Gaza

I see Trump has now confirmed that this will be ethnic cleansing as the Palestinians will not be allowed back after he deports them to their new homes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn57neepx4vo

US President Donald Trump has said the two million Palestinians who would be resettled in neighbouring countries under his plan to take over and rebuild the Gaza Strip would have no right of return.

"No, they wouldn't, because they're going to have much better housing," he told Fox News. "I'm talking about building a permanent place for them."

It is chilling that he is so comfortably blatant about this.

Just like I said in my OP, now the ceasefire has broken down too, both sides are blaming the other for breaches, I just thought 'surprise surprise' as I don't really think either side negotiated in good faith.

Yes it is chilling that he's so comfortable with it, but then I don't think he really see's others as people, only a small and select group around qualify as humans and only if they keep molifying him.

But with his rafts of executive orders, each seemingly more outrageous than the last and with Musk cutting out whole sections of government, illegally too, I can see a situation where the rest of the world sort of cuts America out of any deals or agreements as they will see any deal done by Trump as being made in bad faith. I think he's more likely to push the rest of the world towards China and maybe Russia.

Does Trump's America actually have any friends internationally now, he seems to have alienated much of the rest of the world, I think the only friend left is Israel?

TheCatWoman said:

Does Trump's America actually have any friends internationally now,

Just Israel and countries who desperately want to get access to their hige internal market. So mostly sycophants.

Iain said:

I do get the feeling that there is only ever an offer made when it is under pressure from an outside party and it feels to me that it is purposly poisoned with unacceptable terms to make sure it isn't accepted.

This is pretty much what historians of the region are continuing to argue over, and what the US chooses to ignore. Rather than a conflict going back x hundred or thousand years between Jews and Arabs, it is a recent manifestation of the rise of imperialism and nation-state nationalisms in the Middle East, and the colonial methods employed to make Palestine become Israel. The historian and author Rashid Khalid argues that the war has never been just about Israel and Palestinians, with occasional support from some Arab nations, rather it has always involved massive interventions by the greatest powers on the side of the Zionist movement and Israel, namely Britain pre World War II and the US and others since (The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, 2020). He argues that there wasn’t anything close to equivalence between the two sides and a vast imbalance in favour of Zionism and Israel. 

Billy87 said:

the Arabs that remained in Israel after the creation of the state of Jordan in 1921 actually identified as Syrian. Up until 1967, indeed, they mainly identified as Syrian and the concept of a Palestinian people and Palestinian nationhood did not exist.

I find it more helpful to look past the labels and see that these are people whose descendents have lived on the land currently called Palestine for a very, very long time.

What label they are currenty given does not change the fact they are fighting for the right to live on their own land - land that has been in their famies for any generations and certainly predates the creation of the state of Israel.

Arguing the semantics of who lived there 50 generations ago or 100 - seems academic as there was alway someone before that.

Billy87 said:

It's also worth noting that a Palestinian state has been offered many times over the years by Israel, with US and UK support. Every single time it has been rejected

I remember looking into this in detail at school back in the 1980s and when you started to read the details of the "offer" it was tremendously biassed agains the people living in Palestine.

From the limited way I have kept up with this over the decades there has been a repeat of the poison offer, the rejection and a counter then toys being thrown out the pram and a cycle of conflict.

I do get the feeling that there is only ever an offer made when it is under pressure from an outside party and it feels to me that it is purposly poisoned with unacceptable terms to make sure it isn't accepted.

Why is it done this way? I suspect it is because there is a war of erosion and each cycle there is a bit more land grabbed, more illegal settlements allowed and the land of Israel inches closer to its stated objective of owning "from the river to the sea" - ie taking all of Palestine.

This is only my conclusion from 6 decades of observing the repeating cycle of a state that commits international war crimes and get away with them because the USA vetoes any action against them.

There are war crime committed by the Paletinian too, but after generations of this level of oppresion it i hardly a surprise that they resort to extreme action.

I don't see a way out of this as both sides are so entrenched so I suspect the outcome will be the ethnic cleansing of the arabs living in Palestine and ongoing terror attacks by those displaced.

Your account does not reflect the historical reality and is personal opinion rather than factual.  Opinion does not override the Palestinian peoples’ right to determine their own future in their own state. Deals and ceasefires over the years have been broken by Israel, often through provocation of Palestinians by flattening Palestinian homes, refusing aid, failing to adhere to agreed boundaries of land and so on. Israelis with extreme views have been vocal in their aim of obliterating Palestine and the Palestinians. The truth of the reasons behind broken ceasefires, as reported by Hamas and by the Israeli government is not always possible to determine, even for those working in the country or closely with one or other side.

Billy87 said:

All of this is a matter of historical record, there are news cuttings and reports from the time and everything if you want to look into it

I agree that there are historical records and reports, but if you have seen ‘everything’ you are not relaying the facts of the history of Palestine as written by all Palestinian and Israeli politicians and historians. If you are not interested in reading news from a Palestinian perspective, may I recommend the Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ as a good starter introduction to the current affairs of Israel/Palestine from an Israeli perspective. If you are in the UK, you can read this and others online through public library membership. I am happy to give further newspaper and history book recommendations. 

I totally agree that Arabs aren't one people, they are many different nationalities and groups. However, the Arabs that remained in Israel after the creation of the state of Jordan in 1921 actually identified as Syrian. Up until 1967, indeed, they mainly identified as Syrian and the concept of a Palestinian people and Palestinian nationhood did not exist. Nobody identified as a Palestinian before 1967 when Yasser Arafat announced the idea of Palestinian nationhood and stated that every Arab living in Gaza and the West Bank must now consider themselves a Palestinian. He did this to turn world opinion against Israel and to justify the terror campaign carried out by the PLO and now continued by Hamas. 
All of this is a matter of historical record, there are news cuttings and reports from the time and everything if you want to look into it. It's very interesting and eye opening. 

It's also worth noting that a Palestinian state has been offered many times over the years by Israel, with US and UK support. Every single time it has been rejected by Arafat or the Palestinian Authority. At Camp David in 2000, a summit chaired by Bill Clinton, Ehud Barack the Israeli PM offered absolutely everything the PLO and PA had ever asked for including a Palestinian state, Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and joint ownership of Jerusalem. The Palestinians still turned it down.

In 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, giving control to the Palestinians who immediately elected Hamas in democratic elections, a terrorist group whose founding charter commits to continuing to fight until every single Jew on earth is dead. Hamas destroyed all the infrastructure Israel had built for the people of Gaza and used the materials to make weapons to fire on Israel. 

It is surely impossible for Israel to ever make peace with a group that are committed to wiping them off the face of the earth

The context to all this is very important, sadly few in the West seem to understand it.

Btw, I have really enjoyed how respectfully we have all debated on this topic without it descending into the name calling and shouting that sadly seems to happen on here on other debates 

I totally agree that Arabs aren't one people, they are many different nationalities and groups. However, the Arabs that remained in Israel after the creation of the state of Jordan in 1921 actually identified as Syrian. Up until 1967, indeed, they mainly identified as Syrian and the concept of a Palestinian people and Palestinian nationhood did not exist. Nobody identified as a Palestinian before 1967 when Yasser Arafat announced the idea of Palestinian nationhood and stated that every Arab living in Gaza and the West Bank must now consider themselves a Palestinian. He did this to turn world opinion against Israel and to justify the terror campaign carried out by the PLO and now continued by Hamas. 
All of this is a matter of historical record, there are news cuttings and reports from the time and everything if you want to look into it. It's very interesting and eye opening. 

It's also worth noting that a Palestinian state has been offered many times over the years by Israel, with US and UK support. Every single time it has been rejected by Arafat or the Palestinian Authority. At Camp David in 2000, a summit chaired by Bill Clinton, Ehud Barack the Israeli PM offered absolutely everything the PLO and PA had ever asked for including a Palestinian state, Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and joint ownership of Jerusalem. The Palestinians still turned it down.

In 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, giving control to the Palestinians who immediately elected Hamas in democratic elections, a terrorist group whose founding charter commits to continuing to fight until every single Jew on earth is dead. Hamas destroyed all the infrastructure Israel had built for the people of Gaza and used the materials to make weapons to fire on Israel. 

It is surely impossible for Israel to ever make peace with a group that are committed to wiping them off the face of the earth

The context to all this is very important, sadly few in the West seem to understand it.

Btw, I have really enjoyed how respectfully we have all debated on this topic without it descending into the name calling and shouting that sadly seems to happen on here on other debates 

Iain said:

I do get the feeling that there is only ever an offer made when it is under pressure from an outside party and it feels to me that it is purposly poisoned with unacceptable terms to make sure it isn't accepted.

This is pretty much what historians of the region are continuing to argue over, and what the US chooses to ignore. Rather than a conflict going back x hundred or thousand years between Jews and Arabs, it is a recent manifestation of the rise of imperialism and nation-state nationalisms in the Middle East, and the colonial methods employed to make Palestine become Israel. The historian and author Rashid Khalid argues that the war has never been just about Israel and Palestinians, with occasional support from some Arab nations, rather it has always involved massive interventions by the greatest powers on the side of the Zionist movement and Israel, namely Britain pre World War II and the US and others since (The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, 2020). He argues that there wasn’t anything close to equivalence between the two sides and a vast imbalance in favour of Zionism and Israel. 

Billy87 said:

the Arabs that remained in Israel after the creation of the state of Jordan in 1921 actually identified as Syrian. Up until 1967, indeed, they mainly identified as Syrian and the concept of a Palestinian people and Palestinian nationhood did not exist.

I find it more helpful to look past the labels and see that these are people whose descendents have lived on the land currently called Palestine for a very, very long time.

What label they are currenty given does not change the fact they are fighting for the right to live on their own land - land that has been in their famies for any generations and certainly predates the creation of the state of Israel.

Arguing the semantics of who lived there 50 generations ago or 100 - seems academic as there was alway someone before that.

Billy87 said:

It's also worth noting that a Palestinian state has been offered many times over the years by Israel, with US and UK support. Every single time it has been rejected

I remember looking into this in detail at school back in the 1980s and when you started to read the details of the "offer" it was tremendously biassed agains the people living in Palestine.

From the limited way I have kept up with this over the decades there has been a repeat of the poison offer, the rejection and a counter then toys being thrown out the pram and a cycle of conflict.

I do get the feeling that there is only ever an offer made when it is under pressure from an outside party and it feels to me that it is purposly poisoned with unacceptable terms to make sure it isn't accepted.

Why is it done this way? I suspect it is because there is a war of erosion and each cycle there is a bit more land grabbed, more illegal settlements allowed and the land of Israel inches closer to its stated objective of owning "from the river to the sea" - ie taking all of Palestine.

This is only my conclusion from 6 decades of observing the repeating cycle of a state that commits international war crimes and get away with them because the USA vetoes any action against them.

There are war crime committed by the Paletinian too, but after generations of this level of oppresion it i hardly a surprise that they resort to extreme action.

I don't see a way out of this as both sides are so entrenched so I suspect the outcome will be the ethnic cleansing of the arabs living in Palestine and ongoing terror attacks by those displaced.

Your account does not reflect the historical reality and is personal opinion rather than factual.  Opinion does not override the Palestinian peoples’ right to determine their own future in their own state. Deals and ceasefires over the years have been broken by Israel, often through provocation of Palestinians by flattening Palestinian homes, refusing aid, failing to adhere to agreed boundaries of land and so on. Israelis with extreme views have been vocal in their aim of obliterating Palestine and the Palestinians. The truth of the reasons behind broken ceasefires, as reported by Hamas and by the Israeli government is not always possible to determine, even for those working in the country or closely with one or other side.

Billy87 said:

All of this is a matter of historical record, there are news cuttings and reports from the time and everything if you want to look into it

I agree that there are historical records and reports, but if you have seen ‘everything’ you are not relaying the facts of the history of Palestine as written by all Palestinian and Israeli politicians and historians. If you are not interested in reading news from a Palestinian perspective, may I recommend the Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ as a good starter introduction to the current affairs of Israel/Palestine from an Israeli perspective. If you are in the UK, you can read this and others online through public library membership. I am happy to give further newspaper and history book recommendations.