Rafah bombings (Edited by Mumsnet)

[TwilightSkies]

Where the hell are all the Palestinians meant to go now?
They were TOLD to go to Rafah, that Rafah was a safe place.
It’s just open extermination at this point.

@dulra,

I think that there is more chance of a meaningful solution now than for a long time.

It was really close when Arafat rejected the Camp David proposals. No one really knows why he rejected them.

I do think that there is more chance now than for a long time. Hamas made peace impossible. You just can’t make peace with a group who actually believe that ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is not an antisemitic fraud.

In addition, more pragmatically, Israel need peace. Their military and defence is well built for a war against a limited number of large projectiles. With cheap drones being used, Israel spent a billion dollars to defend against a million dollars of projectiles. Israel needs to isolate Iran, and most of the Arab World are on their side here. They cannot afford militarily or financially to fight on lots of fronts.

Finally, the eyes of the U.S and those who support Israel want to see a fair post war settlement and a two state solution. Israel will entirely isolate itself if it sees any other route forward.

There is thread on Sudan where you can discuss the topic. This thread is about Rafah.

I have posted about Rafah.
Just one sentence about another war will not derail anything.

@stormy4319trevor ,

I don’t think questioning the creation of Israel or its original borders is fair or productive. There was a need for a Jewish state after the Shoah and, like all countries, its borders are man made.

In fact my and the current official definition of antisemitism includes not believing that Israel has a right to exist. Criticising its policies or government is not antisemitic, but trying to throw all the Jews out of Israel or changing its nature as the (only) Jewish state is.

No one expects any other country to change its post WW2 borders.

So a two state solution would allow Palestine autonomy over where it is now, not involve it taking over parts of Israel (and, of course, no one mentions Jordan giving Palestinians territory ever, or the way Jordan has disgracefully treated its Palestinian population).

I think that poster was questioning Israels right to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 10% of Israelis are illegal settlers and that is expanding rapidly. That cannot be ignored in the discussion.

Edited to add I find it interesting that again you thought about Israel not Palestine. Straight away you went to Israels borders, Israels rights with seemingly no thought at all to Palestinians.

Here's your collateral damage. This links to photos of children lying dead in the rubble of their home that Israel bombed in Rafah.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C6q2GnEK7S1/?igsh=dm9tczd3Y2xiNDU=

I don't understand your point about questioning the creation of Israel or its original borders, and how this relates to you suggesting there should be an Israel next to areas inhabited by Palestinians (rather than an Israel next to a Palestine.)

You seem to suggest that the original borders should stay in place. Do you mean the '48 borders? Many people think the '67 borders would be more realistic.

The proposed Palestinian state on '67 borders would mean West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I personally think it's rather unworkable without a way to connect it as a continuous piece of land, but it seems to be the most common proposal. I have not heard of any 2 state proposal that involves taking over part of Israel.

💔💔💔
Do Palestinian children matter less than others?
And to think there are people who are cheering on the Rafah bombings

'The aim, surely, for all civilised people is a prosperous peaceful Israel living next door to prosperous peaceful areas inhabited by Palestinians'

@Newbutoldfather @TextureSeeker Sorry, this quote from newbutoldfather is what I was asking about. Should have been more clear!

I am asking why there would be an Israel but no Palestine. Only an area inhabited by Palestinians, and I also wonder who would rule this area that Palestinians inhabit?

Yeah I was just thinking that @Newbutoldfather really just needs to say straight where it exactly it is they think Palestinians should 'inhabit'. Although they claim to be unbiased it isn't really coming across in their posts that they see Palestinians as equal to Israelis so it would be great of they could clear that up?

@stormy4319trevor ,

‘The proposed Palestinian state on '67 borders would mean West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. I personally think it's rather unworkable without a way to connect it as a continuous piece of land, but it seems to be the most common proposal. I have not heard of any 2 state proposal that involves taking over part of Israel.’

That is why I phrased it the way I did. It isn’t a contiguous piece of land.

Personally I think Israel should go back pretty much to the ‘48 borders, with the possible exception of the Golan Heights (due to its military significance), and that giving up the settlements in the occupied territories needs to be a part of that. Ideally Jerusalem needs to be shared. Religiously it is of immense importance to all three of the Abrahamic religions and should maybe be run by the U.N.

But Israel must gain a lasting internationally guarantees peace in return.

'The aim, surely, for all civilised people is a prosperous peaceful Israel living next door to prosperous peaceful areas inhabited by Palestinians'

'The aim, surely, for all civilised people is a prosperous peaceful Palestine living next door to prosperous peaceful areas inhabited by Israelis'

I'm not sure how equitable this is.

That poster wants Israel to take over Gaza, temporarily at least, after the destruction of Gaza is complete. So I would be interested in hearing his answer to this question too.

@ConnieCounter ,

‘That poster wants Israel to take over Gaza, temporarily at least, after the destruction of Gaza is complete. So I would be interested in hearing his answer to this question too.’

That is the obligation of any winner of a war. They need to administer the territory they have won for the benefit of the population. This happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Europe after WW2.

If there is a better solution available then I would be happy to see that too.

Of course, you quoted me incompletely and out of context. I said Israel should run it, win over hearts and minds and prepare for a democratic election. Naturally you missed that out.

I think I agree with you on Jerusalem. '48 borders do provide a larger area for Palestine, and a narrow connecting point for continuity of a Palestinian state. I think this is a fair and magnanimous view, and I'm glad you clarified your opinion on this.

The language used does suggest less than full support for a two state solution.

I posted about the hearts and minds bit yesterday and mumsnet deleted my post for being "inflammatory" so I was trying to avoid a repeat of that.

But I still think it's an absolutely terrible idea, and the fact that you think Israel could possibly win over hearts and minds after what they've done to Gaza is pretty mind blowing.

@Scirocco Not sure if you saw, but @Newbutoldfather stated a personal view that Israel should return to '48borders, settlements should be removed and Jerusalem should be shared.

I wonder how hearts and minds can be won over in this situation... And whether that winning over will extend to those of us who have lost people and who have witnessed these atrocities through humanitarian work, for example. Or will we just be told we're not to say anything...

And one of the main crossing through which they are getting the aid delivered.
Now, on full control of IDF. And Israel does not have a good track records on allowing aid in.
Plus they have moved people further north, where we know aid has been more difficult to get to and distribute.
Bring that peace forward.

@ConnieCounter ,

I don’t see why they shouldn’t. It would be hard but not impossible and I don’t think Netanyahu is the man to do it.

How do you think Europe and Japan made a permanent peace with their occupiers after WW2, especially Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You speak as if it is impossible to ever reach a peace after a brutal war. Thankfully that is not the case.

And, no, I am not saying that Israel will do it right, only that I hope they will.

I think you're demonstrating an enormous lack of understanding about how Gazans are going to feel towards the Israeli state and army after seven months of utter terror.

I wouldn't expect the victims of any genocide to accept those who committed the genocide ruling over them afterwards. The entire concept it absurd.

"Sorry we blew your house up, killed your family and left you an amputee. We're cool now though, right?"

There were so many families raising funds to leave. I am truly heartbroken for them. Some were so close to having enough money to leave to Egypt.