[RD] War in Gaza News: Pas de Deux

[Crezth]

As a student of the great Thomas Friedman, when I look at Gaza, I see a place that’s trapped in a perfect storm of bad governance, geopolitical gridlock, and human suffering. It’s like a car stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels but going nowhere. And let’s be honest—the current approach isn’t working. The status quo is a recipe for endless conflict, poverty, and despair. So, what if we dared to think differently? What if we imagined Gaza not as a problem but as an opportunity? What if we could turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East?

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Crezth, that’s crazy talk.” But hear me out. Gaza has 25 miles of Mediterranean coastline—prime real estate! It could be a tourist paradise, a hub for trade, a beacon of innovation. But to get there, we need to break the cycle of violence and dysfunction. And that might require some radical, even uncomfortable, steps.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the population. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth, with over 2 million people crammed into a tiny strip of land. That’s unsustainable, both economically and environmentally. So, what if we could create a temporary relocation plan for a significant portion of Gazans? I’m not talking about forced displacement—let’s be clear, that’s a non-starter. But what if we offered people a better life elsewhere, even temporarily, while we rebuild Gaza from the ground up?

Picture this: a massive international effort, led by the United States and backed by Gulf states, the EU, and the UN, to resettle Gazans in neighboring countries like Jordan, Egypt, or even further afield. We’re talking about state-of-the-art refugee cities with schools, hospitals, and job opportunities. These would be temporary hubs, not permanent settlements, designed to give people a chance to breathe while we transform Gaza into something extraordinary.

Now, here’s where America comes in. We’ve got the resources, the know-how, and the diplomatic clout to make this happen. Imagine a Marshall Plan for Gaza, funded by a coalition of willing nations and private investors. We’d bulldoze the rubble, build new infrastructure, and create a free economic zone with low taxes and minimal red tape. We’d bring in the best urban planners, architects, and entrepreneurs to design a city of the future—a Dubai on the Mediterranean.

But here’s the kicker: this new Gaza wouldn’t just be for Gazans. It would be a shared space, a place where Israelis, Palestinians, and international investors could come together to build something truly special. Think of it as a laboratory for coexistence, where economic interdependence fosters trust and cooperation. Over time, this could become the foundation for a broader Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Now, I know this sounds like a pipe dream. The logistics alone are mind-boggling, and the political hurdles are enormous. You’ve got Hamas, which won’t give up power without a fight. You’ve got Israel, which won’t trust any plan that doesn’t guarantee its security. And you’ve got the international community, which is great at writing checks but not so great at follow-through.

But here’s the thing: the alternative is more of the same—more violence, more poverty, more wasted potential. Sometimes, you’ve got to think big and take risks. As I like to say, the world is flat, but it’s also fragile. If we don’t find a way to break the cycle in Gaza, the consequences will ripple far beyond the Middle East.

So, yes, this idea is audacious. It’s messy. It’s controversial. But it’s also necessary. Because in a world that’s more interconnected than ever, we can’t afford to leave anyone behind. And if we can turn Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East, we won’t just be solving a local problem—we’ll be showing the world what’s possible when we dare to dream big.

 

[Birdjaguar]

^^^ An interesting idea/plan that would not work.

 

[banzay13]

^^^ An interesting idea/plan that would not work.

Coz no one will do it for Palestinians.

 

[Crezth]

^^^ An interesting idea/plan that would not work.

Now let me tell you about a little idea I call "the McDonald's Peace Theory."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Now let me tell you about a little idea I call "the McDonald's Peace Theory."

A Happy Meal in every hand?

 

[Lexicus]

As a student of the great Thomas Friedman, when I look at Gaza, I see a place that’s trapped in a perfect storm of bad governance, geopolitical gridlock, and human suffering. It’s like a car stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels but going nowhere. And let’s be honest—the current approach isn’t working. The status quo is a recipe for endless conflict, poverty, and despair. So, what if we dared to think differently? What if we imagined Gaza not as a problem but as an opportunity? What if we could turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East?

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Crezth, that’s crazy talk.” But hear me out. Gaza has 25 miles of Mediterranean coastline—prime real estate! It could be a tourist paradise, a hub for trade, a beacon of innovation. But to get there, we need to break the cycle of violence and dysfunction. And that might require some radical, even uncomfortable, steps.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the population. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth, with over 2 million people crammed into a tiny strip of land. That’s unsustainable, both economically and environmentally. So, what if we could create a temporary relocation plan for a significant portion of Gazans? I’m not talking about forced displacement—let’s be clear, that’s a non-starter. But what if we offered people a better life elsewhere, even temporarily, while we rebuild Gaza from the ground up?

Picture this: a massive international effort, led by the United States and backed by Gulf states, the EU, and the UN, to resettle Gazans in neighboring countries like Jordan, Egypt, or even further afield. We’re talking about state-of-the-art refugee cities with schools, hospitals, and job opportunities. These would be temporary hubs, not permanent settlements, designed to give people a chance to breathe while we transform Gaza into something extraordinary.

Now, here’s where America comes in. We’ve got the resources, the know-how, and the diplomatic clout to make this happen. Imagine a Marshall Plan for Gaza, funded by a coalition of willing nations and private investors. We’d bulldoze the rubble, build new infrastructure, and create a free economic zone with low taxes and minimal red tape. We’d bring in the best urban planners, architects, and entrepreneurs to design a city of the future—a Dubai on the Mediterranean.

But here’s the kicker: this new Gaza wouldn’t just be for Gazans. It would be a shared space, a place where Israelis, Palestinians, and international investors could come together to build something truly special. Think of it as a laboratory for coexistence, where economic interdependence fosters trust and cooperation. Over time, this could become the foundation for a broader Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Now, I know this sounds like a pipe dream. The logistics alone are mind-boggling, and the political hurdles are enormous. You’ve got Hamas, which won’t give up power without a fight. You’ve got Israel, which won’t trust any plan that doesn’t guarantee its security. And you’ve got the international community, which is great at writing checks but not so great at follow-through.

But here’s the thing: the alternative is more of the same—more violence, more poverty, more wasted potential. Sometimes, you’ve got to think big and take risks. As I like to say, the world is flat, but it’s also fragile. If we don’t find a way to break the cycle in Gaza, the consequences will ripple far beyond the Middle East.

So, yes, this idea is audacious. It’s messy. It’s controversial. But it’s also necessary. Because in a world that’s more interconnected than ever, we can’t afford to leave anyone behind. And if we can turn Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East, we won’t just be solving a local problem—we’ll be showing the world what’s possible when we dare to dream big.

Olympus Has Fallen (Ahmed Alkhatib has compromised Crezth's account)

 

[Crezth]

A Happy Meal in every hand?

If only the Palestinians spent as much time enjoying McDonald's excellent "Dollar Menu" as they did bombing peaceful - if sometimes a little cranky - neighbors!

 

[Farm Boy]

Then they'd have needed more naps.

 

[Crezth]

Good! Research shows that the lusty Mediterranean people are excellent appreciators of a classic "siesta," and this no doubt generates scads - perhaps even oodles - of value.

 

[Voidwalkin]

As a student of the great Thomas Friedman, when I look at Gaza, I see a place that’s trapped in a perfect storm of bad governance, geopolitical gridlock, and human suffering. It’s like a car stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels but going nowhere. And let’s be honest—the current approach isn’t working. The status quo is a recipe for endless conflict, poverty, and despair. So, what if we dared to think differently? What if we imagined Gaza not as a problem but as an opportunity? What if we could turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East?

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Crezth, that’s crazy talk.” But hear me out. Gaza has 25 miles of Mediterranean coastline—prime real estate! It could be a tourist paradise, a hub for trade, a beacon of innovation. But to get there, we need to break the cycle of violence and dysfunction. And that might require some radical, even uncomfortable, steps.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the population. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth, with over 2 million people crammed into a tiny strip of land. That’s unsustainable, both economically and environmentally. So, what if we could create a temporary relocation plan for a significant portion of Gazans? I’m not talking about forced displacement—let’s be clear, that’s a non-starter. But what if we offered people a better life elsewhere, even temporarily, while we rebuild Gaza from the ground up?

Picture this: a massive international effort, led by the United States and backed by Gulf states, the EU, and the UN, to resettle Gazans in neighboring countries like Jordan, Egypt, or even further afield. We’re talking about state-of-the-art refugee cities with schools, hospitals, and job opportunities. These would be temporary hubs, not permanent settlements, designed to give people a chance to breathe while we transform Gaza into something extraordinary.

Now, here’s where America comes in. We’ve got the resources, the know-how, and the diplomatic clout to make this happen. Imagine a Marshall Plan for Gaza, funded by a coalition of willing nations and private investors. We’d bulldoze the rubble, build new infrastructure, and create a free economic zone with low taxes and minimal red tape. We’d bring in the best urban planners, architects, and entrepreneurs to design a city of the future—a Dubai on the Mediterranean.

But here’s the kicker: this new Gaza wouldn’t just be for Gazans. It would be a shared space, a place where Israelis, Palestinians, and international investors could come together to build something truly special. Think of it as a laboratory for coexistence, where economic interdependence fosters trust and cooperation. Over time, this could become the foundation for a broader Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Now, I know this sounds like a pipe dream. The logistics alone are mind-boggling, and the political hurdles are enormous. You’ve got Hamas, which won’t give up power without a fight. You’ve got Israel, which won’t trust any plan that doesn’t guarantee its security. And you’ve got the international community, which is great at writing checks but not so great at follow-through.

But here’s the thing: the alternative is more of the same—more violence, more poverty, more wasted potential. Sometimes, you’ve got to think big and take risks. As I like to say, the world is flat, but it’s also fragile. If we don’t find a way to break the cycle in Gaza, the consequences will ripple far beyond the Middle East.

So, yes, this idea is audacious. It’s messy. It’s controversial. But it’s also necessary. Because in a world that’s more interconnected than ever, we can’t afford to leave anyone behind. And if we can turn Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East, we won’t just be solving a local problem—we’ll be showing the world what’s possible when we dare to dream big.

Well written. The only universal quality of humanity capable of becoming our tribal nature is our shared appreciation of capital.

 

[Farm Boy]

A good nap is indeed a joy of life.

Shamrock shakes for all!

 

[Crezth]

Well written. The only universal quality of humanity capable of becoming our tribal nature is our shared appreciation of capital.

I love money. In fact, the only thing I like more than money is other people's money.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a bit off topic, but it is interesting with Rwanda that in modern history there are three separate instances of ethnically or politically motivated mass killings we could reference.
The first, in 1959, is the "Social Revolution". The Social Revolution came about largely because Belgium, aware it had only a limited time left to rule in Rwanda, decided to swap their support from the Tutsi monarchy to the Hutu "peasants". (The strict Hutu/Tutsi divide imposed by the Belgians had little to no correlation to how the Tutsi/Hutu divide actually worked in pre-colonial Rwanda.) As a result of the Social Revolution and the clampdown on Tutsis in higher economic, political, or social positions, a few hundred thousands fed to neighboring countries. The Hutu political apparatus became concentrated in the MRND political party and relation between Hutu and Tutsi reached ended up in the state a lot of majority/minority relations end up in - the Hutu elite controlled the good jobs and imposed caps on the number of Tutsis able to enter higher education, while also systematically underfunding any education or social program for Tutsis. Although given the poverty of Rwanda, Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage, and general corruption, systemic underfunding of social services for everyone was the norm.

In the early 90s, we had the infamous Rwandan Genocide. This came about following a collapse of the Rwandan economy and victories by the pro-Tutsi RPF operating out of Uganda. By the late 80s, the ability of the Rwandan economy to acquire foreign currency - and thus fund the comfortable western lifestyle of its elites - was funded basically by limited tea and agricultural exports (a very low margin export in practice) siphoning off the top from foreign aid. With the end of the Cold War, the ability to siphon off foreign aid was looking dicey, and the tea market had collapsed. The MRND was unable to keep the Hutu elite bought off. Thus, the MRND faced a dual crisis: a political/economic crisis where a lot of Hutu "moderates" were coming out against the corruption and parochialism of the Habyarimana government (and make common cause the with pro-Tutsi / inclusive Rwanda RPF); and an ethnic crisis which was largely a paranoid invention of the MRND that the RPF and Tutsi inside Rwanda would win in a war and reestablish the Tutsi Monarchy. The Tutsi coup in Burundi in October 1993 didn't help matters. Thus, the genocide came about because the Hutu Power hardliners in the MRND saw it as a way to neatly resolve their two problems: kill all the "moderates" and Hutu traitors in the political elite, and wipe out the threat of a Tutsi "fifth column".* The sad thing is that if the Rwandan army hadn't devolved as much as it did in late 1993/ early 1994, and maintained better command and control during the genocide, it could have repelled the RPF attack and kept the MRND/ Hutu Power clique in power. There would be a few years of isolation and sanctions against the Rwandan government, but after a few years people would forget about yet another mass killing in Africa and Rwanda would come in from the cold. The reason Rwanda saw a genocide while ever poorer and more ethnically flammable Burundi only saw instability and killings was because of how organized the MRND was, how much control over the entire population, and the fact Hutu and Tutsi lived right next to each other.

After the genocide, we had the mass killings by the RPF against Hutu - FAR, Interahamwe, genocidaires, poor bastards who got caught up in the mass killings, or the just plain unlucky.** The numbers are unclear, but based on unreleased UN reports and extrapolation of eyewitness testimony, it is believed about 50,000 were killed by the RPF in mid 1994. If you include the fighting from mid 1994 through the start of the First Congo War in late 1996, we have 100,000+ easily. It is interesting to note that even scholars quite hostile to the RPF - include Gerard Prunier and Michela Wrong - both reject the idea the RPF killings formed a "double genocide", but both emphasize the political nature of the killings. On one hand, the RPF had to establish some sort of immediate justice while the glacial UN tribunals slowly rumbled into life to go after the organizers of the genocide (which is understandable). On the other hand, the killings were clearly intended to reduce the Hutu population into a state of passive acceptance and obedience to the RPF rule. Obey and do as you are told, smile for the foreign cameras, talk about restorative communal justice, and remember - we know where you live when the foreigners leave. Don't ever imagine your opinion counts for anything or you have any rights except what we give you as a gift.

Why did I make this post other than for PC+1? To highlight how "go Rwanda with it" can mean any number of things; and how the closest description of what the Israeli government appears to want isn't a 1994 style genocide, but instead the post-genocide "send a message" killings.

*It is worth pointing out the RPF had no intention of playing nice with the Arusha peace treaty or the "Broad Based Transitional Government". The Tutsi population in Rwanda was anywhere between 10-15%, and the RPF could maybe count on in an election another 10-15% of Hutu who supported an inclusive Rwandan or otherwise had a falling out with the MRND / Hutu elite. That isn't enough to win an election against the MRND and its Hutu Power allies. Plus the RPF was largely composed of Ugandan Tutsi who after 30+ years of exile had little in common with the Rwandan Tutsi. The RPF knew that after one or two elections, when the world stopped paying attention to Rwanda, the MRND / Hutu Power majority would bring back all the old laws and things would go back to the way they were.

**The historian Gerard Prunier recounts several instances where Hutu figures who actually protected Tutsis were arrested and almost killed on the charge of being genocidaires. In one case it was because a Hutu who was involved in the killings wanted to avoid blame. In another case, a Ugandan Tutsi from the RPF wanted the land the Hutu person owned, so bribed a few people to accuse him.

I've finally read this post. I don't think the situation in Palestine maps onto Rwanda very well. The original phrase "go Rwanda" was just bog-standard racism pretty much.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The original phrase "go Rwanda" was just bog-standard racism pretty much.

Here's Fathi Hammad

“We will die while exploding and cutting the necks and legs of the Jews. We will lacerate them and tear them to pieces, Allah willing!”

 

[Ajidica]

Here's Fathi Hammad

If you are trying to say Israel/Palestine conflict closely maps onto the Rwandan genocide, I have to ask, did you not read my post?

 

[Bast]

As far as I'm concerned both Israelis and Palestinians and all their supporters can all go to hell. Both of these factions abandoned Kamala Harris and the Democrats (for differing reasons) although they would've been the only responsible ones who would've balanced the situation. You get what you deserve. There will never be peace in that region. Ever.

 

[Lexicus]

As far as I'm concerned both Israelis and Palestinians and all their supporters can all go to hell. Both of these factions abandoned Kamala Harris and the Democrats (for differing reasons) although they would've been the only responsible ones who would've balanced the situation. You get what you deserve. There will never be peace in that region. Ever.

Jesus christ I liked this post because I thought it was @Crezth doing a satire lmao

 

[Ajidica]

As far as I'm concerned both Israelis and Palestinians and all their supporters can all go to hell. Both of these factions abandoned Kamala Harris and the Democrats (for differing reasons) although they would've been the only responsible ones who would've balanced the situation. You get what you deserve. There will never be peace in that region. Ever.

*Looks at what has happened since October 7*
Biden, you were doing a heck of a job.

User Clip: Heck of a Job

Bush press conf. Hurricane Katrina FEMA Michael Brown

www.c-span.org

(Is that reference too old? Could be!)

 

[Voidwalkin]

If you are trying to say Israel/Palestine conflict closely maps onto the Rwandan genocide, I have to ask, did you not read my post?

I did.

I thought it was good. Explains ideological and economic strands of what motivated the opinion of political leaders in Rwanda.

I don't focus on that all that much, though. Elite leadership was able to exploit classic tribal resentments, and this was probably necessary to have sufficient support amongst the would-be foot soldiers AFAICT.

What appears to have happened with Hamas is that are saying some very resentful things, and it does seem to me that the resentment is comparable. I can't explain the Hammad quote any other way. It's that unreasonable.

 

[Ajidica]

I did.

I thought it was good. Explains ideological and economic strands of what motivated the opinion of political leaders in Rwanda.

I don't focus on that all that much, though. Elite leadership was able to exploit classic tribal resentments, and this was probably necessary to have sufficient support amongst the would-be foot soldiers AFAICT.

In case I didn't make it clear, there was no "classic tribal resentment" on any level beyond "we don't like those guys because they have more cows than us". There are multiple accounts in the earliest days of Belgian colonization of Rwanda about "Hutu" being promoted to "Tutsi" because they owned enough cows, or "Tutsi" being demoted to "Hutu" because they were the loser in a power struggle.
The "tribal" aspect came in when the Belgians looked at Rwanda and thought "hey, those guys in charge look whiter than the guys not in charge. Let's keep them in charge."

Indeed, any appeal to "tribal resentments" between Hutu and Tutsi to explain the Rwandan genocide also needs to explain why Burundi didn't see a genocide and stayed at the level of mass killings and upheavals.