight on, Hitler issued Directive No.16 on July 16, 1940, formally ordering preparations for an amphibious invasion code-named "Operation Sea Lion "
Hitler demanded total air and naval superiority over the English Channel before launching the invasion. But the Luftwaffe failed to defeat the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the Battle of Britain.
Without air supremacy or a viable amphibious strategy, Hitler postponed Operation Sea Lion indefinitely and diverted his focus toward invading the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa)

I cannot believe what I have read in your posts this morning. You said that we (British) started WWII and in response to rational challenges of your fictional history you wrote this long Nazi apologia characterising Germany as defending victims against British & our allies not only starting WWII but being to blame for WWII in the first place.

Whether you like it or not, facts are facts. If you would like to dispute any facts I present I will happily defend them until proven wrong.

I see you have chosen to be sarcastic.
It seems you don't want a rational debate, so I'm gone.

I mean you'd think they could be a bit more original. That's exactly what they said about the West Bank and the Golan heights in 67. Apparently they now consider it as their land, no one else does but hey, if Israel says it's theirs, they're fairly confident they can get away with it.

No need to be sarcastic and derogatory.
I'm happy to debate with you but without the snide remarks.
If you will modify your post I am happy to respond to any question you might have.

Israel does not seek to control all of Lebanon, but it is establishing long-term military control over a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
Troops occupy a strip of land making up about 5% of Lebanon.
Most importantly analysts describe the strategy as degrading Hezbollah (Iranian backed terrorists that have been firing rockets into Israel) rather than regime change.
Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel and the "liberation" of Jerusalem and all Palestinian territories. It states that its confrontation with Israel should continue until the state is removed from existence.

Tiredtaxpayer also has said that the British started WWII so apparently the Nazis were just defending themselves! That’s the kind of historical knowledge we are dealing with here.

I know Israelis think they have the best army in the world; in a way they do with US tax payers money; but no one realistically believes they "defended themselves" against three battle ready armies in 6 days. It was a land grab just like what is going on in Lebanon right now.

Israel has not formally annexed most of the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem), meaning Israeli sovereign law does not apply to the Palestinian population there.
Under the Oslo Accords, parts of the West Bank are administered by the Palestinian Authority, while overall security and Area C remain under Israeli military control. Residents hold Palestinian identification documents rather than Israeli citizenship.

Sorry but you are the one attempting to rewrite history.

86. Telegram From the Department of Stateto the Embassy in Israel1
Washington, May 27, 1967, 9:09 p.m.
203943. You are instructed to proceed at once whatever the hour or the circumstances to deliver the following message from the President to the Prime Minister2 even if the Cabinet is sitting.3
[Page 163]
“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have just this afternoon received a most important and private message from the Soviet Union. I am sharing its contents with you on a personal and intimate basis. It should under no circumstances become public.
The Soviets tell me that they have information that you are preparing to take military action against your Arab neighbors, and provoke a conflict which would be fraught with great consequences. They emphasize their commitment to restraint on all sides and the Soviet view that solutions must be found without a military conflict. They tell us that they know the Arabs do not wish a military conflict. The message adds, however, that if Israel begins military action, the Soviets will give aid to the countries attacked. This message also makes clear the Soviet view that the Soviet Union, the Arab peoples and the people of Israel are not interested in a conflict.4 The Soviet Union appeals to us to take all measures to insure that there be no military conflict. They state that they will undertake measures in the same direction.
Mr. Eban will be reporting to you fully on my talk with him, and on our interest in the safety and vital concerns of Israel.
As your friend, I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. Eban. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action5 and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.6
In my reply to the Soviets I shall of course take up your and our common views about the international character of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran.
Yours faithfully,
Lyndon B. Johnson”
If any explanation is necessary, you should add that the British and we are proceeding urgently to prepare the military aspects of the international naval escort plan, and that other nations are responding vigorously to the idea. The Dutch and Canadians have already joined, even before a text was presented to them. With that assurance of international determination to make every effort to keep the straits open to the [Page 164]flags of all nations, unilateral action on the part of Israel would be irresponsible and catastrophic.

More at
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/ch1

The Six-Day War, which took place from June 5 to June 10, 1967, was a significant conflict involving Israel and several Arab nations, primarily Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The war was initiated by Israel's preemptive strike against Egyptian airfields, following years of escalating tensions in the region, rooted in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/six-day-war

If the West Bank is Israels land why are Palestinians in the West Bank not offered Israeli citizenship, the right to vote in Israeli elections, access to Israeli healthcare etc?

There are some people that persist in wanting to re-write history.
They want the world to believe the 1967 war was a bellicose act by Israel.
Incorrect, it was an act of self-defense in the face of genocidal threats to vanquish the Jewish state, not to mention the maritime blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the abrupt withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces, and the redeployment of Egyptian and Syrian troops.
All wars have consequences and this one was no exception. Unfortunately the aggressors have failed to take responsibility for the actions they instigated.

@Tiredtaxpayer

Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly talked about destroying Israel in the run up to the Six Day war. In May 1967 was quoted as saying our : “Our basic objective is to destroy Israel.” And that wasn't defensive rhetoric.

If you read the full context how he is saying IF Israel attacks, then the objective will be to destroy Israel. There was no intention to attack.
“If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/statement-by-president-nasser-to-arab-trade-unionists-may-1967.

Nasser moved Egyptian forces into Sinai, expelled the UN peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran

In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.
The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions after having received an intelligence report from the Soviet Union that Israel was amassing forces on the border with Egypt’s ally, Syria. (“The Soviet advice to the Syrians [sic] that the Israelis were planning an attack was not far off,” State Department Middle East analyst Harold Saunders subsequently assessed, “although they seem to have exaggerated the magnitude. The Israelis probably were planning an attack—but not an invasion.”)

The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.

“As your friend,” President Johnson wrote in a letter delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on May 28, for example, “I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. [Abba] Eban [Israel’s ambassador to the US]. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” (Emphasis added.)

So you don't think Egypt's actions amounted to an Act of War? Well Israel did.

Legally, Egypt’s action- closing the Tiran Strait for shipping- did not constitute an act of war in the legally recognised sense. Israel was repeatedly warned by the US government that its grievance with Egypt over the use of the straits would need to be resolved through diplomacy, not military force. The actions of mobilising your own troops within your own borders into defensive positions is also not an act of war.

Viewing these combined actions as a direct casus belli (an act of war)
Casus belli is not an act of war. It is a Latin phrase meaning 'occasion for war' — the act or event that a state cites publicly to justify going to war. It is the justification, distinct from the underlying causes. A state may go to war because it wants resources, fears a power shift, or sees a strategic opening, but it will frame the public reason as something narrower and more defensible: a border incident, a treaty violation, treatment of its nationals abroad.

The distinction between justification and cause matters because international law since 1945 cares about the justification.

Under the UN Charter, only two casus belli are lawful: self-defense under Article 51 (responding to an armed attack) and authorization by the UN Security under Chapter VII.

Everything else — honour, treaty breach, sovereignty disputes, treatment of nationals — has been demoted to political rhetoric without legal standing.

Israel launched a pre-emptive Six-Day War strike on Egyptian airfields on June 5, 1967
This surprise attack started the 1967 War. Your rhetoric that Egypt started it has no legal standing and is not reflected in the historical record of the 1967 war.

🤣🤣

Sorry I was actually taking about Gaza and the assertion it is not occupied.
That's my fault for not making it clear.

That dispute has been ruled on more than once. The international consensus and the legal ruling is that it is Palestinian Territory under an unlawful Israeli occupation. It doesn't matter how much Israel stamps its feet like a petulant child, the ruling is clear.

Zombie Lie - a lie that keeps coming back, no matter how many times it's refuted.
Zionist Zombie Lies are Zombie Lies used to pretend that Israel has a case, that the Occupation is justified (or not an occupation), that the land has always been Israeli, etc. They're usually ridiculous, but no matter how many times you kill them, they keep coming back.