I never thought about it this way, a brutal war would end it faster with less casualties.

It could be a real final solution, maybe with gas chambers and picking the gold teeth out of the arab dead. Or it could be a non-brutal but non-bleeding heart permanent end to the conflict by forcibly relocating the population instead of the whole genocide doo-la-roo. Which is what I said 2 years ago before this whole thing began, there would be no 'collateral damage' if Israel evacuated all civilians from the strip and left only militants and hostages

The moral calculation that has led to 80 years of war is the same as a surgeon too squeamish to operate. You'd hope he isn't turned off by any pain or blood, but that he's not a butcher either. Israel erred on the former, thankfully not the latter but this last conflict sure bordered on it. 40,000+ excess Palestinians didn't need to die to end the threat to Israel.

this doesnt work. Hitler recognized that. you can't forcibly remove people in any efficient manner. to where being the biggest question. if nations were hesitant to take on large jewish populations in the 1930s and 1940s it doesnt even compare with the unwillingness for nations to take on en masse Palestinian refugees. the only way to even attempt it sanely would be to scatter them to the wins and place just 1 family in each town, if you make an enclave somewhere you'll be dealing with issues from it for decades. no muslim country would take any. there is some sort of poetic irony in the idea that the 1940s Europe purged its jews, and 80 years later they might get millions of islamic Palestinians to replace them. what a great return on investment!

Hitler had 1940s technology. Good for putting bullets in heads and jews in ovens. You couldn't house 3 million hajjis in air conditioned tents back then either, yet the KSA does it today.
I think the "where" is definitely the bigger hurdle than the "how". The logistics capacity for transporting millions of people without slaughtering them actually exists, and the military capacity to dislodge people and forcibly relocate them while only killing 'some' of them, well that's what Israel has been doing for 2 years now hasn't it. There would be those that fight to the death- many of them- and Israelis killed in ambushes while trying to evict Gaza Granny. And of course, above all there would be the optics where the entire world and every Israeli that isn't a hardcore fanatic or truly cynical pragmatist would denounce it. And yet, given the events of the past 2 years, all of that is actually a reasonably humane alternative to what Israel actually did: Keep relocating everyone, kill huge numbers of militants and civilians alike and reduce virtually 100% of the Gaza strip to uninhabitable rubble.

But yes it still runs into the roadblock of where. Trump even went as far as proposing them to Libya, or basically any other country that has some isolated quarantine desert and wants the US to pay them the big bucks to take them. Could be a post-coup Madagascar and complete the circle Hitler started. Obviously Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc all would be less willing to host Palestinians than the Israelis are today.

the point of this thought experiment is, no matter how obscene it would be regarded, called genocidal, called concentration camps, called a new holocaust, called casus belli for Israeli's haters- it would still be a more logical and humane option than generational conflict and widespread death and destruction. And the latter is what we arrive at when we're too weak-kneed to get our hands dirty and defuse the conflict once and for all.

anyway TLDR: I vote greenland.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 17 2025 10:30am

Please don't have kids.

Generally agree, but on the bolded crossing Gaza off the list of people with a generational deathwish for Israel only shortens the list a small amount. and likely leads to a DEEPLY enflamed relationship with the west bank. Syrian attacks would increase. it may actually piss off Egypt because US aid to egypt would decrease as they wouldnt need to blockade or contain gaza. madagascar would be based tho.

But lets be fair, on a scale of 'populations that can't coexist with Israel because they will launch suicide attacks to try to genocide the jews', Palestinians in the Gaza strip are a 10/10, lebanon might be a 3/10, the west bank a 2/10 and pretty much every other country is a 0/10 at this point. Cheesy as it sounds, the way you stop people throwing their lives away is give them something to live for, make your enemies prosper and they'll have no reason to kill you. Look to the KSA, Qatar, etc, when the Arabs are doing well they're not a threat to jews. Maybe 50-100 years down the line if socioeconomic conditions change and there's a gas crisis, idk can't predict every eventuality. Countries like Egypt might be pissed off, but when the chips are down they don't really care about Palestinians and are completely removed from their 40s-60s era willingness to invade.
Gaza is pretty unique for its generational deathwish right now.

again, generally agree, but i'd just add if you deport all Gazans you're going to pump the hell out of that west bank number, and i'd say also increase Lebanese and Syrian rebel numbers. plus with the bad PR it would cause you'd see increased resources that were bound for gaza sent to the houthis, hesbollah, and hamas cells in west bank. all of this to say i dont disagree, but its a fairly dynamic situation with ripple effects.

The hubris is another lesson the Nazis learned. There's the theory and the implementation. Even if you can spell out a worse alternative, even if you can calculate the ends justifying the means, that doesn't mean its how it plays out when your battle plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy. I've said for some time the most compelling counterargument anyone can make against eugenicists isn't to just moralize to their face but to point out that a few generations removed from its start, we'll be able to directly tinker with the human genome and totally invalidate the premise. Well, making chunky salsa out of 60,000 palestinians might be terrible, but the idealized humane alternative could turn out worse, and we can't predict the curveballs that could invalidate a relocation program or actually somehow end the conflict peacefully like the good friday accords did in ireland.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 17 2025 11:26am

Along that same vein, and going back to what you mentioned, is the hour glass running low on 1st world oil demand. we're producing more recyclable plastics every year cutting the demand for crude, and gas cars are slowly decreasing. no one knows what happens when these single product economies all of a sudden can only peddle it to 2nd and 3rd world countries and crude barrel price drops in half. the countries could give Israel a lot more trouble, or just as likely a Muslim civil war could break out. India Pakistan could pop off. Russia could face similar economic struggles if the EU gets as green as it pretends it wants to. so many moving pieces its hard to even speculate.