663
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

Donald Trump has said that Palestinians have “no alternative” but to leave Gaza due to the devastation left by Israel’s war on Hamas, in effect endorsing ethnic cleansing of the territory over the opposition of Palestinians and the neighbouring countries.

Speaking as he prepared to host Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Tuesday, Trump repeated the suggestion that Gaza’s population should be relocated to Jordan and Egypt – something both countries have firmly rejected.

Trump claimed Palestinians would “love to leave Gaza”, telling reporters: “I would think that they would be thrilled.”

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 21 points 1 day ago

Do the commenters here really believe the outcome would have been different for the Palestinians if Donald didn't win? Why?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

I really believe the outcome for the millions of brown and queer people in America would have been different if Trump didn't win.

And my 'why' here has been the same why for months- why did that not matter?

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 17 points 1 day ago

Yes. For one, Israel had already started on their zone idea. For two, Blinken was advocating for a two state solution because that was one of the requirements for Saudi Arabia to establish ties with Israel.

I can’t imagine the Middle East is going to be content with this occupation, especially if it leads to a new trail of tears.

[-] prole 3 points 1 day ago
[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

Exactly. Kamala isn't facing AIPAC anymore. She's not running for office. She faces literally zero downside in publicly condemning the idea. Since she isn't condemning it now, why would anyone assume she would do it if she were currently president, when the pressures against her would be much higher?

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

"She's not a public figure anymore, she's a private citizen, why isn't she condemning this?" Where? In congress? In the white house? How do you know she's not being vocal about this?

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Because the internet exists and you'd be blasting it right now if you could.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Yes the internet exists, but if she hasn't been able to make a public statement about every bat shit idea, or if there is no recording of her saying anything of it, it couldn't be shared.

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
663 points (100.0% liked)

World News

40268 readers
2605 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS