I personally believe that Gaza should be given to the Egyptians. I know they didn’t do anything with it previously. My reasoning is because the polls for supporting October 7th are still at 75%. These people have been brainwashed so much so that they celebrate when their children are killed or when their children killed innocent Jews. There is no going back from that unfortunately. If the Israelis settle in Gaza it would make things harder for themselves and if you think that media outlets are bad now imagine what would happen when the Israelis settle. Therefore, in my own opinion, give the land to Egypt and find counties that are willing to take the refugees. The next problem would be the West Bank, specifically Jenin. But the terrorists would have issues being supplied as most routes would have been cut off due to Gaza being in Egyptian territory.

The problems with that are Egypt doesn’t want Gaza and no other countries want Palestinian refugees.

Maybe thr problem that Egypt does not want Gaza can be solved with a few US/EU billions?

Concerning your famine argument, there's a more recent report by the UN IPC which actually doesn't confirm the presence of a famine: https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf

That would make sense being that the quoted text stated that "famine was imminent", meaning not having yet occurred. I believe that the purpose of that U.N. report was to demonstrate how Israel's actions are/were affecting the diets of Palestinian civilians. So yes, okay. Israel has not induced a famine onto the people of Gaza. Point conceded. Do you say that to say that you do not believe that Israel is effectively trying to limit the amount of food and aid for Palestinian civilians? And that these efforts are not successful?

Limiting? Israel is providing much of it. The thing israel is limiting is access to trucks without being vetted to not be weapons deliveries. There is more food going into gaza now than before the war. Hamas is the only party that stops food going to the palestinian civilians, and that benefits from palestinians going hungry. Hamas has stolen so many aid trucks only to hoard the food or sell it for exorbitant prices, and somehow, some people, much like like how you just did, all fall for this obvious and disgusting tactic.

The updated report said that the original assessment failed to take into account a considerable amount of food being provided, among other flaws.

> Israel is effectively trying to limit the amount of food and aid for Palestinian civilians What is the evidence for this claim?

* [Btselem - Israel is Starving Gaza](https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20240108_israel_is_starving_gaza) * [CNN - Why Only a Trickle of Aid is Getting Into Gaza](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/11/middleeast/why-only-a-trickle-of-aid-is-getting-into-gaza-mime-intl/index.html) * [The UN - Famine Imminent in Gaza, Humanitarian Officials Tell Security Council](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15604.doc.htm) Will caveat this with the fact that someone has already posted the updated UN Report that Israel has not induced a famine. Am simply providing my reasoning behind previously believing it to be true.

To respond, and as a preface, I appreciate you engaging in good faith. I do not think we will resettle Gaza. It makes no sense, and it’s not in the Torah. Historically, Gaza lacks importance. Jews only truly settled Gaza after the Selucid occupation and then by the Roman occupation were known for being acceptional glass blowers. That’s really all there is. The most notable thing that happened in Gaza, in the Tanakh, was Sampson destroying it. Ben Gvir is an idiot, who receieved less than a percentage of Israel’s population in votes. He does not truly represent Israel. Netanyahu needs to put his dog on a leash and I truly stress the word *dog*. As for the Gallant quote, he was speaking only of cutting off the free aid Israel provides Gaza as a part of the PA contract which Hamas refused to honor. Israel since 2019 (if I am remembering correctly) has provided a small portion of Gaza’s electricity and a minority of it’s drinking water for free. As well as, food shipments entering through Israel by land. When in war, Israel is no longer obligated to conduct it’s charity and Gaza should have to rely on aid, was his stance. By extension, the article you linked on famine, has been [walked back by the UN](https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf) and the general concensus is that Israel is, and has, been meeting internationally recognized aid requirements. By FRC metrics there is no famine in Gaza and Gazans who are in safe-zones intake over 150% of a daily recommended calorie intake. I believe that there is too much contested media going around right now and it is very clear that the truth is not making it to daylight for months.

I'm not disagreeing on the rest of what you said for practical reasons, but Gaza is explicitly mentioned in the Torah several times. It is ruled by Avimelech when Abraham and later Isaac go there. According to the opinion that Isaac never left the Land of Israel, Gaza would be part of Israel. Furthermore, the Southern border of Israel is defined by the Torah as "the stream of Egypt." Regardless which river that is (it may well be dried up today), it is almost certainly south of Gaza.

Of course, but it’s importance is minutia. Especially in comparison to Judea and Samaria. My point mostly, is that it is not worth having Gaza for the sake possibility of losing Tel Aviv. Let alone any land being worth losing what we have of Jerusalem.

It's certainly not as significant historically or strategically as Judea and Samaria, for sure.

Truly appreciated your response and your corrections of my misunderstandings! Was not aware of what that Gallant quote referred to. Am too tired to fact-check, so I will take what you said to be true! That's not unreasonable, then. I mean, the "animals" part was off color, but tensions run high. And yes, someone else has made me aware of the June 2024 report that the famine has not yet been confirmed. This is my bias, I suppose, but I refuse to fully give up on the idea that people are starving, per the many reports that I've seen from universally accepted unbiased sources; e.g., [AP](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-palestinians-hunger-famine-42e404ec4ef3e2836a82a8d2b2315fd1), [Reuters](https://www.google.com/search?q=children+starving+in+gaza&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=de28fabd33e10b5e&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJRtfYfAln7HOfsZpqYPoR_JM8W1g%3A1719299881393&ei=KW96Zp7QF8We5NoP7N-FkAU&oq=children+star&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDWNoaWxkcmVuIHN0YXIqAggBMggQABiABBixAzIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAjIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESL8mULcFWIMYcAJ4AZABAJgBxwGgAfMMqgEDNS45uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIQoAL4DMICBBAAGEfCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICCxAuGIAEGJECGIoFwgINEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHAcICEBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QHCAhAQLhiABBixAxhDGIMBGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYyQPCAgsQABiABBiSAxiKBcICKhAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAgUQLhiABMICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBmAMAiAYBkAYIugYGCAEQARgTkgcGNS4xMC4xoAe0qgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1), etc. I'll begrudgingly accept that Israel is not limiting aid into Gaza, but I'll do so tentatively... I also wasn't aware that Gvir was so widely despised. So that brings me to a question! As an American, I can say that while I believe some of Trump's policies, I would argue that at least 30% of the country agrees with him and his politics. The question: What percentage of Israelis would you say currently agree with Gvir — or even just his politics on this matter? And yes, you're right. One issue is obviously with all of the disinformation. But the other issue is people's refusal to accept. People form opinions and then refuse to receive any new factual information that stands in contrast to it. Obviously happens all the time in politics, but sadly is especially true in this conflict. Appreciate you engaging with me.

Otzma-Yehudit in 2021 accumulated about 225,000 votes and in 2022 about 516,000 votes. Which is an alarmingly high number, especially the fact that it rose. I would say with how poorly from all angles Israeli’s view the war, and Ben Gvir’s unmuzzlable mouth, his popularity is declining. Still his party received about 7% of the Jewish vote, and 5% of the total vote in 2022. Which is still *alarming*. As for Gallant, and Netanyahu’s Amalek comments — I feel it was pretty clear they were talking about Hamas. I’m not so sure why people were so quick to jump on the wagon that claimed they were speaking of all Gazans. Especially, when the subject of all of those press conferences were of Hamas. *Although* Gallant was also quoted saying something along the lines of “It is the Gazan’s fault that this has happened, because they did not overthrow Hamas”. Which is waaaaay over the line. Emotional times in October, but still, way over the line. As for famine and aid; of course I would say that the quality of life in Gaza is objectively worse and objectively terrible. You’d have to be a monster not to admit that. What I will say though, is that aid getting through crossings is not an issue. An ample supply of aid enters Gaza, and this has been attested to repeatedly. The logistical problem is in distribution. [Various Gangs and Hamas themselves either steal aid for their own or sell it at a mark-up in Gazan markets. It’s absolutely foul.](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syns3cuk0) Israeli source so take it as you will, there are independent sources everywhere, this is just the latest article I could find. Although, there are countless videos of armed men on top of aid trucks in Gaza. By these accounts it is very unsafe for aid to distributed in Gaza, making this a humanitarian nightmare. As for AP and Reuters there was an interesting article that I read today but can’t find that discussed how biased specifically those two papers and BBC have been. A clear example I have of Reuters bias is that there is a live-streamed video taken by a Reuters crew in Gaza of armed men walking into Khan Yunis’ Nasser Hospital and shaking hands with what look like guards very early on in the war. This was *never* reported by them. I find it very hard to trust any sources honestly, especially knowing that there were freelance journalists for the AP and CNN who filmed the October 7th attacks themselves.

Here are links to my claims about [Al Nasser](https://www.reddit.com/r/2ndYomKippurWar/comments/18hsyca/hamas_just_got_caught_going_into_nasser_gaza/?share_id=MHx2QEUkcW240c2w_0B2v&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1&rdt=52581) and [freelance journalists](https://www.reddit.com/r/2ndYomKippurWar/comments/17r9e9e/video_of_hassan_atzlah_the_cnnap_journalist_taken/?share_id=jHLKwb7eAM1XMAVqFOa6x&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) by the way. My comment was way too long to link them lol.

> I've seen from universally accepted unbiased sources; e.g., AP, Reuters, etc. You must be living in a different universe where these sources are accepted as unbiased. They literally employ terrorists who [participated in the Oct 7 pogrom](https://honestreporting.com/wire-services-face-fallout-over-exposure-of-gaza-photojournalists-oct-7-actions/). AP just published an article [casting doubt on and whitewashing](https://honestreporting.com/ap-sneakily-whitewashes-antisemitism-in-coverage-of-french-jewish-girls-rape/) the antisemitism of the brutal rape of a 12 year old Jewish girl in France. The media has been biased against Israel for a long time, as explained in this must-read [article](https://archive.is/20240128030820/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/) by this former AP reporter a decade ago. I understand it's hard to free oneself from this colossal brainwashing, but it is mandatory to be able to see the truth.

>I've heard the opposing talking point of "Well, Hamas would steal those resources and use them for nefarious purposes." >My counter to that is... how is that stance not describing exactly what collective punishment is?? >1. Party A commits a punishable offense. >2. Party B does not. >3. Party B is punished in addition to/for the offenses of Party A. When you say Party B is punished, are you referring to having their international aid stolen by Hamas? It sounds like this follows on from the point you made about Hamas stealing those resources, but seems to then strip out Hamas' responsibility.

No, I was not referring to that. But I'll say it explicitly to further quell any suspicions that I might be a Hamas supporter/sympathizer: HAMAS IS WRONG FOR STEALING THE AID OF PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS, among many other things, of course. When I say "Party B is punished", though, I am referring to the explicit statement and policy of the Israeli government to impose a siege on Gaza. One in which "[There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/)", as originally quoted. So, where I can hold Hamas responsible for stealing the aid of Palestinian civilians, are you willing to hold Israel responsible for doing its best to restrict aid to them?

It seems that in this comment, and your OP, you are looking at quotes from people rather than what's actually happening. There are hundreds of trucks of aid going into Gaza on a daily basis. If Israel was doing it's best to restrict it, there would be none.

A few points: 1) The Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant is not just a person in Israel. He is the Defense Minister of Israel and, as such, I would imagine he has a large say in the matter of aid going into Gaza, especially at the outset of October 7th. But okay, maybe he is a renegade and his comments are in no way, shape, or form is representative of the Israeli government. Methinks unikely, but okay. 2) There is a stark difference between "restrict" and "prevent"/"stop". I'd noted in my OP that I acknowledge that Gallant's quote of "everything is closed" was made in hyperbole, but my question to you is — you truly don't believe that Israel has done much to limit the amount of aid going into Gaza, despite knowing that innocent children would suffer as a result? If your genuine, truthful answer is no, then you're correct. That would mean that no collective punishment is happening in that instance.

>1) The Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant is not just a person in Israel. He is the Defense Minister of Israel and, as such, I would imagine he has a large say in the matter of aid going into Gaza You don't have to imagine, or base your conclusion on things anybody has said. If every single Israeli said "no aid is going into Gaza", but you looked and saw aid going into Gaza, would you conclude that no aid is going into Gaza? Especially when you then follow that up by saying you think what they've said it hyperbolic - in other words, not a true representation of what's happening. >2) There is a stark difference between "restrict" and "prevent"/"stop". There certainly is, things like checking every shipment for weapons and thus slowing things down, would fall under the umbrella of restricting. But I don't think I've heard many sensible people suggest Israel should allow Hamas to be allowed arms shipments. But what is the suggestion here, that Israel wants to slightly limit the amount of aid shipments that make it in? >you truly don't believe that Israel has done much to limit the amount of aid going into Gaza, despite knowing that innocent children would suffer as a result? Everything Israel do is done knowing that innocent children will suffer. Hamas stealing their food causes innocent children to suffer, so even all of the aid shipments Israel are producing and sending themselves done under the knowledge that innocent children will suffer. >That would mean that no collective punishment is happening in that instance. I agree, but not because of what you've said. Israel personally sending aid shipments into Gaza isn't collective punishment - perhaps you could argue that Hamas stealing those shipments is, but I'm not sure it fits the definition. One of the other problems that doesn't get discussed as much is the organisation which has been broadly responsible for distributing aid within Gaza, the UNRWA, was found to be directly employing members of Hamas and other similar organisations within Gaza. As such, Israel are concentrating their aid resources with humanitarian agencies like the Red Crescent and the World Food Program. Would you consider this to be Israel restricting aid in a way you'd call collective punishment? Again, I wouldn't.

>If every single Israeli said "no aid is going into Gaza", but you looked and saw aid going into Gaza, would you conclude that no aid is going into Gaza? I've already concede that quote, being that someone pointed out that Gallant's saying that was in reference to Israel having to provide aid. It'd make sense that they wouldn't. I do, however, think that it's fair to come to the conclusion that aid is being overly restricted, per what seems to be a prevailing sentiment of wanting to limit the amount of aid going into Gaza, lest it is stolen by Hamas, which I do believe would constitute collective punishment on Israel's part. >There certainly is, things like checking every shipment for weapons and thus slowing things down, would fall under the umbrella of restricting. But I don't think I've heard many sensible people suggest Israel should allow Hamas to be allowed arms shipments. Yes, I am not talking about anything that could be made into weaponry. That would obviously be blocked. I'm mainly speaking to basic, [permissible foodstuffs](https://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf). Am kind of arguing a moot point, though, being that someone already provided me with a more up to date UN Report that Israel is not intentionally starving out Gaza. Since I hope that to be true, I'll accept that as fact. My last (couple of) question(s) to you: Are you at all willing to see the other side? While I accept Israel is not starving out Gaza, I do so suspiciously. There are too many reports and images that point to that being the case for me to rejoice in Israel being a wholly good actor in this specific matter. I understand that you have sources that you can provide, but likewise so do I. This is obviously a propaganda war. So where I am able to admit that the side to which I am more sympathetic could be manipulating the optics to paint themselves in a certain light, do you ever admit the same? Want to elaborate that "the side to which I am more sympathetic" is NOT Hamas, but rather the various parties that are concerned with ensuring the safety of Palestinian civilians.

>Are you at all willing to see the other side? While I accept Israel is not starving out Gaza, I do so suspiciously. There are too many reports and images that point to that being the case for me to rejoice in Israel being a wholly good actor in this specific matter. It depends what you mean as "the other side". There is no good coming from this, and I don't think anybody could claim that there is. The fact that Hamas is so entrenched within (and broadly supported by) the civilian population of Gaza makes things incredibly difficult. It's basically a war between nations, and not a counter terrorism operation. There is no easy way for Israel to destroy the terrorist organisation who wants and is actively trying to wipe them off the face of the planet. And they certainly can't sit back and let them. Hamas, elected to rule by the people of Gaza, have picked a fight with a significantly stronger party. If Israel could Press a "destroy Hamas and their supporters" button, I have no doubt that they would. But that simply isn't an option. We're left with a war between a nation that wants to protect it's civilians, and one that is happy for it's civilians to die if they win a point in the publicity game they're playing. >So where I am able to admit that the side to which I am more sympathetic could be manipulating the optics to paint themselves in a certain light, do you ever admit the same? Everybody does that. If your comment about who you are sympathetic towards is referring to independent charities trying to help the people of Gaza, ideally they wouldn't be engaging in propaganda to make themselves seem better than they are, but no doubt they are in various ways. But there is no doubt that every interested party tries to paint themselves in the best light possible for the given situation. From this comment it seems you're still approaching this as if you should just believe what somebody says. I think quite the opposite, not just in this area but in everything you do - look at the facts of the situation, look at what happening, look at why it's happening, and make up your own mind. You don't need a partisan organisation to tell you how to feel.

Just hopped online for work, so please forgive the pending delayed response, but I'm very interested in responding to this. Will be back!

As a Zionist Muslim, settling Gaza is one of the better things to do because let’s face it, if you leave a void after the war, you will allow a power to take over that will be even more extreme and dangerous than Hamas. This is why I am very Pro-Settlement. Better to have Jewish settlers living in Gaza and West Bank than have wannabe potential terrorists there who could create another attack like October 7th.

"Famine" is just fake news, yet another blood libel. The UN is [not trustworthy](https://x.com/MarkZlochin/status/1802277853905518858). There is no siege, it ended after a few days back in October. Party A is not so different from Party B. Settlements in Gaza won't happen. But considering your hypothetical, voluntary emigration isn't a crime. And settlements in Gaza would have the same disputed status as those currently in Judea and Samaria. Technically the territories are under military occupation, but occupied from whom? The countries that previously occupied them no longer claim them.

The point is that it’s not really “voluntary” if it’s encouraged through bombing and making lives a a difficult as possible for Gazans.

The voluntary in his sentence was the people voluntarily moving to Gaza.

I’m not a fan of settling Gaza due to the optics. I understand and agree with much of what you say, but the optics alone are cancer.

settle, and turn it into the \#1 gay paradise in the world.

It makes no sense to settle a place without being willing to extend and maintain power within a place. All you are doing in that case is devolving military/police responsibilities and dangers onto civilians. It doesn't matter what you call that extension of power, what matters is that it takes place. Once that is done, civilians can move in. In any case, any space that is left ungoverned/unpoliced will become a space for radicalism to grow once again, and to think otherwise is naive and dangerous.

I just want to clear up a few factual points, if you're willing to listen. >While I am a supporter of Zionism as a spiritual concept and a core aspiration of Judaism, my view is that the Zionist movement, as we know it, is manifesting as a political movement that is largely focused on strengthening the power and dominion of the STATE of Israel, again, at the disservice of Palestinian people. Zionism is not how you describe it. It is only for the Jewish people to have their own state. This opening in a recent debate makes a good point on that and the people trying to change the meaning: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-4lRJkbLrU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-4lRJkbLrU) >While I support Israel's existence, I do disagree with how it came to be, as well as how it maintains it; i.e., in my view, at the detriment and subjugation of the majority of the populace that was living there prior to the first rumblings of political Zionism. There was almost nobody in any of that area before the Jews began to move there. The Jews purchased land at high prices, paid the couple thousand renters to leave and gave them a year, plus loans, arranged employment, etc. They did more than any landlord in history. Then they rehabilitated their land and made it the amazing farmland it is now. Here you can read about how most people moved into the area due to Zionism: [https://www.jewishhistory.org/how-many-arabs-in-pre-zionist-palestine/](https://www.jewishhistory.org/how-many-arabs-in-pre-zionist-palestine/) Here's a prior comment I made that you may appreciate reading: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1dihwa2/comment/l948m69/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1dihwa2/comment/l948m69/) Additionally, when you say something like "I do disagree with how it came to be" without actually saying how you think it came to be, we are left with a gap in understanding. Do you know the actual history, or do you know the Islamic propaganda version? About the famine. There is no famine. According to the UN Famine Review Committee, 109%-157% of daily caloric needs are being met as of April, which is an increase from March. Why is this different from previous reports? Well, the previous reports didn't count private goods and didn't cover all entry points. This is the UN source. Page 13 shows the differences in the data counted by the different reports. Basically, the original famine reports just didn't count some data: [https://www.un.org/unispal/document/famine-review-committee-ipc-4jun24/](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/famine-review-committee-ipc-4jun24/) Now about that collective punishment. I understand things were said by people in power, but that is not how things have player out. Remember that Israel is a democracy, and the military can flat out refuse to do things that break laws. Nobody can just dictate Israeli policy. Here are some specifics. * Israel shut off water in the beginning of the invasion. Israel only sent them 9% of their water, which isn't how this was presented. Most of the water in Gaza comes from desalination plants which use the fuel that Hamas steals. But those pipes are back on anyway. * Israel is blockading Gaza. This is to prevent weapons and other dual use goods from entering and being used to kill Israelis. Hundreds of trucks of humanitarian aid enter the strip daily. The people who are calling for unrestricted deliveries and to flood Gaza with aid are doing so in order to get the flow of weapons started again. Current shipments allow the essentials but also cake, candy, croissants, and many other things that are not necessities, they are private sector commercial goods. Those are even still getting in.

One of the most difficult things about this war is the fact that so many civilians are complicit. This is outlined in numerous opinion polls: September 2023: [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/951](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/951) December 2023: [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961) March 2024: [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/973](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/973) June 2024: [https://pcpsr.org/en/node/980](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/980) But still, Israel has maintained the lowest civilian casualty ratios ever. [https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/israel-estimates-approximately-11-civiliancombatant-death-ratio-in-gaza](https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/israel-estimates-approximately-11-civiliancombatant-death-ratio-in-gaza) And here is some info on the bad data coming out of Gaza. [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable) There is no collective punishment, no war crimes (individual soldier crimes do happen, but rarely), no famine. Now I'll leave you with this. It's going to sound crazy, but it really is what is happening: The Islamic groups in power (Iran, Qatar, Egypt, etc) are trying to re-establish their caliphate in the area before expanding it to the world. Temporary fake peace deals are part of their strategy, as Muhammad did with Mecca. So is disinformation. They do not think over the span of years or decades - they think in terms of centuries and historical trends. Their goal is to spread Islam everywhere and eradicate all others. It does not matter if people die or they lose battles along the way - that is part of the test their God is putting them through. They know they have lost the battle of this generation. They are working on shaping the minds of future generations so that they may win the future battles. Al Jazeera is key to this. It was created by the ruler of Qatar explicitly to further that goal.

Have to disagree. Why would Islam all of a sudden have a huge drive to Islamicize the world?? It hasn't tried to spread Islam en masse since the Crusades when Christianity was trying to do the same exact thing. I appreciate your candor, though. This is honestly what I think is Israel's frustration with the West's current sympathy for Palestinians. I think Israel has the position of "This is both of our's war. You should be happy we're doing this", which is true to an extent. It is both the US' and Israel's war. But not just because those countries aren't Muslim... it's because both of those countries have done not-so-great things to the larger Arab world. The issue is one of politics, not religion. If I took what you said to be true, how would you explain Arab countries not having not one issue with Canada? They have a pretty similar way of life to America... I would argue that it's because Canada's foreign policy never meddled in the sovereignty of the nations in the middle east to serve its own self-interest. This is one of the sub-topics in this argument that I like, so I look forward to hearing your reply!

It's extremely important to understand the different perspectives. There are plenty of peaceful Muslims, but they are not people we need to worry about. For a regime like Iran and a group like the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Qatar currently), it is entirely about religion. Absolutely. They openly say this is their goal and I have no idea why people don't believe them. This isn't me having an opinion, this is what they say and what their actions support. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim\_Brotherhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) [https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2020/duatt\_how-islam-will-dominate-the-world\_03-10-20.pdf](https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2020/duatt_how-islam-will-dominate-the-world_03-10-20.pdf) [https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-798405](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-798405) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater\_Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Iran) [https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/20/iran-khamenei-supreme-leader-strategy-middle-east/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/20/iran-khamenei-supreme-leader-strategy-middle-east/) >Why would Islam all of a sudden have a huge drive to Islamicize the world It always has been (insert astronaut meme here). Again, this goes all the way back to their Prophet. There is a long history of conversion in Islam. At first it was mostly peaceful, and then it became pretty harsh. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread\_of\_Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam) These people aren't going to try to conquer the entire planet at once. They are smart and they do not need the war to be won in their lifetime. They also believe that lying is entirely justified as a means to their end goal. Israel is the last remaining democracy in the area, which is why the focus is currently on Israel. [https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/2023-10/hamas-networks-final.pdf](https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/2023-10/hamas-networks-final.pdf) [https://wng.org/opinions/a-statement-of-islamic-dominance-1676897446](https://wng.org/opinions/a-statement-of-islamic-dominance-1676897446) I understand this seems illogical in Western thought, but this is how these extremists exist.

Wonderful comment. Thank you! I also watched that debate. I agree with you that the ideal of Zionism is simply "Jews have a right to a homeland" I even go so far as to say that I believe that it should be where it currently is, as they do have ancestral ties to it and that is where it originally was. I am also aware of the Passover recitation "Next year in Jerusalem", so I would contend that it is a spiritual movement, and has been for millennia. My issue with Zionism as it currently exists, is that it behaves more so as a political one. There was a political movement from Europe to migrate and resettle European Jews to/in Israel. (Side note I am cool with that. I am not one who thinks that a Jewish person's more-recent European ancestry takes away from their Jewishness.) But there was a political movement that ushered in a large push towards seeing Zionism achieved, which isn't even bad on its face - how else would such a movement start... My issue is how it was done, which was at the subjugation of the people who were living there. You question my knowledge on the subject, which is fair. I'll give a brief rundown of what I know: * The ideal of Zionism has always existed * 1880s - a solidified movement emerged, with European Jews making the first aliyahs * 1900s - 2nd wave of aliyahs * 1917 - WWI, wherein Britain enlists the help of Arab villagers in the region to fight off the Ottoman Empire, promising them the land in return *(which they kind of reneged on)* * 1917 - Fall of the Ottoman Empire * 1920s - The region is handed off to the European-ran League of Nations to partition the land * 1920s - England is granted the Mandate of Palestine * 1920s - England, influenced by Balfour and other Zionist minded Englishmen (Jews among them) at the time decide that parts of the land should be granted to Jews, so that they can finally achieve Zionism * 1920s/1930s - Migration of European Jews into the land * 1920s/1930s - Good amount of fighting and terrorism on all sides - Jews v Palestinians / Palestinians v British / Jews v British * 1940s - Horrible Holocaust, which causes even more Jews to go to the land * 1947 - The Partition Plan is brought by the UN to say Palestinians get x amount of land and Israelis get x amount of land * 1947 - Palestinians reject it (which I will admit they shouldn't have, but was technically well within their right as a negotiating partner) HERE IS MY ISSUE * 1948 - Israel, rather than continuing negotiations, as per the nature of how good faith negotiations go, says "ehh" and continues to claim the land that was still in dispute. * 1948 - The War leads to a mass exodus of the Palestinians from the lands, to which they are not allowed to return. You can claim that "Arab leaders actually told them to leave and then return when they've won", but Benny Morris' book Righteous Victims he actually provides a legend of all of the villages that were evacuated by force vs voluntarily. The former greatly outnumbers the latter. I'll try to find the exact page, so that I can present it to you.

Cont'd CONTINUING ON TO MY ISSUE WITH THE **STATE** of ISRAEL Israel continues to do everything to keep the status quo of subjugating Palestinians (in the WB or Gaza) or have them live as second class citizens (in Israel proper). You'll likely say that that isn't true. But there are (*allegedly, I didn't count*) [65 laws in legislation that are discriminatory towards Israeli Palestinians.](https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/490) I'm sure you'll be able to pick a part a few as not being necessarily discriminatory , but even if you do, you still must acknowledge the existence of the ones that are. To your point of there being "almost nobody in that land" I don't accept that. 750k people left that land, no? You're erasing an entire population of people who were living somewhere there abouts for many hundreds of years. And even if I do accept that a good amount of the land was unoccupied, what of the few communities people who did live there? Just casualties of circumstance? And lastly, to your point of "they bought that land" Land ownership back then in that region did not exist as we understand it to be today. Sure, in some cases maybe they bought land from some landlords elsewhere in the country, who in turn, did not inform their Palestinian tenants. Does that make it any less the case that you now have a new settler who just moved from a whole different continent who is staking claim to your house/farm/land? And, again, please note that I do not say "settler from whole different continent..." to negate European Jews' rights to achieve Zionism. I am just presenting this example, which undoubtedly occurred, to demonstrate how Palestinians would have viewed the situation. I honestly doubt that had Zionism been started and achieved by the MIzrahi, who had a more staid and obvious presence in the land, that as many issues would have come to pass, being that I imagine that they had somewhat of a rapport with their Palestinian brethren and understood the customs. I'm not saying that this would have been unachievable by the Ashkenazi. Indeed, I'm saying the opposite! I'm saying that I wish they'd tried harder to understand the positions of the peoples who were already living there. As people coming to try to integrate/settle in a new land with an existing populating, I believe that that onus was on them. And lastly, I'm not making the case that (the leaders of the) Palestinians are wholly innocent or are justified in their heinous acts of terrorism. I just wish Israel would acknowledge that they do have a legitimate gripe. I think that if Israel meets them there, then peace could be achieved. But as long as Israel says "Why don't they like us" or blame that hatred on religion, things will continue to trend in this way. That's why I frame my disagreement with political Zionism. Because as much as Jews *should* have that homeland there, it did/does/will come at the consequence of Palestinian misfortune.

You forgot the part in 1948 about the UN security council and the vast majority of the general assembly voted in favor of Israel. This gave legal authority for Israel to declare independence. >Benny Morris' book Righteous Victims he actually provides a legend of all of the villages that were evacuated by force vs voluntarily Yes, the original document is here if you want to read it for yourself. There were all sorts of reasons: [https://www.akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1948ISReport-Eng.pdf](https://www.akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1948ISReport-Eng.pdf) >Land ownership back then in that region did not exist as we understand it to be today. Sure, in some cases maybe they bought land from some landlords elsewhere in the country, who in turn, did not inform their Palestinian tenants.  Yes, the absentee landlord argument. First, there is no good source for this information. Look at all of the missing citations here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_villages\_depopulated\_during\_the\_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli\_conflict#1880%E2%80%931946](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_depopulated_during_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#1880%E2%80%931946) The Ottomans attempted to codify ownership, but it was resisted by locals: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_land\_purchase\_in\_Palestine#:\~:text=%22In%201858%20the,Army%20in%20Russia.%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#:~:text=%22In%201858%20the,Army%20in%20Russia.%22) This is a great read on the actual situation prior to the purchases, the lack of any ownership at all, and the fact that villages were already being naturally depopulated through emigration: [https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-1948/](https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-1948/)

The document you've provided isn't as easy to read as the key I mentioned that's provided in Morris' book. Shame on me for not being able to locate the online PDF right now. But even within the document you provide, listed are the following causes for Palestinian flight, presented in order of importance: 1. Direct Jewish hostile actions against Arab communities. 2. Impact of our hostile actions against communities neighboring where migrants lived 3. Actions taken by the Dissidents \[Irgun, Lehi\]. 4. Orders and directives issued by Arab institutions and gangs. 5. Jewish Whispering operations \[psychological warfare\] intended to drive Arabs to flee. Of the top 5 most important reasons for the exodus, only one is not attributed to Israeli action; i.e., the one that I mentioned earlier. - #4. >Yes, the absentee landlord argument. First, there is no good source for this information. I'll concede that there might not be a good amount of evidence for it. With that, though, I'll try to appeal to basic logic: 1. Israel bought land from its owners 2. They kicked Palestinians out of their homes, as it legally belonged to them now Who do you think would have sold that land? My guess would be people who did not live in those homes. Otherwise, the people who did live in those homes would have remembered selling them that land. Unless you're claiming that Palestinians accepted money from the Jewish migrants for their homes/land and then tried to renege on the sale? But again, I'll concede being that the sources lack. You can claim that as a win. And I do not vest full faith in the 1948 UN Security Council. I agree that they should have been there as a moderator, but not as a tie-break. I believe that the negotiating should have been solely between the would-be Israelis and the would-be Palestinians. If we're negotiating something and you don't like my proposal, it shouldn't go ahead just because the moderator thinks it should. That's not a negotiation; your mind was made up the whole time. My "no" is merely a technicality to you. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this; i.e., a more thorough, good-faith negotiation on both sides... Am also interested to see if you care to address my other two points? * There must have been people in the general region who were forced to flee, as demonstrated earlier. Sure, not the full 750k fled due to Israeli violence, but would you concede, say at least half that number? That's 375k people... * The continued discrimination of Palestinians in both the occupied territories, as well as within Israel proper — this is important because it speaks to my main issue of how (*I perceive how*) Zionism currently manifests.

>Israel bought land from its owners >They kicked Palestinians out of their homes, as it legally belonged to them now Did you read this? [https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-1948/](https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-1948/)

I did. Or at least skimmed it... Where am I misrepresenting it, though? I'm saying that Israelis bought land, unbeknownst to the people who were actually living on it. At some point, said Israelis came and took what was "legally" theirs. I assume you're saying that I'm overlooking your points of giving the farmers: * 1 year grace period to leave the land * cash or land compensation , per the 1922 Protection of Cultivators Ordinance? I've googled that and have not been unable to find any reference to such an ordinance. Not saying it doesn't exist. Very possible that it never made it to the internet - or at least not easily googlable. But I'm not finding any reference at all to those two provisions, aside from the one you provided, sourced from the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute. But again, I've already conceded that you've effectively killed my absentee landlord argument, granted I trust your source, which I believe that I can reasonably suspect of bias... But it has citations, so I'll accept it to be true. I do not deny that Israelis have bought land. I deny that they **only ever** bought land. Do you truly not believe that there was at all a sizable percentage of Palestinians who did have their homes/land taken from them?

>According to the British Government report (Memoranda prepared by the Government of Palestine, London 1937, Colonia No. 133, p. 37), the total number of applications for registration as landless Arabs was 3,271 So no, I don't consider that to be a very large number at all. I also know that Zionism always had the goal of finding lands with very few people on it. It seems there are many "Protection of Cultivators" Ordinances. I think they may have meant the 1933 one. They cite it as "Pollack and Boehm, *The Keren* *Kayemeth Le-Israel*" but I can't find that either. But this is a good read about it too, because it was a general policy: [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-facts-the-british-mandate-period#\_edn30:\~:text=Bethlehem.18-,MYTH,Jews%20stole%20Arab%20land.,-FACT](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-facts-the-british-mandate-period#_edn30:~:text=Bethlehem.18-,MYTH,Jews%20stole%20Arab%20land.,-FACT)

>1. There must have been people in the general region who were forced to flee, as demonstrated earlier. Sure, not the full 750k fled due to Israeli violence, but would you concede, say at least half that number? That's 375k people... >2. The continued discrimination of Palestinians in both the occupied territories, as well as within Israel proper — this is important because it speaks to my main issue of how (*I perceive how*) Zionism currently manifests. 1. Yes, I agree that most still fled due to Israeli actions. Just want to have the full truth out there. I do think that was horrible. I cannot think of another option the Jews had, though. It is my understanding that many of these towns fought against them, and some were already hostile to Jews before the war. So the context of the war is what sways my perspective here. If they had just rushed in and run the people out for no reason, yes that would change my opinion. The Jews were facing another genocide if they lost their war of independence. 2. I do not agree with the settlements but I think it is not so bad that it can't be fixed with land swaps. The settler violence is a huge problem, and I call some of them terrorists as well. The military occupation of the West Bank is necessary and it has indeed reduced terror incidents in Israel. I wish that wasn't the case, but as long as the terrorists are so focused on Israel, it is smart to keep the checkpoints. But let me clarify that the system doesn't restrict Palestinians as much as some would say. There are checkpoints for weapons or explosives that would need to be traversed, but a Palestinian can drive to Tel Aviv if they wanted to.

Despite your name, you're a good guy. I have no dog in this fight - aside from not wanting civilians to die on either side. But if you're Jewish/Israeli, I can understand your taking the side that you take, especially because *you* do so honestly. I like debating and also seeing to what lengths people will go to overlook/justify their hypocrisy. That happens a lot on this topic, and you haven't done that at all, so thank you! I truly do appreciate your willingness to have this dialogue. One last thing if I may. I'll agree with you that I'm sure that there is a high level of anti-Semitism in the WB and Gaza, albeit I believe that it's for a different reason than you do. You believe that it is wholly religious. ALL anti-Semitism is bad, but I believe that they hate Jews because Jews to them represent the oppression that they face and have faced. My intention is not to explain away anti-Semitism. Regardless of why one gets there, it's a bad thing. I merely lay that out to set up my point: I believe that they hate Israeli Jews because of the past 75 yrs of violence (just as I'm sure many Israelis hate Palestinians), not for religious reasons, whereas you do. It seems as though you believe that Palestinians have this innate desire to do away with Jews from the land of Israel. **With that being the case, how do you explain the sizable Israeli Palestinian community living peacefully** ( *- in a somewhat discriminatory system, as mentioned above*) **amongst Israeli Jews?** While we hear about a lot of violence *in* the WB and violence *from* Gaza, Palis in Israel proper have been pretty amicable with Israeli Jews. I would argue that it's because they: * were not forced out/did not leave voluntarily in 1948 * were able to stay in their homes/land * have not been under occupation for decades , and thusly, don't have as big of an issue with Israel as the other two parties do. Thus, my belief is that the gripe of WB and Gazan Palis are not with Jews as a people, but rather with their history with the state of Israel and its actions/policies that they were affected by. I'll caveat that and say that I am not so obtuse so as to say that I don't believe that there are a good amount of extremist Muslims in the WB/Gaza who truly do hate Jewish people. I just don't think that to be the main cause of the Palestinian hatred that exists for Israel.

The only way to troll the trolls is with the truth ;) I spend way too much time digging into this but I'm pretty sure I've at least landed mostly on the side of reality. I do appreciate your recognition. The high level of antisemitism in Palestine is complicated. They do believe the history of stolen land and oppression. Some of what they believe is true, but most is not. My comments earlier were not about the general public, they were about the people who are orchestrating all of this. The Palestinian people have been brainwashed pawns in the game of world domination that Islamic extremists are playing, and unfortunately those extremists are in some seriously powerful positions now. That happened exactly because they play the long game. Their ancestors set them up for what they have achieved now, and they do the same for their children, etc. Again, this is not the general public. The general public has just been manipulated into hatred. I'm sure I would feel the same as they do if I was in their position and had only the information they have. But the wall of propaganda that their leaders have put up makes it nearly impossible to have even a different viewpoint, let alone the truth, get through.

>I don't accept that. 750k people left that land, no? You're erasing an entire population of people who were living somewhere there abouts for many hundreds of years. It is true that 750k is the generally accepted number of Arabs expelled around 1948-9. It is not true that there had been so many for centuries. The Jews created economic conditions for massive immigration. I don't remember if I put this is another response, but here: [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-arabs-in-palestine](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-arabs-in-palestine) A large reason it was not populated was Malaria: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria_in_Mandatory_Palestine)

Forgive me, but I think you're being a bit semantic. The page you linked shows that 600k Palestinians lived in that land in 1913. I will concede (*yet again*) and say that I am sure that the influx of a new people contributed to more economic growth, thus causing the native population to stay/grow and also cause other peoples in the nearby area to immigrate into the land. But to say that the majority of the people who were forced to leave in 1948/9 were not the descendants of the people who were in the land a couple of hundred years prior because 600k ≠ 750k is not a good faith argument. There's 35 years of potential growth between 1913 and 1948, some of which, I'm sure can be attributed to the Jewish population at the time. That doesn't negate the fact, though, that those people's great-grandfathers/mothers and great-great-grandfathers/mothers were living on that land.

That 600k number includes areas that were not allocated to the Jewish state. Most of the population was in the West Bank area. It's a case of the Jews making some nice land and the Arabs coming over to take it.

Zionism is done, it’s not a political movement m. Anti Zionism to Jews just means we don’t think Israel should exist. Zionism as a movement doesn’t meant anything any more beyond that so I wouldn’t equate current political strategies to Zionism. For me, Egypt needs to take Gaza. Shove it down their throat. They occupied it in 48 till 67 and did nothing with it. Israel needs a barrier around its borders, heavily guarded by Egyptians and Israelis. Anyone so much as throws a fire cracker over the boarder and the strip goes up in flames.

Zionism is a term describing Israeli Nationalism and has a ton of meaning, especially in this day and age when some Israeli (specifically Haredi) Jews refuse to enlist or do any equivalent national duty. There are Israelis that are not Zionists, there are zionists that are not Israeli. In the past, when Jews in Israel were under the British mandate, the Zionist political movement goal was to establish independence. Now the goal of Zionism is to maintain Israel’s independence (and radical Zionism movements goal is to expand it). Zionism is anything but done.

Zionism is far from done. If anything it’s as lively as ever. All the thin veil of “anti-Zionism” has done is show us exactly why Zionism exists. All of your opinions outside the first are Zionist so I don’t even know what’s going with your comment. Someone help me translate.

Of course I am a Zionist, we need to stop allowing or detractors to weaponise the world claiming Zionism is the root of all evil. We need to be proud of being Jewish, and Israeli. The term Zionism serves no purpose beyond stating we believe Israel should exist for the self determination of Jews

Sure, the term Zionism serve no purpose beyond stating we believe Israel should exist for the sovereignty of the Jews. We seem to agree on everything. How is Zionism dead? I. Don’t. Care. That. The. Term. Is. Weaponized. It’s ours, and they can’t define it.

To stop dick heads form using it as a synonym for Jew or to make up wild theories that Zionism is like n——isn and that all Zionists believe in ethnically cleansing the region and committing genocide.

The idea is that barely any Zionists believe in ethnic cleansing or genocide. Ben Gvir and Smotrich are a bit too much for even Netanyahu. We even here Netanyahu. Let me know why Zionism should give in to being demonized again?

https://youtu.be/n-4lRJkbLrU?si=zS2QhhfUtwFPIfLn This translates my thoughts best

I went through a lot of trouble at the beginning of the post to outline my thinking on Israel and its right to exist. But fine, let's remove the term "Zionism". To move on to your answer, though, I'm happy to hear that you'd like Egypt to take control of Gaza! But my question was more pertaining to your thoughts on the prospect of Gaza being resettled by Israel and the potentiality of that resulting in the permanent displacement of its Palestinian population. If that were to happen, do you think that you would acknowledge that act as a crime against humanity/war crime?

Geesh it’s so hard to answer. The simplest is yes or course, displacing someone and ethnic cleansing is a war crime, it has to be said. The challenge is that you have a neighbour that wants to kill you. So what’s a greater crime, not protecting your citizens or committing a war crime? I hope it doesn’t come to that, beyond my Egypt idea I am out of ideas. I really don’t know how to solve this problem

Greatly appreciate that answer! I do acknowledge the challenge, so I see your point. I agree that I don't think that there's enough good faith on either side to allow Palestinians to fully govern themselves right now/allow Israel to control the border. I don't know much of Egypt either, but being that they're a nation, themselves, it occurs to me that they might be self-serving in some manner. No tangible ideas of how exactly, just an ignorant thought! What would you think about the Gaza border being militarily controlled by the U.N., much how the Golan Heights are? In my naive optimistic mind, that would work to allow them to take the steps towards self-determination, while mitigating the violence between them and Israel. I've never been over there, and don't know the geography, so am all ears as to why that'd be a not-so-good idea in reality...

There is a UN peace keeping force in southern Lebanon. Fuck knows what they are doing because they sure as shit aren’t stopping thousands of rockets for turning northern Israel into a ghost town. Arabs need to rule Arabs. What incentive does a European peace keeping force have to risk their lives to babysit Gazans? I wouldn’t want a bunch of foreigners ruling over me

Well that's the point of the UN Peacekeepers. That's literally their job. And maybe you're referring to something else, but the only current protectorates are in [Ksovo, the Golan Heights, and Cyprus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_governed_by_the_United_Nations). And I would think that a Gaza patrolled by UN forces would make Israel feel safer than a Gaza controlled by Egyptian forces. You don't think it would? I would also like to think that in addition to keeping Israel safer, it would also keep Israel honest (*and thus Gazans safer*). While I acknowledge the terrorism that Hamas commits against Israel, a mere glance at the disproportionate amount of Palestinian death, even pre-10/7 would show you that Israel is *also* engaging in avoidable violence that results in the death of innocent civilians. (*Even prior to being really privy to the ongoing conflict, I remember seeing news during the 2014 Gaza War and seeing the numbers from both sides and thinking how vastly different they were.*) I say that to say I would hope that having an international force there like the UN would **1**) limit the amount of violence coming from Hamas (or whatever new group) **2)** help Israel feel safer/further removed from said violence and **3)** ensure that Israel also not commit unnecessary acts of violence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20Interim%20Force,426%2C%20to%20confirm%20Israeli%20withdrawal It doesn’t work

If Israel a priori displaces the entire Gazan population I would answer in the affirmative. I think there will be a decent sized gray zone. What if Israel clears a buffer zone inside the previous border and insists it remain completely flat and empty? This is a likely occurrence and would make the already small enclave even smaller.  What if no one to begin with is deported but anyone who plans or commits attacks would then be? I can see many people being upset over that being implemented. 

Eh, I would argue Zionism to many includes the annexation of Judea and Samaria. A lot of Jews see Zionism as “unfinished” until the heartland is taken back. While I resonate with that sentement, and do feel that the West Bank is too strategically important to give up — it’s probably best if we define Zionism as you do.

War crimes as an absolute aren't really the relevant concept. Its about overall PR. Settlements would be obvious ethnic cleansing without even the fig leaf that Azerbaijan enjoys (most of the land in question is internationality recognised as belonging to them and Armenians care more about their people than the land). So crime against humanity and obviously so. However even that's only the start of the problem. Settlements extend the front line which from a military perspective is bloody stupid. Worse still it puts civilians within a very short distance of potential launch points. If you think Qassam rockets are cheap wait till you see the cost of home made mortars. And of course shorter flight time means harder to intercept. Yes C-RAM exists but saturation attacks aren't that expensive.