Jewish ethics in the real world: Foreign Affairs on Gaza without Gazans

/4 Comments/in /by

https://gab.com/PCleburne/posts/114758548703126524

The NYC election victory of Muslim Zohran Mamdani has led to speculation that Israel has lost its grip on Democrat voters in the city, particularly young leftists. This is probably true.
But equally important is the apparent loss of control over the liberal US Foreign Policy Establishment. Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the prestigious Committee on Foreign Relations, has broken ranks in its current issue with “Gaza Without Gazans,” subtitled “Only American Pressure Can Stop Israel’s New Endgame”
archive.is/awLsM#selection-1491.669-1491.909 (open link). This reads like a break with Israel is being considered.

“The Israeli government appears to be seeking… not only long-term military occupation of Gaza but also the large-scale displacement—or even expulsion—of its civilian population…Under the Geneva Conventions, a forced exodus from an occupied territory would be considered a war crime

Israel has now taken extraordinary action to limit the flow of civilian aid into Gaza…The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)…in practice functions as an arm of Israeli military operations….During its first month of operations [GHF distribution points saw] more than 500 Palestinians shot dead by Israeli forces as they tried to reach them—killings that seem inexplicable and unprecedented in an aid-delivery context, even in a war zone…The IDF itself has announced that it intends to displace “most of the population of Gaza.”
(My emphases. Pic: Foreign Affairs)

See below for entire Foreign Affairs article

 

Gaza Without Gazans

Only American Pressure Can Stop Israel’s New Endgame

Max Rodenbeck

June 25, 2025

Palestinians fleeing their homes in the Gaza Strip, June 2025
Palestinians fleeing their homes in the Gaza Strip, June 2025Hatem Khaled / Reuters
MAX RODENBECK is Project Director for Israel/Palestine at the International Crisis Group. He was previously Bureau Chief for the Economist in the Middle East, South Asia, and Germany.

On January 10, 2024, just over three months after Hamas’s October 7 attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a short speech to clarify Israel’s war aims in Gaza. The first point he stressed was that Israel had “no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population.” He insisted that Israel was “fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population” and stated that the country’s objectives were simply “to rid Gaza of Hamas terrorists and free our hostages.”
Now, twenty months into a war that has killed more than 56,000 in Gaza—and that has swept Iran, too, into war with Israel and the United States—those declared aims appear to have been overridden, if not reversed. Since breaking this winter’s brief cease-fire in March 2025, Israeli forces have begun seizing large parts of Gaza, while moving and confining the territory’s population of 2.2 million into ever-smaller areas. The government has also unleashed a crushing campaign to limit and control the flow of humanitarian aid, including a total blockade that lasted for more than ten weeks. Yet despite its renewed onslaught, Israel has failed to secure freedom for any of the remaining 50 hostages, just 20 of whom are believed to be still alive. (The release in May of Edan Alexander, an Israeli soldier who is also an American citizen, was secured separately by American negotiators.) Nor does it appear to be in a hurry to reach a cease-fire agreement to bring them home.
This dramatic shift in objectives is apparent not only on the ground. In public statements, Netanyahu has made clear that his government now has other, more ambitious goals for the Gaza war. At a rare press conference on May 22, the prime minister stated that Israel no longer aims merely to free hostages and obliterate Hamas. When the war is over, he said, Israel will be in “full security control of Gaza.” He also enthusiastically endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal, announced in February, to relocate Gazans to other countries and redevelop the war-ravaged territory into a new Riviera—which he called “brilliant” and “revolutionary.” In other words, the Israeli government appears to be seeking precisely the outcomes that Netanyahu ruled out in January 2024: not only long-term military occupation of Gaza but also the large-scale displacement—or even expulsion—of its civilian population.
In a war marked by extreme violence and extraordinary privation inflicted on civilians, it may seem a distraction to focus on a scenario that many consider fantastical and that Trump himself has appeared to back away from. But for the Israeli cabinet, the so-called Trump plan for Gaza is not a passing fancy. In late March, shortly after the resumption of the military campaign, the Israeli government established a special office to oversee “voluntary emigration” from Gaza, and other members of the government have been even more explicit than Netanyahu in stating the end goal. “Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to . . . the south to a humanitarian zone . . . and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in early May.
4 replies
  1. Salus Populi
    Salus Populi says:

    There is an error in the title of this piece: “Jewish ethics” is an oxymoron. Not trying to be cute – this simply is a fact. Jews are not guided or limited by moral principles, as civilised humans are. For Jews, all modes of behaviour are on the table, no matter how abhorrent or depraved, if they are deemed beneficial or pleasing to the Jews as individuals or to Jewry as a group.

  2. Anon
    Anon says:

    Unz.c*m/mwhitney/heres-proof-that-israel-lost-the-war/

    Putin justifies his actions regarding Iran:

    Rt.c*m/news/620716-russias-surprising-role-in-israel-iran/

    “Days before Araghchi’s trip, Putin publicly revealed that Russia had offered Iran expanded cooperation on air defense systems, an offer Tehran had not pursued. Far from a rebuke, it read as a nudge: if the strategic partnership is real, Iran needs to meet Russia halfway.

    Moscow remains open to closer defense collaboration, including integrating Iran’s air defense into a broader regional security framework. In retrospect, had Tehran taken up the offer earlier, it might have been better prepared to repel the strikes. For Russia, security is measured not in rhetoric, but in results – and it expects its partners to act accordingly.”

    Rest of the article is worth reading too, I think. It basically says that there was no legal contract requiring Russia to go to war against the Israelites for attacking Iran, and it says that it’s actually not in Russia’s interest to even do as such. It makes evolutionary sense in some ways, since Iran is genetically much farther away from Russian Slavs than the East Asians are such as North Korea and China. Noted geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza mapped out the genetics of all the different races and found that ethnic Europeans and East Asians are closer to each other than to other races:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20130814161142/http://www.neoeugenics.net/GeneMap.htm

    Russian Slavs and North Koreans feel a stronger innate kinship with each other than either of them do with Persians. Plus, Russia’s national median IQ is 96 and North Korea’s is 105, only a nine point difference. But Iran’s national median IQ is 80, which is sixteen points away from Russia. Iran’s low overall competence thus makes it very risky and expensive for Russia to make an outright military alliance. It is unfortunate for Iran that they didn’t take the opportunity to practice eugenics when the West was doing it in the early 1900s. Iran could now be on par with Russia’s IQ of 96 had they started back then and continued with the eugenics., making it much harder for the Israelites to invade them.

    • Tim
      Tim says:

      In contrast to the degree of perversion and degeneration in our country (there are already trannies in the “Bundestag”), conditions in China are almost innocent and paradisiacal. The government there still takes care of the future of the people in a way that is almost irresponsible by our standards. And, as always, it is the women who open the door to decay.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056nle2drno

Comments are closed.