Social Biden considers accepting Palestinian refugees

[kflo]

It would make too much sense for Arab countries like their NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR EGYPT to take them in. Let's ship them across the world instead

Even more logical is for Egypt to take back Gaza and provide citizenship to the people there.

 

[Halifax]

Even more logical is for Egypt to take back Gaza and provide citizenship to the people there.

Egypt knows better. They say "fuck that. We don't want them"

 

[avenue94]

Even more logical is for Egypt to take back Gaza and provide citizenship to the people there.

Why would Egypt take a now culturally and politically distinct region when they are already fighting one insurgency? This kind of lazy look at a map and bullshit some borders is how we ended up with this conflict in the first place.

 

[I Am Legion]

Why would Egypt take a now culturally and politically distinct region when they are already fighting one insurgency? This kind of lazy look at a map and bullshit some borders is how we ended up with this conflict in the first place.

Egypt has openly said they do not want them due to terroist ties. Its amazing how Muslim Nations will not take them, but Biden is willing to. Kind of scary. We have Palestenininas hear chanting "Death to America". We have seen them do that in Gaza after 9/11. What could go wrong?

 

[avenue94]

Egypt has openly said they do not want them due to terroist ties. Its amazing how Muslim Nations will not take them, but Biden is willing to. Kind of scary. We have Palestenininas hear chanting "Death to America". We have seen them do that in Gaza after 9/11. What could go wrong?

How frequently have Palestinian groups directly attacked US targets outside of the region? Arab states and their fears and weaknesses should not be conflate with the US'. It's apples and oranges

 

[kflo]

Why would Egypt take a now culturally and politically distinct region when they are already fighting one insurgency? This kind of lazy look at a map and bullshit some borders is how we ended up with this conflict in the first place.

Why would they indeed. But why would Israel want to give Gaza autonomy under Hamas rule? They won’t. Why does the problem fall solely on Israel to suck it up and compromise their security?

Gazans need a permanent nation status. Egypt is at least as rational an answer as any other.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Egypt knows better. They say "fuck that. We don't want them"

Such a sorry state of things. Inbred, low IQ, and radicalized, what do you do with a group of people like that?

 

[PhitePhan]

Such a sorry state of things. Inbred, low IQ, and radicalized, what do you do with a group of people like that?

Kill them and their leaders, take their land and homes, and spread “freedom,” IMO.

 

[Barteh]

Such a sorry state of things. Inbred, low IQ, and radicalized, what do you do with a group of people like that?

Israel is doing something.

 

[Belaya Smert]

More political pandering to appear sympathetic towards a problem we were complicit in helping create.

 

[avenue94]

Why would they indeed. But why would Israel want to give Gaza autonomy under Hamas rule? They won’t. Why does the problem fall solely on Israel to suck it up and compromise their security?

Gazans need a permanent nation status. Egypt is at least as rational an answer as any other.

It's the most sustainable solution long term and Israel bears a lot of responsibility for the problem. There's no sugarcoating that or handwaving it away when it comes to what comes next.

It also raises the issue of Israel will continue to violate Gaza sovereignty and kill Gazans, except now it will be violating Egyptian sovereignty and killing Egyptians too.

At this point, there are no options that don't lead to compromises on Israeli security, it will likely be a balancing act given guaranteeing short term Israeli security jeopardizes long term security. Which we have already seen with the fruits of a brutal decades long occupation very apparent these days.

 

[NoSmilez]

Send them to Indonesia.

 

[Halifax]

Israel is doing something.

They kind of have no choice. They are surrounded by folks who want to kill them. Even before they militarized and began fighting back(and now have the overwhelming upper hand)

The neighboring countries have learned historically that taking Palestinians in = civil war and attempts to overthrow them from palestinians after their generous show of kindness

 

[kflo]

It's the most sustainable solution long term and Israel bears a lot of responsibility for the problem. There's no sugarcoating that or handwaving it away when it comes to what comes next.

It also raises the issue of Israel will continue to violate Gaza sovereignty and kill Gazans, except now it will be violating Egyptian sovereignty and killing Egyptians too.

At this point, there are no options that don't lead to compromises on Israeli security, it will likely be a balancing act given guaranteeing short term Israeli security jeopardizes long term security. Which we have already seen with the fruits of a brutal decades long occupation very apparent these days.

It’s comical to suggest that Israel is the aggressor with Gaza. The people of Gaza need to give up on the idea they will take Israel. Giving up the refugee tag and accepting citizenship should help with the idea their status is just “temporary”. And egypt has a role in the history as well as you know.

 

[avenue94]

It’s comical to suggest that Israel is the aggressor with Gaza. The people of Gaza need to give up on the idea they will take Israel. Giving up the refugee tag and accepting citizenship should help with the idea their status is just “temporary”. And egypt has a role in the history as well as you know.

I'm struggling to understand how one would assess the history of the region and conclude that between Gaza and Israel, the latter has not been the aggressor for prolonged periods of time. There was plenty of aggression and violence on both sides, but the history on the following points is pretty clear.

1. Theodor Herzel explicitly conceived and sold his vision of Zionism as colonialism, which is inherently aggressive.
2. The Nabka is irrefutably ethnic cleansing for the most part, which is inherently the act of an aggressor.
3. After Israel took Gaza during the 6 Day War from Egypt, it again ethnically cleansed parts of the area.
4. Israel then occupied the country under martial law and suspended civil liberties for most of the next four decades.

And yup, Egypt has a role to play and has frequently been a dishonest broker. But shoving control of Gaza back to Egypt would be a disaster and far worse than slowly working toward making Gaza an independent country down the road.

 

[kflo]

I'm struggling to understand how one would assess the history of the region and conclude that between Gaza and Israel, the latter has not been the aggressor for prolonged periods of time. There was plenty of aggression and violence on both sides, but the history on the following points is pretty clear.

1. Theodor Herzel explicitly conceived and sold his vision of Zionism as colonialism, which is inherently aggressive.
2. The Nabka is irrefutably ethnic cleansing for the most part, which is inherently the act of an aggressor.
3. After Israel took Gaza during the 6 Day War from Egypt, it again ethnically cleansed parts of the area.
4. Israel then occupied the country under martial law and suspended civil liberties for most of the next four decades.

And yup, Egypt has a role to play and has frequently been a dishonest broker. But shoving control of Gaza back to Egypt would be a disaster and far worse than slowly working toward making Gaza an independent country down the road.

This post just confirms you’re anti-Israel. Referencing Herzel???

And lets ignore the aggression that lead to the wars in 1948 and 1967.

The people of Gaza need to be partner’s towards any long term solution. The majority don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and are not in favor of a 2 state solution. You don’t seem to accept what the consequences for Israel would be in relaxing control of gaza. You yourself acknowledge 10/7 happened for that exact reason.

It wouldn’t be “shoving control of gaza back to egypt”. It would be annexation and full egyptian citizenship for gazan’s.

And, yes, everyone recognizes this is a problem with no good solution. But the idea that Israel is the only nation with skin in the game is a big part of the problem as well.

 

[avenue94]

This post just confirms you’re anti-Israel. Referencing Herzel???

Explaining that much of this conflict's roots and issues are primarily colonial/anti-colonial is not anti-Israel. I've already said that the genie is out of the bottle and Israel is a part of any outcome here. It's also why I said a one-state solution is effectively DOA at this point.

And lets ignore the aggression that lead to the wars in 1948 and 1967.

Certainly, the region was not a paradise of peaceful relations before Israel's founding, and both sides frequently committed massacres of civilians.

You are however conflating the Arab states with Palestinians for some reason here.

The people of Gaza need to be partner’s towards any long term solution. The majority don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and are not in favor of a 2 state solution. You don’t seem to accept what the consequences for Israel would be in relaxing control of gaza. You yourself acknowledge 10/7 happened for that exact reason.

10/7 didn't happen because Israel relaxed control of Gaza, it happened because Israeli intelligence majorly fucked up and their country's defenses were caught with their pants down. There were also significant diplomatic failures across the board (not limited to Israel) that massively misread the situation on the ground.

ut the idea that Israel is the only nation with skin in the game is a big part of the problem as well.

I never said that. But if we're talking outcomes that lead to least bad events, Israel will have to take the lead or compromise the most compared to a country like Egypt. The best bet would be a demilitarized buffer controlled by a third party between Gaza and Israel, but Israel would likely no be supportive of that.