Netanyahu sets implementation of Trump’s Gaza relocation plan as new condition for ending war

[Coyote]

Did we allow Japan to ship food into their home islands, or did we set a siege?

Did we have the Geneva Conventions then?

 

[Failzero]

My emphasis.

What is Trumps plan?

Permanent relocation of the Palestinians in Gaza. That is expulsion.

Residents who “want to leave”…they may not have a choice if they want to keep living. They should be able to leave, they should not forced to leave. And unlike the earlier war, they should have the right to return.

Right of Return is always off the table , always has been …

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did we have the Geneva Conventions then?

Yes.

 

[Failzero]

Yes.

It was pre WW2

 

[Coyote]

I don't know that any of "these things" are actually included in the full text of the joint statement. The statement seems, to me, to be a tired reiteration of "give the terrorists a State" (appease the Arabs); insist on Israeli surrender (punish the Jews, appease the Arabs); and terrorism fine (appease the Arabs) and just defensive war (horrific as it is) bad (punish the Jews).

Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Canada on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank

Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Canada on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.

www.gov.uk

That is the entire statement.

Calling for a Palestinian state is not “appeasing” anyone, that is a loaded word. It is one possible solution and possibly the best long term solution if done carefully.

While it started as such, I do not believe this war can legitimately be considered a “just defensive war” any more.

 

[Shusha]

What is Trumps plan?

Who cares? Netanyahu's understanding is plain in his speech: those who want to leave, can leave.

Permanent relocation of the Palestinians in Gaza. That is expulsion.

Voluntary emigration is not expulsion. Individuals and families in Gaza must have the option of staying or leaving. Forcibly requiring them to stay against their will is abhorrent and contrary to international law.

And unlike the earlier war, they should have the right to return.

Not in perpetuity. But arrangements could be made for individual citizenship based on whatever the eventual political solution is. But we could have a discussion. I'm open to that.

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

What did it say about sieges and using starvation as a weapon of war?

If I understand it, Japan was not actually under siege but a naval blockade designed to restrict its access to oil and other materials needed for its war effort, not food and water. Is that correct?

 

[Shusha]

Calling for a Palestinian state is not “appeasing” anyone, that is a loaded word.

Fine. It's a loaded word. I'll stop using it, if you would like. (Also note this is exactly what I was commenting on regarding "starvation".)

It is one possible solution and possibly the best long term solution if done carefully.

It is not a viable solution for the foreseeable future. It may or may not be the best long term solution.

While it started as such, I do not believe this war can legitimately be considered a “just defensive war” any more.

In my opinion, it is still a defensive war. The defense is against any re-arming and importation of weapons; against continued rocket attacks; against future attacks of similar nature to October 7. Else the whole war was for naught.

 

[Coyote]

Who cares? Netanyahu's understanding is plain in his speech: those who want to leave, can leave.

No, it is not plain. Nothing Netanyahu says is plain. You cannot endorse Trump’s plan with out endorsing the expulsion of the population because it is integral to the plan. Netanyahu is not known to be a particularly honest or transparent person.

Voluntary emigration is not expulsion. Individuals and families in Gaza must have the option of staying or leaving. Forcibly requiring them to stay against their will is abhorrent and contrary to international law.

Not in perpetuity. But arrangements could be made for individual citizenship based on whatever the eventual political solution is. But we could have a discussion. I'm open to that.

Big question here: what is voluntary?

Is it “voluntary” to create a situation that makes it impossible to live in and call those who leave “voluntary”?

I’ll add, I am basing my statements on things peop,e in positions of leadership or power have actually said in regards to intent.

That would be a good discussion, but how do we get there from here?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did it say about sieges and using starvation as a weapon of war?

If I understand it, Japan was not actually under siege but a naval blockade designed to restrict its access to oil and other materials needed for its war effort, not food and water. Is that correct?

What did it say about sieges and using starvation as a weapon of war?

What did it say?

a naval blockade designed to restrict its access to oil and other materials needed for its war effort, not food and water.

We let ships in with food and water?

 

[Shusha]

Israel is only “taking responsibility” under extreme international pressure from its most consistently staunch allies.

I disagree. Netanyahu and his government have done a remarkable job of resisting international pressure and pursuing this war as they intended (waves at Rafah).

At the start of March, Netanyahu announced that he had cut off the entry of all food and other supplies into Gaza. No aid has been allowed in for almost two and a half months.

Yes. Israel also did this with the knowledge that there was sufficient supply for several months. And with the intent to create a new distribution system which benefits the people of Gaza and prevents Hamas from exploiting aid in order to continue its war efforts.

Using starvation as a weapon IS an wat crime.

There is neither starvation, nor the intent to create conditions of starvation. There was the intent to ensure Hamas had no access to the aid to exploit for military purposes. Entirely legal and expected.

And now, with 2.1 million desperate starving people, providing aid is even more challenging dangerous and violent. 90 some truckloads is a joke, a way of being able to say they are technically allowing aid in.

The new distribution plan will be in place within a few days. This is just phase one of a three phase plan.

 

[Shusha]

Of course your puppies are starving, just ask them

They assure me they are. Every time. I deliberately feed them at different times of day to keep them from demanding food at specific times. So now, of course, they are always starving.

What is unique, and possibly criminal is closing off all aid and instituting a siege.

Um, no. Not at all unique. Siege has been a component of war for, well, forever. There are modern examples. Sudan comes immediately to mind.

I see your point, however, the threat of famine is real, not blood libel.

Yet there has not been a famine. Only projections of some future threat of famine, which never become reality. In my opinion, after several rounds of false claims creating negative opinions about Israel, it becomes a blood libel.

 

[Coyote]

What did it say about sieges and using starvation as a weapon of war?

What did it say?

a naval blockade designed to restrict its access to oil and other materials needed for its war effort, not food and water.

We let ships in with food and water?

They had access to food and water.

What did the Geneva Conventions in place then say?

 

[Shusha]

That would be a good discussion, but how do we get there from here?

We would have to start with citizenship. What citizenship would these emigrants hold? I see three options, each with various implications depending on the political future of the territory.

1. Palestinian. As citizens of Palestine, their right to return to their country would be limited to the territory of a State of Palestine (which quasi already exists), but may not include the territory of Gaza in the future.

2. Gazan. As citizens of a newly-emerged State of Gaza, their right to return would be to the territory of Gaza. The risk would be that such a State does not materialize.

3. Israeli. Israel could grant them Israeli citizenship, or the right to apply for Israeli citizenship, which would give them a right to return to an Israeli sovereign Gaza and to Israel "proper".

All of this depends on what the political status of the territory will be.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don’t think that what constitutes “obligations” under international law existed then. It was WW2 that led to the development of the Geneva Conventions.

But your question is deceptive. It isn’t about having an obligation to feed them, it is about setting a siege and preventing them from accessing food.

All of your posts are deceptive. Under International Humanitarian Law, a siege is acceptable in time of war and Israel has no legal obligation to provide aid unless it reaches the noncombatants only and not the Palestinian terrorists.

All of the aid deliveries before the recent blockade gave Hamas and others first crack at the aid to use or sell and only what they left reached the noncombatants. Israel has devised a plan, with the help of the US, to guarantee all the aid reaches the noncombatants and none of it goes to the terrorists and other assorted criminals in Gaza, but the very entities that have been feeding Hamas and allowing them to sell the aid to support the war, the UN are other agencies that delivered the aid to the terrorists and supporters of Palestinian terrorism like yourself, are appalled by the prospect of Hamas no longer having access to the aid falsely claim the Palestinians are starving.

 

[Coyote]

They assure me they are. Every time. I deliberately feed them at different times of day to keep them from demanding food at specific times. So now, of course, they are always starving.

Um, no. Not at all unique. Siege has been a component of war for, well, forever. There are modern examples. Sudan comes immediately to mind.

I realize sieges are not unique, but I was thinking more of countries who are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and agree to abide by international law. What is happening in Sudan are war crimes. I read a UN report on it but it doesn’t garner much attention here.

Sieges mean nothing goes in and nothing goes until surrender correct? Unless there are readily available resources and access to them, starvation becomes the weapon. Intentionally using starvation as a weapon of war is considered a war crime.

Yet there has not been a famine. Onlyprojec tions of some future threat of famine, which never become reality. In my opinion, after several rounds of false claims creating negative opinions about Israel, it becomes a blood libel.

Are they false if they are projecting famine and Israel relents to pressure to allow more aid in thus averting it?

Israel’s leadership is compromised by its reliance on a corrupt PM with an overriding need to remain in power regardless the cost and a necessary coalition of extremists who have expressed support for starving the civilian population in order to put pressure on Hamas. This rhetoric does not get shut down or repudiated by statements of actual policy.

I could go with hyperbole, but blood libel? That makes hyperbole related to Israel somehow unique in way that does not apply to other nations.

 

[Coyote]

We would have to start with citizenship. What citizenship would these emigrants hold? I see three options, each with various implications depending on the political future of the territory.

1. Palestinian. As citizens of Palestine, their right to return to their country would be limited to the territory of a State of Palestine (which quasi already exists), but may not include the territory of Gaza in the future.

2. Gazan. As citizens of a newly-emerged State of Gaza, their right to return would be to the territory of Gaza. The risk would be that such a State does not materialize.

3. Israeli. Israel could grant them Israeli citizenship, or the right to apply for Israeli citizenship, which would give them a right to return to an Israeli sovereign Gaza and to Israel "proper".

All of this depends on what the political status of the territory will be.

Your last sentence is what makes it hard to entertain a discussion.

In 3: Israel would be highly unlikely to grant many, if any, Israeli citizenship, based on historical precedent and the general view onwards Gazans. This would be Nakhba 2.0.

On 1 and 2, it seems likely to leave effectively stateless. Again, a repeat of Nakhba.

 

[Grau]

During his first press conference in five months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday named the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s “revolutionary” plan to relocate Gaza’s civilians as a condition for ending the conflict, the first time he has made such a demand. He called Trump’s plan “brilliant,” and said it had the potential to change the face of the Middle East.

The fledgling Operation Gideon’s Chariots — the IDF’s expanded ground operation in Gaza that began over the weekend— is meant to “complete the war, the work” in the enclave, the premier told reporters and live TV cameras at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem.

Israel has a “very organized” plan to achieve its war aims in Gaza, he insisted, saying its aims are “To defeat Hamas, which carried out the atrocities of October 7; to bring back all of our hostages; and to ensure that Gaza does not present a threat to Israel.”

“Our forces are landing powerful blows that will get stronger against Hamas strongholds that still exist in Gaza,” he explained, promising that by the end of the operation, “all the territory of Gaza will be under Israeli security control, and Hamas will be totally defeated.”

While “ready to end the war,” Netanyahu said he would only agree to do so “under clear conditions that will ensure the safety of Israel: All the hostages come home, Hamas lays down its arms, steps down from power, its leadership is exiled from the Strip… Gaza is totally disarmed; and we carry out the Trump plan. A plan that is so correct and so revolutionary.”

The US and Israel share a determination to ensure that Iran cannot get the bomb and that Hamas is booted out of Gaza, he said. And “we want to ensure that Trump’s plan” for Gaza comes to fruition, he added. “It’s a brilliant plan,” he said, “that truly can bring change not only here… but can change the face of the Middle East. Change once and for all what we have been through from Gaza for decades.”

He also said that if there is a possibility for a “temporary ceasefire” that will return more hostages, he would agree to that, but repeated that this would only be temporary.

Netanyahu sets implementation of Trump’s Gaza relocation plan as new condition for ending war

At rare press conference, PM insists Qatari funds sent to Hamas at Israel's request did not enable Oct. 7, seems to downplay terror group's capabilities: 'Attacked in flip-flops'; falsely claims Kibbutz Ein HaShlosha was not invaded

www.timesofisrael.com

There is nothing more useless or more dangerous than a European diplomat, as they proved in the last century leading the world into two catastrophic war killing tens of millions of people, and now the governments of Britain, France and Canada have, along with the Arab states, thrown their support behind the continuation of the cycle of violence that has plagued the region for over hundred years, and the EU is considering joining them, and only the US government, the Trump administration, has come forward with a plan to at once end the suffering of the noncombatants in Gaza, and bring lasting peace to the region.

I never cease to be amazed at the grotesque hypocrisy and blatant bigotry exhibited by intellectual challenged apologists for raw Zionist genocide.

The same people who whine relentlessly about their sacred Holocaust and racist hatred trot out the absolute dumbest and most transparently bigoted attempts to rationalize internationally condemned Zionist genocide and unrivaled sadism imaginable.

The flimsy "logic" behind Netanyahu's systematic extermination of Palestine's native residents and eviction of Nakba survivors seems to be that only the self "Chosen People" / "Master Race" may come from far away to murder any existing population, torture the survivors and steal all land they claim as their ever expanding "Homeland".

ONLY foreign Jews deserve America's $ Trillions and American guaranteed "self determination".

ONLY foreign Jews deserve America's blood and welfare for their "Greater Israel" Lebensraum.

The obscene irony behind this offensive sense of ethnic superiority and endless entitlement is the selective reverance for anything related to the sacred Holocaust cult from which everyone else is supposed to have learned the so called "lessons of the Holocaust".

Finally, while Nakba survivors continue to starve and dodge bombs in squalid rubble, Holocaust survivors enjoy countless $ Billions in eternal reparations and global celebrity status.

The blatant bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy of today's genocidal Zionist shills is as offensive as it is unrivaled and no amount of lies, evasions and puerile name calling justifies blatant Zionist genocide.

 

[Shusha]

I could go with hyperbole, but blood libel? That makes hyperbole related to Israel somehow unique in way that does not apply to other nations.

Blood libel: the use of an imagined event to impart malice and evil intent upon the Jewish people (also collectively on the Jewish state).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The flimsy "logic" behind Netanyahu's systematic extermination of Palestine's native residents and eviction of Nakba survivors

Nakba? What's that?
Is it something unique in history?
Tell me more!