- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,948
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Can you provide a link to that data?
-
Features
Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
To denote when two or more threads have been merged
Yes, but Iran is the big player in terrorism. And the Saudis have realized that the strategy of pointing their hotheads elsewhere doesn't work too well--there won't be a lot of other support. And the other support is easier to go after, there's just no point with Iran being the big problem.
Agreed.
laughing dog
Contributor
Work with the data logically, not illogically.
Make a deal and honor a deal are two different things.
Of course we knew--the question was how big it was.
You apparently don't realize that most anything that matters in Gaza is under Hamas control.
Google hit #1: https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it before.
laughing dog
Contributor
Iran does have reason to distrust the US as well.
But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.
laughing dog
Contributor
What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?
Shadowy Man
Contributor
From your link:
Conveniently, it is the ones not getting bombed that favor the war more.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
So how's that list of concessions Israel has allegedly made coming along?
Also, during what time period did this alleged 'peace' happen, what actions were the 'peaceful' ones?
You aren't just going to repeat a bunch of unsupported claims over and over again and hope no one notices you never provided any evidence that any of it was true, are you?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Why not Evacuation?
that Palestinians could be evacuated.
They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.
The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.
That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.
Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.
Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.
They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.
The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.
That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.
Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.
laughing dog
Contributor
. A possibility is not a fact.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?
A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?
Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.
Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Ashkelon is too close. Hamas already attacked there. Hamas has to be destroyed first.
Or, rather, maybe a few thousand could be evacuated there, if it's likely Hamas wouldn't attack there again. But even so, the real number of evacuees would probably be too many, so other destinations are also necessary, not only one.
If Israelis can do what is necessary to destroy Hamas, and there are no non-combatant civilians in the way, then there's no problem, and no civilians are getting killed.
But it seems there is a problem, if we believe the news, and those civilians have to go somewhere else. So, evacuate them. Israelis are entitled to retaliate as necessary to finish the job. From the coast they could be evacuated on boats. And they have to go somewhere far enough away from Hamas and the current area of combat.
Last edited:
Arctish
Centimillionaire
They could be evacuated to the new settlements Israel recently built in the West Bank. That would put them in much better living conditions and away from the fighting.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Why not Evacuation?
Maybe you're right that Israel should be required to accept a certain number, provided there are other evacuation locations also. What if the number is 1 million or 2 million?
Has the offer been made to Israel? -- I.e. Israel must accept a certain number, 10 or 20 or 30 thousand. And others will go to other locations -- 100,000 or whatever. Maybe Israel would agree to accept a certain number in such an agreement. But still, the relocation areas have to be away from the combat. What's the likelihood of that (within Israel, West Bank, etc.)?
I see Ashkelon's population is about150,000. So maybe it's possible to put 10,000 refugees there? There are many nearby regions less densely populated. There are many coastal desert regions a few hundred miles away, suitable for temporary camps until Israel kills off Hamas.
Hamas is the cause of the problem, not Israel.
But it's true that Israel should make some sacrifice, accepting a percentage of the refugees if other countries will take care of the rest.
Maybe. As long as this doesn't displace someone already there or already moving in there. Any location where they don't displace someone else. For a large number, there'd have to be more than only one location. It might have to be currently unoccupied space, in camps. It has to be subsidized from somewhere. Several countries have to provide aid, which is practical, even if costly. It's better than 50,000 more getting killed.
Maybe you're right that Israel should be required to accept a certain number, provided there are other evacuation locations also. What if the number is 1 million or 2 million?
Has the offer been made to Israel? -- I.e. Israel must accept a certain number, 10 or 20 or 30 thousand. And others will go to other locations -- 100,000 or whatever. Maybe Israel would agree to accept a certain number in such an agreement. But still, the relocation areas have to be away from the combat. What's the likelihood of that (within Israel, West Bank, etc.)?
I see Ashkelon's population is about150,000. So maybe it's possible to put 10,000 refugees there? There are many nearby regions less densely populated. There are many coastal desert regions a few hundred miles away, suitable for temporary camps until Israel kills off Hamas.
Hamas is the cause of the problem, not Israel.
But it's true that Israel should make some sacrifice, accepting a percentage of the refugees if other countries will take care of the rest.
Last edited:
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Somebody already living in one of the settlements is there illegally. Somebody moving there is about to move into illegal housing built on stolen land. Why should they be allowed to continue to inflame the situation while children remain in peril?
Any evacuations of children from families that were forced into Gaza should be back to where their family was living before they were forcibly removed. A lot of them were from Ashkelon and the surrounding area, so that would be a good place to start.
Evacuations of children from families that were living in Gaza before the founding of Israel should be to where their closest relatives live, whether it be in Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, or wherever.
The purpose of evacuating the children and mothers with young children is to protect them, not to compound their problems by making them refugees from refugee camps now living in countries where they have no relatives and no connections.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,251
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist