American proposal to clear out Gaza

[Daftasabroom]

Trump is proposing to "clear out" Gaza.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/25/politics/trump-gaza-strip-jordan-egypt

So USA is actually proposing that the Gaza Strip should be cleared of Palestinians. 1.5 million people.

none of the current governments in Palestine and Israel are good for the hopes of a better future for Gaza or for Israel

fixed that for you EasterIsland

@Scirocco Not sure what the smiling face is for, other than to express a degree of amusement or positive feeling about a situation in which many people are dying and being forcibly displaced. I don't know if you have any personal connections to this region and conflict, but I do, and the situation you're posting smiley faces about is one in which I have lost loved ones and have other friends and colleagues at risk, so smiley faces do come across as rather inappropriate

The smiley face was because you indicated a divorce allowed division of assets and it was possible to do it peacefully/fairly. But that’s not the analogy, it’s completely different as a house cannot be split into two either fairly or peacefully. I was politely pointing that out, hence smiley face to indicate politeness but as you have taken offence ….. that’s up to you.

If you read, I stated I have no personal connection to either Israel or Palestine. None whatsoever. That’s what ‘no skin in the game’ means (I won’t insert a smiley face here to indicate I’m telling you politely). I couldn’t care less who gets the house and who has to find other accomodation. Honestly, would be just as happy for either to have it. I’m not in favour of ethnic cleansing, no idea why you are ascribing that to me. I’m in favour of peace and the only way that’s going to happen is if a) someone moves out or b) both move out. Couldn’t give a shiny if it’s option a or option b, personally, but ultimately it’s the only way. All the other stuff you describe in the many paragraphs are about a utopia that will never exist and cannot ever exist (circling back to the fact humans are humans and if two people both believe they own the one thing sharing is not a long term peaceful option).

Peacekeeping forces are not the way to go. There needs to be a permanent solution that doesn’t involve other parties being involved until the end of time (as that’s what it will be). You may get away with it for a few decades even but then there will be niggles. Anything is kicking a can down the road and that includes peacekeeping forces etc until the end of time. Land disputes are not new. They have occurred since we stood upright still beating our chests in caves. Neighbouring tribes/groups would both believe land was theirs and had means of settling it, which invariable resulted in the remainder of one group limping away. It’s as old as time.

What you're describing is exactly ethnic cleansing though. Making people leave their homes and homeland so that someone else can take the land.

We can do better today than cavemen. We have the experience of resolving and finding routes through land and border restructuring, and pretty clear incentives to do so rather than continue to let hate and violence jeopardise more lives. We also have an internationally agreed legal framework that considers ethnic cleansing to be unacceptable.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic, forcible/non-consensual removal of an ethnic or religious group from an area. You propose either Israelis or Palestinians should move out and 'find other accommodation'. Well, that would need to be forcibly done, as neither population is going to be particularly keen to dismantle their society, abandon their heritage and become stateless. So, yeah, the removal of an ethnic or religious group from their homeland, against their will, to subsume the entirety of that land into another country and erase that group's presence and rights within what has been their land, would be considered ethnic cleansing.

Caveman or people 2000 years from now. Doesn’t matter. Human nature is human nature unless you want to re-engineer the human brain. It’s something that, at its core, will never change over time.

Well, yes and no. Human nature hasn't changed, but the way we organise ourselves has. Within many countries, we have the rule of law: instilled in us through education and habit, and then enforced by the police and backed by our army.

You can't just take something of mine you want, just because you're stronger. Well, you can - but you usually won't, because you have learned that it will be taken back from you by someone even stronger and you'll be punished. It's worth noting how this breaks down when not enforced. We've seen a fairly rapid increase in brazen shoplifting gangs as they've learned that there isn't effective police enforcement.

Internationally, it's a bit different. I think people are misled by the name 'international laws' into thinking that those are the same as domestic laws. But there's no international police force - only armies if a particular country decides to use it.

International laws are rather a set of agreed guidelines, used as a prop for negotiation between countries. Negotiation which is then backed by each country's trade decisions and army.

It may be limited, but it is useful. The intention of the UN is to provide a forum to encourage negotiation, in order to reduce war. People can negotiate to behave a certain way and after a few generations that change can become habit. Even if it doesn’t last, any reduction or delay in violence improves lives.

But it's all just negotiation. And in Israel/Gaza/WB, it isn’t currently looking very promising.

We will see.

I do see it pointless Palestinians trying to make lives of they continue to be governed by Hamas and there is a risk of repeat of October 7th in future. Maybe we have gone too far down the path of violence for peace to be feasible and if we look at the big picture this sadly may be true.

Israel will always have massive military superiority and the Palestinians will, unless Inmistken, have a large portion of the population with an innate hatred of Israel and we have now a generation at least wishing vengeance. If a 2 state solution becomes unrealistic we have to ask what is the solution?

My opinion is that at a human level Palestinains will move out of the territory simply because they want the best for their families unless they are commited idealogues. The notion that Palestinians in general can live a reasonable life in such a small section of land with presumably on going sanctions is fanciful. The only real prospect is a build up of hatred once again out of frustration of stunted opportunities.

It is quite obvious from the scenes surrounding hostage releases recently that Hamas are as belligerent as ever so we see even now the seeds of further conflict which will lead to more Palestinian death and are Palestinians happy to live under this shadow. If you are looking from a purely human perspective migration may offer individual Palestianins more hope in the long run. Yes they may live in a different state but at least in the long term their families may be safer.

👏👏

So you are basically suggesting that Palestinians cannot survive or thrive on such a small strip of land with ongoing (manmade) sanctions and restrictions so they may as well just leave and build a life elsewhere? I have no issue if that is what people genuinely want I have a major issue if it is forced either directly or indirectly and they have no agency over their decision to go.

If Palestinians do decide to leave Gaza what happens to that small strip of land that, in your opinion, is too small to thrive on?

I don't think the hatred is on only one side of this conflict.

I also don't think the Palestinians are the main obstacle to a two state solution.

@Huwipulotu *can you imagine if the suggestion was to move the Jewish population? (And to be clear I absolutely am not proposing or supporting this - I am doing it to show the double standards that apply and the despicable racist way that the Arabs are treated.

its this crazy gaslighting world where if you criticise the Israeli government you are called an antisemite yet you can talk about ethnically cleansing Gaza and that’s just fine??

world is looking over a precipice*

Firstly, whether we like it or not, nations and people are not equal. Look at the wild imbalance of the hostage:prisoner exchange, recalling the 2011 exchange of 1 Israeli pilot for over 1000 Palestinian prisoners. This is the way of the world.

These 'double standards' are why the black clad and blue haired march on western streets about Israel but couldn't care less about Sudan, Nigeria, Uighers, Rohingya.

You'll find we aren't in favour of 'ethnically cleansing Gaza', (although, least we forget, we remind ourselves that this is exactly what the Palestinians want to do to Israel, by way of 'double standards'). We are debating what Trump has posited.

Finally, you must be quite young if you think 'the world' cares enough about this to be 'looking over a precipice'. We've been here before, we'll be here again, other actual genocide are happening unreported around the world; but might and pragmatism will win in the Middle East, ultimately.

And let's not forget who, before he was even president, halted this battle.

@mids2019 *I think who is going to put their hands in their pockets to rebuild Gaza? The displacement of Palestinians may become a forced reality simply because families will be unwilling to wait for reconstruction of residential buildings and associated infrastructure so there may be a relatively covert exodus of Palesitinians to other countries anyway.

The Palestinians staying maybe the most hard headed about ensuring misery for the sake of their land and probably encompass a lot of the populace that support Hamas and want to continue their perceived existential conflict with Israel. If we have a new generation of Palestinians whose raison detre is to exact revenge on Israel we have a real problem. stored up for the future. If having Gaza as it currently stands is just a precursor to some sort of second war in 10 years time then we are in a room cycle really.*

The Palestinians have been held hostage by Iran, and other surrounding Muslim nations since the inception of Israel. Which other group on the planet have been actively encouraged to court their 'refugee' status for 5 generations? Endlessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, (a statement I recall my dad making in the 1970s...) Abetted by the reality most of the neighbours have been stung by Palestinian immigrants in the past so don't want to repeat the exercise? They need to wise up. Israel are not their only enemy.

Remember to mention Black September

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

When the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, drawn from Palestinian refugees in Jordan, attempted to overthrow the established Jordanian monarchy.

Jordan won't be repeating that mistake again, which is why they opened their airspace to Israel as they retaliated against Iran last year.

As I have already stated, I believe much of the Middle East is quietly glad Israel is doing its dirty work for them, weakening their Aggressor-In-Chief, Iran.

Indeed, Jordsn are rightly suspicious and don't want certain people in their midst. I don't blame them.

For those of you who are soooo concerned about Jordan, you don't need to worry, the Palestinians don't want to leave their lands so you can breathe a sigh of relief.

Yes it's difficult to understand where they propose they should go?

Yes.

Some of the comments by some posters are so far removed from the actual reality on the ground, but their ignorance and hatred blinkers them from anything that doesn't tally with their own pre-conceived perceptions of the Palestinians.

I wonder how many Egyptians, Palestinians and Jordanians they have met and conversed with? That makes them so sure of what they say. Go spend a day in Egypt and see how the Palestinians who made the choice, and were able to escape the genocide are recieved in Egypt by local Egyptians.

If states like Jordan and Egypt were supported financially by the US and Europe to take the population of Gaza (around the size of Birmingham) then you would have an economic benefit to these states as well as safe areas for the Palestinian people to live in peace with importantly prospects for their families in a worldly sense.

If the population of Gaza remains as is effectively they will be a charity state for at least a decade reliant on massive aid packages from states and NGOs. There may be survival for the people but maybe no hope of a long term stable economy with the associated infrastructure we take for granted e.g. advanced healthcare. There are the pracriclaities of removing rubble and ensuring the viability of tent cities for the foreseeable future. Investment is going to be slow and uncertain from other Arabic states and in reality many of the richer gulf states are ambiguous of the their support of Palesntians and their continued blood thirst grievance against Israel.

It is pointless rebuilding Gaza for Hamas which is still a governing power to siphon off funds in preparation for October 7th part 2. Israel surely won't allow this. I think a migration could be viewed not as ethnic cleansing but as a realistic option to prevent future conflict in a situation where peace talks are remote.

Jordan and Egypt are already massively funded by the US: $1.5Billion to Egypt and $1.7Billion to Jordan in 2023. That's why Trump feels he can flex his muscles a bit to suggest they could accept some more Palestinians.

It being voluntary is likely to be a red line for Egypt and Jordan. A useful deal might be to get them to give citizenship to a certain number of voluntary migrants. In return, I'd expect the multi-generational refugee anomaly to go.

Gaza and the tension there would still remain, but if you give families a way to escape that then it relieves the humanitarian pressure. So you don't have to hand over so much cash to Hamas - who will siphon most of it off for weapons - and perhaps over time they weaken.

If states like Jordan and Egypt were supported financially by the US and Europe to take the population of Gaza (around the size of Birmingham) then you would have an economic benefit to these states

It doesn't filter down to ordinary people. Nor did other payments towards keeping more Syrian refugees paid by some other countries.

Putting in more people would be a disaster for general population. They already have to run morning and afternoon shifts in schools in some areas with higher number of Syrian (and other) regugees because they simply cannot fit all kids in at the same time. Rents have risen, food cost risen (well excepylt tomatoes this season), salaries dropped, services are failing, water shortages, unoffical little refugee campsites in many places, syrian kids doing odd jobs when not at school for little money....

@mangoandmelon why are 140,000 Syrian refugees into a population of 112 million causing so many problems?

That's 1 refugee for every 800 existing people. I can't see how that could cause schools to require shifts. Not if they were distributed sensibly - and that's a matter of organisation.

The UK had net immigration of 1 million in 2023. That's 1 immigrant for every 70 existing people, in a single year.

I should have been clear I was talking only Jordan, not Egypt as well.
That's my bad. Not sure why I lost that bit in first paragraph.

Ah, OK. I just looked up the numbers: 700,000 registered Syrian refugees into a population of 11.34 million is huge! In fact 2.9 million of their population are refugees - about a quarter.

Do you know why Jordan has gone down that route?

Proximity I assume. Similarly as Lebanon and Turkey.
For those not rich (who couldn't afford to pay to go further), these were basically only options. Jordan got funds, but as I said, it doesn't filter down to people really. There is bit of an angry feeling about it all including for example high influx of people in the towns and rents paid by UN for some refugees, thus raising demand well over supply with no support for locals really. People moan a lot, quite rightfully imho. Well in north, South has lower population density and very few refugees compared to north.