No, not immediately, and also for very different reasons. Palestinians, no matter where they end up, have a large sense of identity and continue to identify at Palestinians, be they Muslims or Christians - continuing to speak in their own dialect for example - while Israel expends enormous resources convincing themselves and anyone who will listen that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian”. Palestinians by and large do not want to leave Palestine, because if they do they would likely never be able to return - especially if forced out by the IDF.

• Lebanon has already absorbed Palestinians but Lebanon has a small population that is in a delicate demographic balance between their various religious groups - Maronite (Catholics), various Orthodox Christian, Sunni, and Shi’a, among many others. Lebanon is a creation of France in order to have one country in the Middle East be majority Catholic, but the demographics have shifted (due to emigration, birth rate differences and incoming refugees) and led to various civil conflicts, including a devastating civil war which drew in all their neighbors, and the current power sharing agreement is a precarious peace while larger foreign powers still meddle there, supporting one group or another. Hisbulla for example is a Shi’a Iranian proxy with a fairly large and kind of effective military wing independent of the state, while the West funds the official yet ineffective and probably incredibly corrupt state military. Adding more people, a majority Sunni, upsets the balance further, so Lebanon is reluctant to do so, understandably.

• Egypt has also absorbed Palestinians over the years, but Egypt is also very careful about accepting people whose politics are principally driven by religion, especially Sunni Islam. Not saying that all of Gaza is politically religious, but many are, and Hamas definitely is. Allowing Israel to easily annex Gaza by allowing Israel to expel all Palestinians there to Egypt would cause the Egyptian State all manner of trouble. Also the pro Palestinian cause is very well favored by ordinary Egyptians, so the government cannot simply help Israel to kick them out by absorbing them. Either way you see it, it is not in Egypt’s interests to accept.

• Jordan has absorbed more Palestinians than anyone else. 60% of Jordanians are Palestinian in origin, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees there also (i.e Palestinians without Jordanian citizenship) living there. The source of conflict between the PLO (whose leadership was exiled in Jordan at the time) and the Jordanian monarchy at the time was not sparked by the Palestinians “just being there” but rather that the Jordanian King Abdulla was opposed to Palestinian nationalism, and vehemently opposed the idea of a Palestinian state, since he always believed that any land that did not become Israel was his to rule by right, since Britain offered his ancestor all of Palestine during WW1 (all while double crossing the Arabs to offer it to the Zionist movement also). The Jordanian monarchy is not native to Jordan but rather originate in Arabia. Anyway this put the monarchy at odds with the goals of the PLO and Jordan failed to rein them in. Jordan is very receptive to Palestinian refugees though even though they are demographically overwhelmed by them, and lack the resources to absorb so many (Jordan is one of the driest countries on the planet).

• Syria is in no state to absorb millions of Palestinians, although before the war they had done so.

• Saudi and Gulf states don’t really give much of a shit. They are happy to accept Palestinian workers, often educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, engineers and such. Not millions of refugees.

Essentially, each country has reasons to not do what Israel wants. And two of the major reasons on top of it all is that it is what Israel wants, and it is not what the Palestinians want. Palestinians want their homeland.

That’s what I hear from my buddies in construction also.

Good luck out there bud!

He always, always has to present himself as a victim. What a baby.

That is just a list of Russian propaganda points. There is no evidence for any of it.

I am not so sure who is using who at the minute, but sure. What’s for certain is that the Russian military, such as it was, is suffering heavy losses, with plenty of busted myths (invulnerable hypersonics, indomitable Armata etc…). It’s a good return for the USA helping Ukraine, no doubt about it.

Turns out Russia are a second tier military, who was halted by previous generation US handheld anti-tank weapons and Ukraine are holding their own using second tier equipment for the most part. Turns out when you put loyalists in charge of the military, they might not be so effective. All the bloviating nonsense coming out of the Kremlin turned out to be hot rectal air.

As for a cease fire, sure, so long as Russia doesn’t use that time to reinforce their positions in Ukraine. Because they are occupying Ukrainian land. Would it be acceptable to give up that land (because that is effectively what a cease fire would accomplish, no matter what the “talks” determine)?. Russia understands only strength and force, whether they are using it or recieving it. Giving them a chance to strengthen while “talks” are ongoing only strengthens their position. As we talk Ukraine is encroaching on Donetsk airport, occupied since 2014. Continuing to weaken Russia creates a better position to negotiate from.

And Russia reneged on a prior treaty with Ukraine too, so it’s not like they are trustworthy. They have already openly stated Ukraine has no right to exist.

Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American.

The fact that you keep ignoring is that Ukraine is asking for the equipment. NOT asking for any boots on the ground but their own. They are willing to fight this war, they need equipment.

Not just the President of Ukraine or the government, but pretty much the whole of civil society.

The US played the same role towards the UK as it is playing now towards Ukraine - providing aid - until Pearl Harbor.

I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good.

Using Ukraine how? Spinning it how? As far as I can tell Ukrainians are the ones begging for help. And fighting off an aggressor such as Russia is a moral good as far as I can tell. The thing I’m curious about is the constant “fear of escalation” which means we have been providing aid too slowly.

I don’t support killing civilians. I don’t support killing conscripted people. I don’t support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don’t even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in.

Of course not. I don’t want anyone to die for the ego of a sociopathic cunt. I also want everyone to be happy, live long and prosper, and I also wish we could all ride magic flying unicorns to the infinite ice cream parlor in the Bahamas and never gain weight. There are wishes and there is reality.

I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want.

This is all nice, except you have to contend with Russia. The people of the region who are not Russia want security and they can’t have it with Russia as a neighbor, unless they join an alliance such as NATO, or accept Russian enslavement.

There are precisely two countries who are Russian “allies” in the region - Belorus which is occupied, and Hungary which is run by a similar Mafia, but it’s also protected from Russia by NATO and the EU (I really wish they weren’t).

You are implying that this war is somehow orchestrated by the United States, since you are whatabouting that way.

The United States is not a belligerent here. Ukraine is the one getting invaded, and Russia is doing the invading - that is the situation. Every time you whatabout to the US you imply that Ukrainians have no agency and no rights to decide for themselves or defend themselves, or are somehow under the control of Joe Biden or some shit (hint: they aren’t - polling in Ukraine is very clear that a large majority want to keep fighting until Russia is gone from their country).

So yeah, “bruh”, I’m pointing out that when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, let’s talk about Russia and Ukraine. If you want to talk about the wider geostrategic implications of the USA, Europe, NATO, and various other nations providing aid to Ukraine, let’s dance:

I suppose your moral grounds aren’t shaken by Russia seeking help in North Korea and Iran to continue killing Ukrainian civilians? That is an actual whatabout.

Or perhaps that NATO and the EU are voluntary alliances that nations are free to leave at any moment (and don’t want in the case of NATO because of Russian aggression). Very nice, “bruh”.

You trolls are so predictable.

You seem to think Ukrainians have no agency.

Niger’s junta knows this how?

Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy

Lol

Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, especially if it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist.

I didn’t realize Ukraine was the most powerful nation to ever exist.

Well then discuss.

What justifies the torture, rape, pillage, kidnapping, Russia has inflicted on Ukraine?

That’s all well and good, but that’s never taught at all to Russians and ignored by tankies.

And if you actually read your dumb narrative, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second. You really need to work on your story.

Here’s the truth: the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was an authoritarian expansionist nightmare that was happy to get Poland for free. They only fight the Nazis because they had to. And Stalin was a shit strategist.

One thing they always forget to mention is the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany in order to partition Poland.

No doubt the Soviets suffered greatly in WW2, and contributed greatly to the allied victory. On the other hand they did not do it alone, and they certainly did not expect to have to fight the Germans at all, at least not at that point.

It’s a conscript army. They shouldn’t be.

Why should Russia strategically be required to invade exactly?

I’ve never heard a cogent argument on this point.

If the opposition supports the enemy, you perhaps should.

Edit: you asshats think Russia should allow pro-Ukraine parties to run for the Duma, or the presidency? Or is it always a double standard with you?

Whataboutism is literally a logical fallacy. We are talking about Russia, so talk about Russia.

25% ish of the Russian population live in huts and shit in holes in outhouses for a lack of plumbing (mostly ethnic minorities), all while the ruling Mafia collects yachts and private jets, and launches wars.

I’m not saying there isn’t wealth inequality elsewhere, but how about a bit of perspective here. Russia cannot actually conscript too many ethnic Russians or use them as cannon fodder, since that is the only ethnicity in Russia that matters politically, since they are the middle class. Instead they send the colonized people, who happen to be those who shit in holes for a lack of plumbing.