Donald Trump has suggested large numbers of Palestinians should leave Gaza to “just clean out” the whole strip, after ordering the US military to restart shipments of 2,000lb bombs to Israel.

The US president said he wanted Gaza residents to move to neighbouring nations, and that they could be displaced “temporarily or could be long-term”, after a phone call with Jordan’s King Abdullah on Saturday.

“I said to him: I’d love you to take on more because I’m looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now and it’s a mess, it’s a real mess. I’d like him to take people,” Trump said, when asked about the call.

He also suggested Egypt as a destination for Gaza residents, and said he would raise the issue with President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi on Sunday.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nobody I know thought Trump would be better for Gaza. Just that Genocide is the worst situation and it was already being ignored.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      But now we get more death! Immigrants, trans people, FEMA, it’s like a Gatcha game of who else gets to suffer. We really taught them a lesson

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The dem leadership knew the whole time exactly how to win the election but werent willing to pay the price in thwarting AIPAC to secure that win. All they had to do was recognize the genocide a few days before the election and follow existing laws on it, and acknowledge that many Americans are struggling. They chose to roll the dice instead.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          I pointed this out to a dem apologist on bluesky and their response was that ending the genocide on its own wouldn’t have won the election.

          Motherfucker, what?! Quite apart from the fact that ending a genocide shouldn’t be evaluated on how likely it is to win an election, it is the right thing to do and it would have helped.

          But the dems decided that continuing the genocide was more important than improving their chances of beating Trump. Assuming they believe what we were told that Trump would be worse at the genocide, that means the dems decided to continue the genocide and also risk worse genocide. So they just chose genocide.

          And now people are still trying to get up on their high horses about this shit.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          “I did not pull the lever in the trolly problem and it was the dems fault”

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you’re willing to let one group be subject to genocide, then all groups are eligible. You know how it goes, “first they came for[…]”

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            No, I’m saying that we shouldn’t be okay with giving up one group while trying to use the rest of the groups as a shield for excusing genocide.

            • Charapaso@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              But… I’m not okay with giving up one group, nor excusing genocide. We must be having two different discussions, because I got the impression you were advocating for simply rolling over and giving up.

              What I was getting at is that participating in an immoral system, only inasmuch as wasting a little time to vote for a lesser evil, can help us achieve our aims when taking action outside the ballot box. It’s easier to fight genocide against one group than genocide against many groups, right?

      • GiantChickDicks
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Why have to bother yourself with harm reduction when you can choose to do nothing and passively allow things to get worse? That would be asking too much.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      Maybe geopolitics is more complicated than the anti-Kamala protest voters have been lead to believe…

      • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        It certainly is. Unfortunately for all of us, it’s more complicated than the Dems and “lesser of two evil” voters (of which I was one) have been lead to believe as well.

        Or they would have… you know… Won.

        But hey, if we want to learn the wrong lesson from this again, far be it from me to stop us.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        2 days ago

        If your “complicated” world view means justifying genocide then it’s just a justification of murder.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        They want peace. Harris made no move to say she would stop the genocide.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            You talked about what they wanted. They do not care who the president of the United States is. They care about peace.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              “Peace” isn’t really an objective given that you’d have Peace the day after you ground palestinians into the dust.

              Netanyahu certainly cares who the president of the United States is, who do you think he wants to be president?

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            By you, yes. Palestinians knew they didn’t want Harris to win. Guess next time you’ll support their candidate, Jill Stein, if you actually care about what they want.