Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[JPRouve]

I interpreted it not as the Arab states can't do anything but rather they are not interested in doing anything at all beyond rhetoric support. Obviously they wouldn't be interested in facilitating a Palestinian exodus. But he mentions how certain countries haven't even recalled ambassadors and things like that.

By the way, is taking in Ukrainian refugees also a way for Russia to take more land? Does the same framing apply there?

What are they supposed to do beyond rhetoric?

 

[JPRouve]

The reason they haven't taken in refugees is because they couldn't care less about the Palestinians.

They themselves have expelled Palestinian from their own countries and have little desire to bring them back again.

Egypt have reinforced their border with Gaza. Again, because they don't care and don't want the Palestinians and Hamas flocking into their country.

It is far easier for them to let this be Israel's "problem".

They currently have 6 millions refugees which is more than the population of Palestine. When do you start considering that they care? When they take everyone without exception even the ones that don't actually want to leave?

 

[Giggsy PO]

Thought this was an interesting read.

Arab States Are Giving Palestinians the Cold Shoulder. Here’s Why.


https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-states-wont-support-palestinians-qa-00142277

That was great read. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[africanspur]

The reason they haven't taken in refugees is because they couldn't care less about the Palestinians.

They themselves have expelled Palestinian from their own countries and have little desire to bring them back again.

Egypt have reinforced their border with Gaza. Again, because they don't care and don't want the Palestinians and Hamas flocking into their country.

It is far easier for them to let this be Israel's "problem".

I always hate these ridiculously oversimplistic comparisons about 'oh look they're doing what was done to them!' etc etc because a lot of the time, its purely designed to cause a reaction.

In this reaction, the irony of your own peoples' history clearly does escape you though.

 

[africanspur]

Thought this was an interesting read.

Arab States Are Giving Palestinians the Cold Shoulder. Here’s Why.


https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-states-wont-support-palestinians-qa-00142277

The Arab countries have learned a few things over the past 80 years or so. They will not beat Israel militarily. When they get beaten militarily, Israel will take land and colonise that land. The Palestinians will not give up their own fight for their independence, regardless of where they are, even if their actions may sometimes not correlate with the interests of the host country. Israel will follow the Palestinians wherever they are and strike at them and anyone around them and flatten entire countries if need be. The Americans will always support Israel and are the world's superpower. Even in the context of the cold war, American military hardware was superior to Soviet.

In a situation where an 'Arab bloc' was militarily equivalent or even superior to Israel, and led by governments that actually enacted the will of their people, I do not think the reaction of the governments would be what it is now. It is what it is though. The Arabs are weak, led by weak men who do not represent the will of their people and live in a neigbourhood where there is an incredibly powerful regional hegemon, backed by the world's global hegemon.

So they better stay in line.

Rest assured, every single Arab I know, regardless of religion, country of birth or country of living at the moment is fuming at what is happening and their own governments' anaemic responses.

 

[africanspur]

I interpreted it not as the Arab states can't do anything but rather they are not interested in doing anything at all beyond rhetoric support. Obviously they wouldn't be interested in facilitating a Palestinian exodus. But he mentions how certain countries haven't even recalled ambassadors and things like that.

By the way, is taking in Ukrainian refugees also a way for Russia to take more land? Does the same framing apply there?

Don't think Putin's aim has ever been for ethnic cleaning of Ukrainians was it? Even the most furious framing of what he wanted was a quick roll in, install a puppet regime and get back out. If anything, he's been transferring Ukrainian children and what not into Russia proper.

Whereas in this situation, there have been multiple distinct waves of one way displacement and Israeli politicians openly calling for ethnic cleansing etc.

 

[VorZakone]

What are they supposed to do beyond rhetoric?

Not buy Israeli defence products like some did? This is an article from before October 7th but it's not like Israel was nice to the Palestinians in the previous decades.

By the way, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do deals with Israel. It is what it is and I'm aware of those countries' leaders not wanting to antagonize Israel's main backer America.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-reports-record-125-bln-defence-exports-24-them-arab-païrtners-2023-06-13/

 

[VorZakone]

Don't think Putin's aim has ever been for ethnic cleaning of Ukrainians was it? Even the most furious framing of what he wanted was a quick roll in, install a puppet regime and get back out. If anything, he's been transferring Ukrainian children and what not into Russia proper.

Whereas in this situation, there have been multiple distinct waves of one way displacement and Israeli politicians openly calling for ethnic cleansing etc.

Whatever he wanted on February 24th 2022, the reality today is he's occupying parts of Ukraine and formally "annexed" them. And he took Crimea in 2014. And through Russification attempts he's pretty much forcing Ukrainians to make a choice to flee or not.

Doesn't mean he wants to take more Ukrainian land but the "get out of Ukraine" part remains to be seen as of now.

 

[VorZakone]

By the way, Hezbollah fighters keep dying. Is there no threat to Hezbollah leadership here? Will the Hezbollah rank-and-file tolerate to keep getting killed for...nothing?

 

[JPRouve]

Not buy Israeli defence products like some did? This is an article from before October 7th but it's not like Israel was nice to the Palestinians in the previous decades.

By the way, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do deals with Israel. It is what it is and I'm aware of those countries' leaders not wanting to antagonize Israel's main backer America. But I'm not convinced of the notion that there is nothing to do beyond rhetorical support.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-reports-record-125-bln-defence-exports-24-them-arab-païrtners-2023-06-13/

How is that helpful to the palestinian cause? Also it's worth mentioning that when it comes to military products you either purchase it from Israel main allies the US, France and UK or you get subpar products. And the former will funnel money to Israel one way or the other especially the US.

I don't know if you realize it but you are deflecting blame away from the actual power brokers which was the point of the answer that you quoted, it's a shameful answer from Crocker to a shameful question. It's crazy that people still buy that nonsense especially when the premise is nonsensical, Arab countries welcome a large amount of palestinians.

Now the question that should follow that BS is why are we are flippantly talking about displacing the remaining half of palestinians to arab countries? How is that a sensible point to ever make?

 

[africanspur]

Whatever he wanted on February 24th 2022, the reality today is he's occupying parts of Ukraine and formally "annexed" them. And he took Crimea in 2014. And through Russification attempts he's pretty much forcing Ukrainians to make a choice to flee or not.

Doesn't mean he wants to take more Ukrainian land but the "get out of Ukraine" part remains to be seen as of now.

I mean at this point he definitely wants to take Ukrainian land but like I said, even the people who'll use Orc all the time won't say that Putin wants to clear Ukrainians (in the literal sense) out of the country. You can quite convincingly argue I think that he'd want to erase them as a cultural and social group.

Whereas I think historical precedent does not say that in this situation. Generally once the Palestinians leave an area, they don't go back.

 

[That_Bloke]

Yes. Thats why they need to discuss it, if son thinks the same.

Whatever floats your sinking boat.

 

[JPRouve]

I mean at this point he definitely wants to take Ukrainian land but like I said, even the people who'll use Orc all the time won't say that Putin wants to clear Ukrainians (in the literal sense) out of the country. You can quite convincingly argue I think that he'd want to erase them as a cultural and social group.

Whereas I think historical precedent does not say that in this situation. Generally once the Palestinians leave an area, they don't go back.

They can't go back. Currently there are only two ways to enter Palestine via Israel or via a neighbouring country and through an israeli checkpoint.

 

[VorZakone]

How is that helpful to the palestinian cause? Also it's worth mentioning that when it comes to military products you either purchase it from Israel main allies the US, France and UK or you get subpar products. And the former will funnel money to Israel one way or the other especially the US.

I don't know if you realize it but you are deflecting blame away from the actual power brokers which was the point of the answer that you quoted, it's a shameful answer from Crocker to a shameful question. It's crazy that people still buy that nonsense especially when the premise is nonsensical, Arab countries welcome a large amount of palestinians.

Now the question that should follow that BS is why are we are flippantly talking about displacing the remaining half of palestinians to arab countries? How is that a sensible point to ever make?

Which is it? Do Arab states not want to show (symbolic) support beyond rhetoric? Or can't they?

Actually, you jumped on the whole resettlement thing. The discussion is about the above. To what extent are Arab states actually interested in doing anything at all. That's why I found the article interesting.

 

[VorZakone]

I mean at this point he definitely wants to take Ukrainian land but like I said, even the people who'll use Orc all the time won't say that Putin wants to clear Ukrainians (in the literal sense) out of the country. You can quite convincingly argue I think that he'd want to erase them as a cultural and social group.

Whereas I think historical precedent does not say that in this situation. Generally once the Palestinians leave an area, they don't go back.

Yeah, I get what you mean.

 

[JPRouve]

Which is it? Do Arab states not want to show (symbolic) support beyond rhetoric? Or can't they?

Actually, you jumped on the whole resettlement thing. The discussion is about the above. To what extent are Arab states actually interested in doing anything at all. That's why I found the article interesting.

Symbolic and rhetoric are in the same realm, neither actually do anything which was the point made in the context of claiming that Arab countries won't take palestinian refugees which is a fallacy they have welcomed a lot of refugees, they have welcomed too many. And unless I made a mistake, I stated that they can't do anything beyond rhetoric and I will explicitly add symbolism to it, neither do anything or address the point made in the answer that you quoted.

So I will rephrase my question what are they supposed to do beyond rhetoric or symbolic gestures? Keeping in mind that they have welcomed 6 millions refugees.

 

[That_Bloke]

How is that helpful to the palestinian cause? Also it's worth mentioning that when it comes to military products you either purchase it from Israel main allies the US, France and UK or you get subpar products. And the former will funnel money to Israel one way or the other especially the US.

I don't know if you realize it but you are deflecting blame away from the actual power brokers which was the point of the answer that you quoted, it's a shameful answer from Crocker to a shameful question. It's crazy that people still buy that nonsense especially when the premise is nonsensical, Arab countries welcome a large amount of palestinians.

Now the question that should follow that BS is why are we are flippantly talking about displacing the remaining half of palestinians to arab countries? How is that a sensible point to ever make?

Nailed it.

The insane idea of ethnically cleansing Gaza for "humanitarian reasons" and shifting the blame on the Arab countries, has been incepted in the first week of the massacre. Blinken was in the Middle-East as soon as it started to discuss it, to no avail. It has always been there and will be even more present if Israel goes on with the Rafah offensive new carnage.

So instead of stopping the bully from constantly beating up the victim in their own house with your own stick, you want the neighbours, who already have welcome half of the victim's family, to take the rest in. Then give the victim's house to the bully for good measure.

What a world we live in.

 

[roseguy64]

 

[VorZakone]

Symbolic and rhetoric are in the same realm, neither actually do anything which was the point made in the context of claiming that Arab countries won't take palestinian refugees which is a fallacy they have welcomed a lot of refugees, they have welcomed too many. And unless I made a mistake, I stated that they can't do anything beyond rhetoric and I will explicitly add symbolism to it, neither do anything or address the point made in the answer that you quoted.

So I will rephrase my question what are they supposed to do beyond rhetoric or symbolic gestures? Keeping in mind that they have welcomed 6 millions refugees.

For this question, it doesn't matter whether not buying Israeli defence products helps Palestinians or not. Things don't always matter. The question is one of showing solidarity and symbolic support.

Your point is they can't do anything. The question is again: can't they or do they not want to?

 

[4bars]

The reason they haven't taken in refugees is because they couldn't care less about the Palestinians.

They themselves have expelled Palestinian from their own countries and have little desire to bring them back again.

Egypt have reinforced their border with Gaza. Again, because they don't care and don't want the Palestinians and Hamas flocking into their country.

It is far easier for them to let this be Israel's "problem".

I guess the arab countries should care more than Israel that is the country from whom are stealing their land? do you have any shame? Now blaming other countries for being passive when Israel actively destroying palestinians?

I guess arab countries should take care of the fecking mess of Israel so Israel can be happy?

If arab countries don't care, what israel does on caring?

 

[JPRouve]

For this question, it doesn't matter whether not buying Israeli defence products helps Palestinians or not. Things don't always matter. The question is one of showing solidarity and symbolic support.

Your point is they can't do anything. The question is again: can't they or do they not want to?

I interpreted it not as the Arab states can't do anything but rather they are not interested in doing anything at all beyond rhetoric support. Obviously they wouldn't be interested in facilitating a Palestinian exodus. But he mentions how certain countries haven't even recalled ambassadors and things like that.

By the way, is taking in Ukrainian refugees also a way for Russia to take more land? Does the same framing apply there?

I asked you a question based on your own point about rhetoric, I asked you what they are supposed to do beyond that?

Now two things needs to be established, first in this context symbolism and rhetoric are equivalent and arab countries welcome 6 millions palestinian refugees. So I have two questions what are arab countries supposed to do that goes beyond cosmetics and how welcoming 6 millions people not enough?

As for your question can ukrainians enter Ukraine without the approval or Russia? Are we talking about the same border control context? And does any leading nation recognize or protect any of the lands that Russia grabbed?

 

[VorZakone]

I asked you a question based on your own point about rhetoric, I asked you what they are supposed to do beyond that?

Now two things needs to be established, first in this context symbolism and rhetoric are equivalent and arab countries welcome 6 millions palestinian refugees. So I have two questions what are arab countries supposed to do that goes beyond cosmetics and how welcoming 6 millions people not enough?

As for your question can ukrainians enter Ukraine without the approval or Russia? Are we talking about the same border control context? And does any leading nation recognize or protect any of the lands that Russia grabbed?

I don't share your point at all that symbolism and rhetoric are equivalent. We will likely not agree on this. Not buying Israeli defence products is an actual symbolic policy decision that goes beyond rhetorical support.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't help the Palestinian cause. Actions of solidarity don't always affect a situation.

So can't they? Or do they not want to do more than rhetoric? This question doesn't necessarily apply for countries like Jordan whose context was mentioned by the Politico article.

As for Ukraine, you tell me. If Russia moves into land from which Ukrainians flee, will Russia give it back later? Specifically the eastern and southern territories.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

An incredibly powerful speech by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Secretary General Chris Lockyear to the UN security council:



Cliff quotes:

• Just 48 hours ago, as a family sat around their kitchen table in a house sheltering MSF staff and their families in Khan Younis, a 120mm tank shell exploded through the walls, igniting a fire, and killing two people and severely burning six others. Five of the six injured are women and children.
• We took every precaution to protect the 64 humanitarian staff and family members from such an attack...This morning...I am watching videos of rescue teams removing the charred bodies from the rubble.
• Israeli forces have attacked our convoys, detained our staff, bulldozed our vehicles and hospitals have been bombed and raided.
• We have watched the systematic obliteration of a health system we have supported for decades. We have watched our patients and colleagues be killed and maimed.
• This situation is the culmination of a war Israel is waging on the entire population of the Gaza strip - a war of collective punishment, a war without rules, a war at all costs.
• The laws and the principles we collectively depend on to enable humanitarian assistance are now eroded to the point of becoming meaningless.
• The humanitarian response in Gaza today is an illusion—a convenient illusion that perpetuates a narrative that this war is being waged in line with international laws.
• There is no health system to speak of left in Gaza. Israel’s military has dismantled hospital after hospital. What remains is so little in the face of such carnage. It is preposterous.
• Our patients have catastrophic injuries, amputations, crushed limbs, and severe burns. They need sophisticated care. They need long and intensive rehabilitation.
• Medics cannot treat these injuries on a battlefield or in the ashes of destroyed hospitals.
• Surgeons have had no choice but to carry out amputations without anaesthesia, on children.
• Women in labour cannot reach functional delivery rooms. They are giving birth in plastic tents and public buildings.
• Medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary: WCNSF— wounded child, no surviving family.
• The people of Gaza need a ceasefire not when “practicable,” but now. They need a sustained ceasefire, not a “temporary period of calm.” Anything short of this is gross negligence.
• Two days ago, MSF staff and families were attacked and died in a place they were told would be protected. Today our staff are back at work, risking their lives once again for their patients. What are you willing to risk? We demand the protections promised under International Humanitarian Law.

Spoiler: Full transcription

Madam President, excellencies, colleagues,

As I speak, more than 1.5 million people are trapped in Rafah. People violently forced to this strip of land in southern Gaza are bearing the brunt of Israel’s military campaign.

We live in fear of a ground invasion.

Our fears are rooted in experience. Just 48 hours ago, as a family sat around their kitchen table in a house sheltering MSF staff and their families in Khan Younis, a 120mm tank shell exploded through the walls, igniting a fire, and killing two people and severely burning six others. Five of the six injured are women and children. We took every precaution to protect the 64 humanitarian staff and family members from such an attack by notifying warring parties of the location and clearly marking the building with an MSF flag. Despite our precautions, our building was struck not only by a tank shell but by intense gunfire. Some were trapped in the burning building while active shooting delayed ambulances from reaching them. This morning, I am looking at photos that show the catastrophic extent of the damage and I am watching videos of rescue teams removing the charred bodies from the rubble.

This is all too familiar—Israeli forces have attacked our convoys, detained our staff, and bulldozed our vehicles, and hospitals have been bombed and raided. Now, for a second time, one of our staff shelters has been hit. This pattern of attacks is either intentional or indicative of reckless incompetence.

Our colleagues in Gaza are fearful that, as I speak to you today, they will be punished tomorrow.

Madame President, every day we witness unimaginable horror.

We, like so many, were horrified by Hamas’ massacre in Israel on 7 October, and we are horrified by Israel’s response. We feel the anguish of families whose loved ones were taken hostage on 7 October. We feel the anguish of the families of those arbitrarily detained from Gaza and the West Bank.

As humanitarians, we are appalled by violence against civilians.

This death, destruction, and forced displacement are the result of military and political choices that blatantly disregard civilian lives.

These choices could have been—and still can be—made very differently.

For 138 days, we witnessed the unimaginable suffering of the people of Gaza.

For 138 days, we have done everything we can to enact a meaningful humanitarian response.

For 138 days, we have watched the systematic obliteration of a health system we have supported for decades. We have watched our patients and colleagues be killed and maimed.

This situation is the culmination of a war Israel is waging on the entire population of the Gaza strip—
a war of collective punishment,
a war without rules,
a war at all costs.

The laws and the principles we collectively depend on to enable humanitarian assistance are now eroded to the point of becoming meaningless.


Madam President, the humanitarian response in Gaza today is an illusion—a convenient illusion that perpetuates a narrative that this war is being waged in line with international laws.

Calls for more humanitarian assistance have echoed across this Chamber.

Yet in Gaza we have less and less each day—less space, less medicine, less food, less water, less safety.

We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum.

Today in Gaza, efforts to provide assistance are haphazard, opportunistic, and entirely inadequate.

How can we deliver life-saving aid in an environment where the distinction between civilians and combatants is disregarded?

How can we sustain any type of response when medical workers are being targeted, attacked, and vilified for assisting the wounded?

Madam President, attacks on health care are attacks on humanity.

There is no health system to speak of left in Gaza. Israel’s military has dismantled hospital after hospital. What remains is so little in the face of such carnage. It is preposterous.

The excuse given is that medical facilities have been used for military purposes, yet we have seen zero independently verified evidence of this.

In exceptional circumstances where a hospital loses its protected status, any attack must follow the principles of proportionality and precaution.

Instead of adherence to international law, we see the systematic disabling of hospitals. This has left the entire medical system inoperable.

Since 7 October, we have been forced to evacuate nine different health facilities.

One week ago, Nasser Hospital was raided. Medical staff were forced to leave despite repeated assurances that they could stay and continue caring for patients.

These indiscriminate attacks, as well as the types of weapons and munitions used in densely populated areas, have killed tens of thousands and maimed thousands more.

Our patients have catastrophic injuries, amputations, crushed limbs, and severe burns. They need sophisticated care. They need long and intensive rehabilitation.

Medics cannot treat these injuries on a battlefield or in the ashes of destroyed hospitals.

There are not enough hospital beds, not enough medications, and not enough supplies.

Surgeons have had no choice but to carry out amputations without anaesthesia, on children.

Our surgeons are running out of basic gauze to stop their patients from bleeding out. They use it once, squeeze out the blood, wash it, sterilize it, and reuse it for the next patient.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has left pregnant women without medical care for months. Women in labour cannot reach functional delivery rooms. They are giving birth in plastic tents and public buildings.

Medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary: WCNSF— wounded child, no surviving family.

Children who survive this war will not only bear the visible wounds of traumatic injuries but the invisible ones, too—those of repeated displacement, constant fear, and witnessing family members literally dismembered before their eyes. These psychological injuries have led children as young as five to tell us they would prefer to die.

The dangers for medical staff are enormous. On a daily basis, we are making the choice to continue working, despite the increasing risks.

We are scared. Our teams are beyond exhausted.


Madam President, this must stop.

We, along with the world, are closely watching how this Council and its members have approached the conflict in Gaza.

Meeting after meeting, resolution after resolution, this body has failed to effectively address this conflict. We have watched members of this Council deliberate and delay while civilians die.

We are appalled by the willingness of the United States to use its powers as a permanent Council member to obstruct efforts to adopt the most evident of resolutions: one demanding an immediate and sustained ceasefire.

Three times this Council has had an opportunity to vote for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed and three times the United States has used its veto power, most recently this Tuesday.

A new draft resolution by the United States ostensibly calls for a ceasefire. However, this is misleading at best.

This Council should reject any resolution that further hampers humanitarian efforts on the ground and leads this Council to tacitly endorse the continued violence and mass atrocities in Gaza.

The people of Gaza need a ceasefire not when “practicable,” but now. They need a sustained ceasefire, not a “temporary period of calm.” Anything short of this is gross negligence.

The protection of civilians in Gaza cannot be contingent on resolutions from this Council which instrumentalize humanitarianism to blur political objectives.

The protection of civilians, of civilian infrastructure, of health workers and health facilities, falls first and foremost on the parties to the conflict.

But it is also a collective responsibility—a responsibility which rests with this Council and its individual members, as parties to the Geneva Conventions.

The consequences of casting international humanitarian law to the wind will reverberate well beyond Gaza.

It will be an enduring burden on our collective conscience.

This is not just political inaction—it has become political complicity.

Two days ago, MSF staff and families were attacked and died in a place they were told would be protected.

Today our staff are back at work, risking their lives once again for their patients.

What are you willing to risk?

We demand the protections promised under International Humanitarian Law.

We demand a ceasefire from both parties.

We demand the space to turn the illusion of aid into meaningful assistance.

What will you do to make this possible?

Thank you, Madam President.
https://www.msf.org/msf-briefing-gaza-un-security-council

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Denis79]

An incredibly powerful speech by Medicine Sans Frontieres (MSF) Secretary General Chris Lockyear to the UN security council:

How he warned the council they would be targetted because of his speech. What fecking monsters the Israel forces are. No fecking better than the worst scum in history.

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[4bars]

I have the feeling that thats it. Israel is pushing through not only in Gaza but West bank. I don't think that any palestinian territory will exist in 2-3 years time. Israel will probably feel a pantomime international backlash if that is the case, but they will curl inside their shell for a while inside a complete Israel. Invulerable. And little by little they will get out of the shell while the world rapidly will accept them with "it is what it is".

 

[The Corinthian]

I have the feeling that thats it. Israel is pushing through not only in Gaza but West bank. I don't think that any palestinian territory will exist in 2-3 years time. Israel will probably feel a pantomime international backlash if that is the case, but they will curl inside their shell for a while inside a complete Israel. Invulerable. And little by little they will get out of the shell while the world rapidly will accept them with "it is what it is".

…and then they’ll start atomising parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria to establish their greater Zion.

 

[4bars]

…and then they’ll start atomising parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria to establish their greater Zion.

Thats a tell for another decade. they still have to feck over 5 million people

 

[Giggsyking]

Thought this was an interesting read.

Arab States Are Giving Palestinians the Cold Shoulder. Here’s Why.


https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...-states-wont-support-palestinians-qa-00142277

I thought they were clear. The last Algerian security council vote was adopted by all arab countries.



about Saudi Arabia, they were clear too,



No full sovereign Palestinian state on the border of 1967 as an agenda, no peace talks with the Saudi.

Then you have other important regional players (more than UAE and Bahrain) who has direct effect on the conflict like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and have clear view toward the conflict.
The only pale response from a big regional power is Egypt.

 

[Giggsyking]

The reason they haven't taken in refugees is because they couldn't care less about the Palestinians.

They themselves have expelled Palestinian from their own countries and have little desire to bring them back again.

Egypt have reinforced their border with Gaza. Again, because they don't care and don't want the Palestinians and Hamas flocking into their country.

It is far easier for them to let this be Israel's "problem".

OMG, It is their fecking land. You can not force them out of their own fecking land.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

I don't share your point at all that symbolism and rhetoric are equivalent. We will likely not agree on this. Not buying Israeli defence products is an actual symbolic policy decision that goes beyond rhetorical support.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't help the Palestinian cause. Actions of solidarity don't always affect a situation.

So can't they? Or do they not want to do more than rhetoric? This question doesn't necessarily apply for countries like Jordan whose context was mentioned by the Politico article.

As for Ukraine, you tell me. If Russia moves into land from which Ukrainians flee, will Russia give it back later? Specifically the eastern and southern territories.

I stayed in KSA for a long time and some of my family work in Dubai now. The view of the young people there is that their leaders only care about themselves. They barely care about their local population, so expecting them to care about Palestinians is a big stretch. I would go as far to say that they would prefer if Israel took over Palestine completely so they don't have to pretend caring. Israel would also help them out against Iran.

Also this question is now one of the top questions in several of the forums I visit, including Reddit. Has there been a press conference on it or some important person has framed this question?

 

[JPRouve]

I don't share your point at all that symbolism and rhetoric are equivalent. We will likely not agree on this. Not buying Israeli defence products is an actual symbolic policy decision that goes beyond rhetorical support.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't help the Palestinian cause. Actions of solidarity don't always affect a situation.

So can't they? Or do they not want to do more than rhetoric? This question doesn't necessarily apply for countries like Jordan whose context was mentioned by the Politico article.

As for Ukraine, you tell me. If Russia moves into land from which Ukrainians flee, will Russia give it back later? Specifically the eastern and southern territories.

And that's the issue. It does matter whether something help the Palestinian cause especially when you look critically at someone and overlook the fact that they currently host half the global Palestinian population, the people that Crocker talks about have actually done something that helps people that wants to flee.

Regarding Ukraine I don't get your POV or your question because the situations are totally different. First because as far as I know no one is suggesting that millions of ukranians should leave Ukraine, secondly Ukrainians aren't forbidden from taking back the land themselves, they are not forbidden from fighting for it and killing russian occupiers because no one actually recognized. Also Russia doesn't control access to Ukraine which is a massive difference, Ukrainians can stay or return to Ukraine whenever they want which isn't the case for palestinians.

So to answer your question no Russia will not willingly give back those territories which is why Ukraine is at war with Russia and are being supported diplomatically and provided military aid. And even in that context, no one actually suggests that millions of ukrainians should leave their land to Russia and deflect blame toward third parties for allegedly not hosting refugees when they already have millions of them.

 

[Giggsyking]

Shameful state.

 

[VorZakone]

I thought they were clear. The last Algerian security council vote was adopted by all arab countries.



about Saudi Arabia, they were clear too,



No full sovereign Palestinian state on the border of 1967 as an agenda, no peace talks with the Saudi.

Then you have other important regional players (more than UAE and Bahrain) who has direct effect on the conflict like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and have clear view toward the conflict.
The only pale response from a big regional power is Egypt.

And yet, if October 7th hadn't happened, Israel and Saudi Arabia would likely be doing a normalization deal. That's kinda the premise of the Politico article.

October 7th changed things and Arab states can't be seen as doing nothing so the rhetoric is obviously there, the Politico article does not dispute that.

The Algerian security council vote is a good thing, yeah.

 

[Giggsyking]

Good interview, I always laugh at the "the only democracy in the middle east".

 

[4bars]

And yet, if October 7th hadn't happened, Israel and Saudi Arabia would likely be doing a normalization deal. That's kinda the premise of the Politico article.

October 7th changed things and Arab states can't be seen as doing nothing so the rhetoric is obviously there, the Politico article does not dispute that.

The Algerian security council vote is a good thing, yeah.

October 7th didn't change a thing in any direction but the pace of it. It just accelerated the Palestinian expulsion and slowed down the normalization. just matter of time, same results

 

[Giggsyking]

And yet, if October 7th hadn't happened, Israel and Saudi Arabia would likely be doing a normalization deal. That's kinda the premise of the Politico article.

October 7th changed things and Arab states can't be seen as doing nothing so the rhetoric is obviously there, the Politico article does not dispute that.

The Algerian security council vote is a good thing, yeah.

I do not think they can do more, more than that, means US will will retaliate in one way or another. Take Iraq for example, all of Iraqs money is in the hands of the US, every single cent that Iraq get from selling their oil goes into one account in the US. They have limit to what they can do.

 

[VorZakone]

And that's the issue. It does matter whether something help the Palestinian cause especially when you look critically at someone and overlook the fact that they currently host half the global Palestinian population, the people that Crocker talks about have actually done something that helps people that wants to flee.

Regarding Ukraine I don't get your POV or your question because the situations are totally different. First because as far as I know no one is suggesting that millions of ukranians should leave Ukraine, secondly Ukrainians aren't forbidden from taking back the land themselves, they are not forbidden from fighting for it and killing russian occupiers because no one actually recognized. Also Russia doesn't control access to Ukraine which is a massive difference, Ukrainians can stay or return to Ukraine whenever they want which isn't the case for palestinians.

So to answer your question no Russia will not willingly give back those territories which is why Ukraine is at war with Russia and are being supported diplomatically and provided military aid. And even in that context, no one actually suggests that millions of ukrainians should leave their land to Russia and deflect blame toward third parties for allegedly not hosting refugees when they already have millions of them.

Why was Saudi Arabia interested in a normalization deal with Israel before October 7th? It's often mentioned as an argument for why October 7th even happened, to draw attention back to the Palestinian cause.

By the way, this is Jamal Al-Durrah asking why countries are interested in doing normalization with Israel. He is the father in that famous pic of a Palestinian father shielding his son during the 2nd intifida. He even says normalization is treason. His opinion is just 1 opinion, I know. But he specifically mentions normalization.

Again, I completely disagree with your weird point that there is no point in symbolic actions because it doesn't affect the situation on the ground.

 

[VorZakone]

I stayed in KSA for a long time and some of my family work in Dubai now. The view of the young people there is that their leaders only care about themselves. They barely care about their local population, so expecting them to care about Palestinians is a big stretch. I would go as far to say that they would prefer if Israel took over Palestine completely so they don't have to pretend caring. Israel would also help them out against Iran.

Also this question is now one of the top questions in several of the forums I visit, including Reddit. Has there been a press conference on it or some important person has framed this question?

I am not aware of any press conference or stuff like that. I only shared a Politico interview with a former ambassador.