[Pants-of-dog]

It is also a fact that Hamas carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7th, but in that case you were very much happy to justify it. Even implying that criticizing this massacre was being manichean.

It is a fact this war was started by that massacre, just as it is a fact that Hamas launches rockets from populated areas.

And it is also a fact you have double standards here, because in your view massacring Jews is fine, as long as the perpetrator is not a white right-winger.

Your whataboutism and lies are not an argument.

Still no arguments to provide here, huh?

This isn't whataboutism. What I am saying is that it is entirely possible those civilians were in fact shot by Hamas.

This is particularly true in areas where there was no known presence of Israeli ground troops, and where civilians were killed by firearms.

That video from Rafah is one such example.

Yes, it is a whataboutism. The fact that you do not have the ability to recognize oneis irrelevant.

—————-

The argument is that Netanyahu is letting the IDF kill Palestinian civilians en masse as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing that would also provide more land and resources for Israel.

@wat0n has nothing to say about this and wants to talk about Hamas instead, which is off topic.

Does anyone else have an argument about the actual claim?

[wat0n]

Your whataboutism and lies are not an argument.

I don't see any lies there.

Yes, it is a whataboutism. The fact that you do not have the ability to recognize oneis irrelevant.

And I don't see any whataboutism here, I am saying you have no proof for your claims.

It seems you're engaging in the fallacy fallacy.

The argument is that Netanyahu is letting the IDF kill Palestinian civilians en masse as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing that would also provide more land and resources for Israel.

@wat0n has nothing to say about this and wants to talk about Hamas instead, which is off topic.

Does anyone else have an argument about the actual claim?

You have yet to provide any evidence that such ethnic cleansing is happening, and that such policy exists.

Thus far I've just read a bunch of conspiracy theories.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another post from @wat0n with no argument or even addressing the arguments made.

Anyone else?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog will you provide the evidence for your claims?

Or you will instead keep justifying the massacre that began this war and claiming its critics are manichean?

Speaking of, there are reports the Israel will allow an UN delegation into northern Gaza to start preparing the return of displaced Gazans. This would make a lot of sense, subject to the obvious security arrangements (soldiers ID'ing returnees and people displaced from the south of Gaza to screen for fighters and even hostages).

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

You do not seem to know what my claim is.

Hint: I am not justifying the massacre or justifying anything at all.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog if you say so.

It seems Israel will allow for a return of civilians to northern Gaza (as in, north of Wadi Gaza).

This makes sense, even from a strictly military point of view, subject to the screening of returnees for fighters and hostages. If Israel will move on to take southern Gaza and destroy the remaining governmental infrastructure of Hamas, it will want to have as few civilians as possible around.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog if you say so.

It seems Israel will allow for a return of civilians to northern Gaza (as in, north of Wadi Gaza).

No, that does not logically follow from the tweet you cited.

Netanyahu’s government is allowing the UN to review the extent of the damage and the requirements for having civilians live there.

Whether or not this information is ultimately used for Palestinians or for settling Israelis is still up for discussion.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog how did you infer that from "Israel agreed to allow a UN delegation to enter Northern Gaza in order to evaluate the situation of the infrastructure and map the needs for a return of Palestinian civilians to the area at a later stage, Israeli and U.S. officials said" (journalist Barak Ravid, January 9th 2024)?

[Pants-of-dog]

I crossed out the word Palestinian, since I logically deduced that the UN visit could provide the exact same information regardless of who would ultimately benefit from such info.

I assume Netanyahu was also capable of seeing the same angle I did.

[wat0n]

So you're basically cherry picking.

And then you call others liars

[Pants-of-dog]

No, cherry picking is when one deliberately ignores data that contradicts the claim.

The data point here that I am ignoring is the unsupported assumption that this land will be returned to Palestinians.

Just because Netanyahu told the UN that the land would be for Palestinians does not mean that he was telling the truth.

[wat0n]

No, cherry picking is when one deliberately ignores data that contradicts the claim.

For example, that this assessment is done with the purpose of allowing Gazans back into northern Gaza.

The data point here that I am ignoring is the unsupported assumption that this land will be returned to Palestinians.

That's what you are refusing to consider, because you are assuming without justification that it won't.

Just because Netanyahu told the UN that the land would be for Palestinians does not mean that he was telling the truth.

There would be no reason for Israel to invite the UN if Israel didn't want to allow Palestinians back.

[Pants-of-dog]

For example, that this assessment is done with the purpose of allowing Gazans back into northern Gaza.

That is not a fact.

It is a fact that the Israeli government claimed that this assessment is done with the purpose of allowing Gazans back into northern Gaza.

Something is not automatically true because Netanyahu’s government said it.

That's what you are refusing to consider, because you are assuming without justification that it won't.

No, it is a possibility.

There would be no reason for Israel to invite the UN if Israel didn't want to allow Palestinians back.

Sure, there are at least two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

1. The UN pays for, and does the work for, finding out what it will take to rebuild, and….
2. It looks good on the international stage right now even if Israel settles the land later.

[wat0n]

That is not a fact.

It is a fact that the Israeli government claimed that this assessment is done with the purpose of allowing Gazans back into northern Gaza.

Something is not automatically true because Netanyahu’s government said it.

Actually that's what Barak Ravid (a journalist) is saying

No, it is a possibility.

Which you're assuming won't happen.

Sure, there are at least two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

1. The UN pays for, and does the work for, finding out what it will take to rebuild, and….
2. It looks good on the international stage right now even if Israel settles the land later.

How would Israel do #2 after allowing the UN and US officials into Gaza?

Also, do you believe this guy like you believe Hamas?

[starman2003]

I doubt so.

To a considerable degree, it would mean ending the Palestinian problem on Israel's doorstep for good. I was under the impression removal of palestinians enjoys wider support so I don't.

One may wonder what does "annihilating" Hamas mean. I would think it means what happened to ISIS: Having its military infrastructure destroyed to such degree that it can't govern anymore and can't return to government for an indefinite period of time.

The Israelis seem a bit more ambitious with talk of erasing Hamas for all time and killing everyone involved in oct 7.

But there is a comparison between the living standards they can expect in Gaza right now and those they can expect in conflict ridden parts of Africa. And once the current Gaza war ends, Africa will be far less attractive in comparison.

I'd assume no African country would take them without a considerable amount of money to help care for them, which would help. Even after fighting ends--if it ever fully does--gaza will be anything but attractive. It's an utter shambles.

[late]

Haven't read the thread, not worth it.

Here's my 2 cents, there is no long term plan. There won't be a long term plan. They were happy obliterating Gaza, until Biden pulled on the leash.

Sorry, kids, there is simply no other explanation that passes the laugh test.

Israel has done many billions in damage, and they won't be interested in replacing what they've destroyed. There was already a series of crises that the international community was failing to deal with (climate change has a lot to do with that).

Not hard to guess you're asking yourself what about the Arabs. The Palestinians are allies of the Shia, the Sunni have all the money. We might be able to get the oil rich states to cough up some money, but they aren't going to want to foot most of the costs.

There is an open question as to whether enough aid can get to Gaza before starvation and diseases triples or quadruples the butchers bill.

I've been expecting this for a generation, I thought I would be able to check out before it happened.

No such luck.

[wat0n]

To a considerable degree, it would mean ending the Palestinian problem on Israel's doorstep for good. I was under the impression removal of palestinians enjoys wider support so I don't.

It doesn't seem to me like there's widespread support for anything even remotely close to that:

More than half of Israelis oppose annexing the Gaza Strip and reestablishing settlements uprooted during Israel’s 2005 Disengagement, according to a poll from the Hebrew University published Sunday.

According to the survey of over 1,800 people, which was conducted on December 7-9, 56 percent of Israelis opposed such a policy in the long term, as opposed to only 33% in favor and 11% who were uncertain.

The Israelis seem a bit more ambitious with talk of erasing Hamas for all time and killing everyone involved in oct 7.

That would require a much broader action than just fighting in Gaza. Toppling Hamas' regime would probably be the first and hardest step to doing that.

I'd assume no African country would take them without a considerable amount of money to help care for them, which would help. Even after fighting ends--if it ever fully does--gaza will be anything but attractive. It's an utter shambles.

You can say the same about Congo itself. It is a lot poorer than pre-war Gaza, after all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually that's what Barak Ravid (a journalist) is saying

Unless you are how changing your argument to now claim instead that Netanyahu’s government never said the UN investigation was ultimately for the benefit of Palestinians, all you are doing is mentioning who Tweeted the information.

Which you're assuming won't happen.

That is not my claim.

How would Israel do #2 after allowing the UN and US officials into Gaza?

How would Israel claim the land was for Palestinians?

It is doing that right now. You Tweeted it and everything.

Ir are you asking how they settle the land? By building or taking over houses. Expropriating land in the name of security buffer zones. Bombing existing buildings. Driving the current occupants off the land.

Stuff they are doing right now.

Also, do you believe this guy like you believe Hamas?

Your loaded question is both dishonest and rude.

So this tangent will be ignored.

[wat0n]

Unless you are how changing your argument to now claim instead that Netanyahu’s government never said the UN investigation was ultimately for the benefit of Palestinians, all you are doing is mentioning who Tweeted the information.

That's all I'm doing, it's a report from a journalist. So?

That is not my claim.

It is an assumption.

How would Israel claim the land was for Palestinians?

It is doing that right now. You Tweeted it and everything.

Ir are you asking how they settle the land? By building or taking over houses. Expropriating land in the name of security buffer zones. Bombing existing buildings. Driving the current occupants off the land.

Stuff they are doing right now.

How would Israel do that with an international presence on the ground?

Your loaded question is both dishonest and rude.

So this tangent will be ignored.

No, it's not dishonest. Here's an Israeli Foreign Ministry official saying explicitly Israel isn't planning to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza.

Do you believe him? If not, can we start doubting anything Hamas claims?

[Pants-of-dog]

That's all I'm doing, it's a report from a journalist. So?

So it is irrelevant who the journalist is.

It is an assumption.

…that you are making?

How would Israel do that with an international presence on the ground?

The only there be an international presence on the ground is when the UN is doing its fact finding mission, After that, it will be like the areas that are currently being accessed exclusively by the IDF: megadeaths of Palestinian civilians.

No, it's not dishonest. Here's an Israeli Foreign Ministry official saying explicitly Israel isn't planning to transfer Palestinians out of Gaza.

Do you believe him? If not, can we start doubting anything Hamas claims?

Since you doubled down on your dishonesty and rudeness, I am not going to address this even if you ask again nicely.