5 ms·

Trump says US will 'take over' Gaza

57 points by tekacs 2y ago

kccoder 2y ago
Are the non-alarmists alarmed yet? If not, when? What’s your red line?
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  What? Why? This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. This is very good news in my opinion. Americans are an almost neutral party compared to the IDF. Yes ideally, no one would occupy Gaza but again, the alternative is to let the army that's been genociding them for months occupy Gaza. Edit: Though if they actually go through with the plans to displace the local population, then yes it's just a continuation of said genocide. But as a temporary measure, this is still better than the Israeli alternative.
  - clipsy 2y ago
    > This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. Did you miss the part where he explicitly envisions all Palestinians in Gaza being relocated (to another country in the middle east, of course; America won't be accepting them)? Are you naive enough to think that's going to go well? I hope for your friends' sake that this boondoggle gets exactly as much traction as the border wall and buying Greenland. Edit: I posted this before you acknowledged the relocation plans. However, I have to point out, FTA: > Earlier, in the Oval Office, when he also raised the idea, a reporter asked if Palestinians relocated would have the right to return. > "Why would they want to return?" he responded. > "It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return," he said. Why would they want to return? That place has been hell. It's been one of the meanest, one of the meanest, toughest places on earth," he said.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      I agree with you that if it actually goes through (always a doubt with this administration lol), it will be really bad. But, imo letting people getting bombed while doing nothing about it is not much better. If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster, it's still better than what has been going on for more than a year with complete inaction from the US. Israel was open about their goal of razing the city to the ground, regardless of what it meant in terms of human cost. And Israel would have gone through with it, as they have had absolutely no consequences up until noe. It was their end goal since October 7. Whereas this can at least stop the bloodshed, and Americans are much less likely to be fully committed to actually erasing Palestinians from the territory than Israelis would be. Again, in this case I'm just in favor of any action that puts something between Israel and the Gaza population. That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza.
      - clipsy 2y ago
        > If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster There is absolutely no chance that it "stops" the large scale humanitarian disaster; the only thing on the table here is continuing the large scale humanitarian disaster to the exact same conclusion that Israel wanted. > That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza. Never forget that you said this; perhaps at least you will learn a lesson from it.
        mardifoufs 2y ago
        Why? Again, what do you think is the current alternative? The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants, so again, I'm not sure what's your point? The only thing that was going to happen was Israel taking control over Gaza as a whole. Do you actually believe that that would've been better than American troops acting as a (very weak, for sure) tampon between the IDF and Gaza? As you said, the worst that can happen is Israel getting its way in Gaza anyways... but that's exactly what was going to be happening given the complete inaction from every (relevant) nation/state. There's no lesson to learn from what I said. And I'm way past the point of having any delusions that something better could've happened for Gaza at this point. Westerner idealism is fine sometimes, but in this case, no one cares about Gaza. No country was going to save Gaza from Israel, and no one was going to stop Israel from doing anything it wanted to do there. In fact, no western nation was even willing to even just condemn Israel. That's just the reality. I guess the previous administration made Americans feel better by just looking the other way while fully supporting the deaths of the Palestinian population? Like what's the lesson to be learnt here?
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    With the mass deportations ongoing, do you think your friends will stay in Gaza?
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  Canada ("51st state", by coincidence my favorite song), Mexico, Greenland, Gaza. There is no red line for megalomania.
- tim333 2y ago
  I'm not unduly alarmed. Better the jews and palestinians can be united in asking wtf Trump is on about than they be killing each other.
archagon 2y ago
Literally genocide.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  what's literally genocide here? Taking over Gaza with U.S. forces? Relocating the population? (hint, neither is actually genocide, literally or otherwise if you bother to look at any legitimate definition of the term) As for calling Netenyahu's ferocious bombing campaign genocide, things get blurrier. That it was grotesquely inhumane and violent, absolutely, that it could be called a war crime? I'd say yes, though good luck finding any western power willing to genuinely prosecute. That it was a literal genocide? Not quite so certain. Motive matters. Genocides are a very particular type of tragedy, and re-defining every barbarity of war into one risks diluting the import of unambiguous genocide when it does happen.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    If it wasn't genocide, then the world would have an easier time supporting them. Israel has used their "defense" forces since the beginning to attack, disable and displace ethnic Arabs living in their claimed territory. They did it in the 40s and 50s, they did it through the 60s and then again in the 80s, and in the 90s they did it once again with the Golan Heights law. It's a genocide as we know it, unless you're of the Chomsky brand of denial a-la Bosnia. Ordinarily, nations with a preeminent claim to "living there" have a stronger defense when they say they were protecting themselves. Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily, ignoring international outcry and playing victim when the natives fight back.
    - ashirusnw 2y ago
      That's an very one-sided view, which entirely ignores that every single one of the Israeli wars were defensive (yes, including 1967 per historical consensus and eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-years-war-israel-and-the-arabs https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-ye...). The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack. No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state. I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.
inverted_flag 2y ago
All those people in Dearborn who voted for Trump, wonder how they’ll feel.
- feb42025 2y ago
  If you listened to Trump, Gazans have to leave because every building in Gaza is demolished. Which was done under the careful watch of our previous president. So I doubt they feel much other than helplessness
  - talldayo 2y ago
    First off, Gaza is not entirely demolished. It's a faux-pas like saying Lebanon is demolished, it's a hyperbolic euphemism for saying it needs to be annexed. If America wasn't systemically opposed to foreign aid we might... yunno, save these people like we do with the PKK. Second off, the attacks on Gaza have been tolerated by several administrations including Trump's own first stab at office. He deliberately avoided conflict resolution because any international negotiations would draw attention to Israel's presently illegal borders. Third off, any ethnic Arabs that voted for "Zion Don", a man who's name emblazons Trump Heights in illegally occupied Israeli territory, knew what they were getting into. The bigger problem was people abstaining to vote entirely and letting the opposition get their leverage.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
sstanie 2y ago
So it looks like someone next to Trump is actually taking foreign policy plans from Curtis Yarvin's essays: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/gaza-and-the-laws-of-war https://graymirror.substack.com/p/gaza-and-the-laws-of-war > Here is what the Israelis would do: cut off food, power and water to Gaza, do their best to give everyone a safe way to walk out unarmed, house them in spartan but livable conditions, and send the Gazans to another country—preferably one in which they speak the language. > ... And the site will be ready for development. Did I hear someone say “beachfront?” > .. [Israel] could collectively grant them a slice of equity in the new Gaza. The new Gaza—developed, of course, by Jared Kushner—is the LA of the Mediterranean, an entirely new charter city on humanity’s oldest ocean, sublime real estate with an absolutely perfect, Apple-quality government
- talldayo 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- archagon 2y ago
  Radical polemicists like Yarvin seem to believe that they're impervious to real-world consequences when publishing venomous blather like this. I guess it's inevitable when you live your entire life like a jar-brain in an era of relative lawfulness and tranquility. They would do well to reflect on La Mort de Marat: the country has no shortage of rage and weaponry and we're all made of the same meat in the end.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  JD Vance has been quite open is his support of Yarvin. Thiel basically single handedly funds him. Surely Elon has a relationship too
seo-speedwagon 2y ago
We couldn’t even build a pier in Gaza
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Our best case scenario is our inability to execute, to build or to do, handcuffs us at scale.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Remember Trump/Vance is the peace ticket. They will end the Ukraine war day one and won't let special interests drag the US military into any more conflicts (other than Gaza, the 51st state of Canada, Greenland, Panana, fighting the Mexican Cartels).
latentcall 2y ago
Continuation of neoliberal policies. The Biden administration having no spine (or desire) to stop Israel from blowing up children 24/7 has led to the logical conclusion of finishing the genocide with a dash of nihilistic capitalism allowing beachfront investment properties to be built in Palestine’s place, cementing the USA and Israel’s legacy.
rsynnott 2y ago
Is there anything to be said for another 20 year war of occupation?

57 points by tekacs 2y ago

kccoder 2y ago

Are the non-alarmists alarmed yet? If not, when? What’s your red line?

mardifoufs 2y ago
What? Why? This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. This is very good news in my opinion. Americans are an almost neutral party compared to the IDF. Yes ideally, no one would occupy Gaza but again, the alternative is to let the army that's been genociding them for months occupy Gaza. Edit: Though if they actually go through with the plans to displace the local population, then yes it's just a continuation of said genocide. But as a temporary measure, this is still better than the Israeli alternative.
- clipsy 2y ago
  > This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. Did you miss the part where he explicitly envisions all Palestinians in Gaza being relocated (to another country in the middle east, of course; America won't be accepting them)? Are you naive enough to think that's going to go well? I hope for your friends' sake that this boondoggle gets exactly as much traction as the border wall and buying Greenland. Edit: I posted this before you acknowledged the relocation plans. However, I have to point out, FTA: > Earlier, in the Oval Office, when he also raised the idea, a reporter asked if Palestinians relocated would have the right to return. > "Why would they want to return?" he responded. > "It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return," he said. Why would they want to return? That place has been hell. It's been one of the meanest, one of the meanest, toughest places on earth," he said.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    I agree with you that if it actually goes through (always a doubt with this administration lol), it will be really bad. But, imo letting people getting bombed while doing nothing about it is not much better. If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster, it's still better than what has been going on for more than a year with complete inaction from the US. Israel was open about their goal of razing the city to the ground, regardless of what it meant in terms of human cost. And Israel would have gone through with it, as they have had absolutely no consequences up until noe. It was their end goal since October 7. Whereas this can at least stop the bloodshed, and Americans are much less likely to be fully committed to actually erasing Palestinians from the territory than Israelis would be. Again, in this case I'm just in favor of any action that puts something between Israel and the Gaza population. That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      > If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster There is absolutely no chance that it "stops" the large scale humanitarian disaster; the only thing on the table here is continuing the large scale humanitarian disaster to the exact same conclusion that Israel wanted. > That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza. Never forget that you said this; perhaps at least you will learn a lesson from it.
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        Why? Again, what do you think is the current alternative? The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants, so again, I'm not sure what's your point? The only thing that was going to happen was Israel taking control over Gaza as a whole. Do you actually believe that that would've been better than American troops acting as a (very weak, for sure) tampon between the IDF and Gaza? As you said, the worst that can happen is Israel getting its way in Gaza anyways... but that's exactly what was going to be happening given the complete inaction from every (relevant) nation/state. There's no lesson to learn from what I said. And I'm way past the point of having any delusions that something better could've happened for Gaza at this point. Westerner idealism is fine sometimes, but in this case, no one cares about Gaza. No country was going to save Gaza from Israel, and no one was going to stop Israel from doing anything it wanted to do there. In fact, no western nation was even willing to even just condemn Israel. That's just the reality. I guess the previous administration made Americans feel better by just looking the other way while fully supporting the deaths of the Palestinian population? Like what's the lesson to be learnt here?
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  With the mass deportations ongoing, do you think your friends will stay in Gaza?
KingOfCoders 2y ago
Canada ("51st state", by coincidence my favorite song), Mexico, Greenland, Gaza. There is no red line for megalomania.
tim333 2y ago
I'm not unduly alarmed. Better the jews and palestinians can be united in asking wtf Trump is on about than they be killing each other.

archagon 2y ago

Literally genocide.

southernplaces7 2y ago
what's literally genocide here? Taking over Gaza with U.S. forces? Relocating the population? (hint, neither is actually genocide, literally or otherwise if you bother to look at any legitimate definition of the term) As for calling Netenyahu's ferocious bombing campaign genocide, things get blurrier. That it was grotesquely inhumane and violent, absolutely, that it could be called a war crime? I'd say yes, though good luck finding any western power willing to genuinely prosecute. That it was a literal genocide? Not quite so certain. Motive matters. Genocides are a very particular type of tragedy, and re-defining every barbarity of war into one risks diluting the import of unambiguous genocide when it does happen.
- talldayo 2y ago
  If it wasn't genocide, then the world would have an easier time supporting them. Israel has used their "defense" forces since the beginning to attack, disable and displace ethnic Arabs living in their claimed territory. They did it in the 40s and 50s, they did it through the 60s and then again in the 80s, and in the 90s they did it once again with the Golan Heights law. It's a genocide as we know it, unless you're of the Chomsky brand of denial a-la Bosnia. Ordinarily, nations with a preeminent claim to "living there" have a stronger defense when they say they were protecting themselves. Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily, ignoring international outcry and playing victim when the natives fight back.
  - ashirusnw 2y ago
    That's an very one-sided view, which entirely ignores that every single one of the Israeli wars were defensive (yes, including 1967 per historical consensus and eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-years-war-israel-and-the-arabs https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-ye...). The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack. No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state. I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.

inverted_flag 2y ago

All those people in Dearborn who voted for Trump, wonder how they’ll feel.

feb42025 2y ago
If you listened to Trump, Gazans have to leave because every building in Gaza is demolished. Which was done under the careful watch of our previous president. So I doubt they feel much other than helplessness
- talldayo 2y ago
  First off, Gaza is not entirely demolished. It's a faux-pas like saying Lebanon is demolished, it's a hyperbolic euphemism for saying it needs to be annexed. If America wasn't systemically opposed to foreign aid we might... yunno, save these people like we do with the PKK. Second off, the attacks on Gaza have been tolerated by several administrations including Trump's own first stab at office. He deliberately avoided conflict resolution because any international negotiations would draw attention to Israel's presently illegal borders. Third off, any ethnic Arabs that voted for "Zion Don", a man who's name emblazons Trump Heights in illegally occupied Israeli territory, knew what they were getting into. The bigger problem was people abstaining to vote entirely and letting the opposition get their leverage.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

sstanie 2y ago

So it looks like someone next to Trump is actually taking foreign policy plans from Curtis Yarvin's essays: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/gaza-and-the-laws-of-war https://graymirror.substack.com/p/gaza-and-the-laws-of-war > Here is what the Israelis would do: cut off food, power and water to Gaza, do their best to give everyone a safe way to walk out unarmed, house them in spartan but livable conditions, and send the Gazans to another country—preferably one in which they speak the language. > ... And the site will be ready for development. Did I hear someone say “beachfront?” > .. [Israel] could collectively grant them a slice of equity in the new Gaza. The new Gaza—developed, of course, by Jared Kushner—is the LA of the Mediterranean, an entirely new charter city on humanity’s oldest ocean, sublime real estate with an absolutely perfect, Apple-quality government

talldayo 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
archagon 2y ago
Radical polemicists like Yarvin seem to believe that they're impervious to real-world consequences when publishing venomous blather like this. I guess it's inevitable when you live your entire life like a jar-brain in an era of relative lawfulness and tranquility. They would do well to reflect on La Mort de Marat: the country has no shortage of rage and weaponry and we're all made of the same meat in the end.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
JD Vance has been quite open is his support of Yarvin. Thiel basically single handedly funds him. Surely Elon has a relationship too

seo-speedwagon 2y ago

We couldn’t even build a pier in Gaza

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Our best case scenario is our inability to execute, to build or to do, handcuffs us at scale.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Remember Trump/Vance is the peace ticket. They will end the Ukraine war day one and won't let special interests drag the US military into any more conflicts (other than Gaza, the 51st state of Canada, Greenland, Panana, fighting the Mexican Cartels).

latentcall 2y ago

Continuation of neoliberal policies. The Biden administration having no spine (or desire) to stop Israel from blowing up children 24/7 has led to the logical conclusion of finishing the genocide with a dash of nihilistic capitalism allowing beachfront investment properties to be built in Palestine’s place, cementing the USA and Israel’s legacy.

rsynnott 2y ago

Is there anything to be said for another 20 year war of occupation?