accusations of a land grab gain a bit of extra visibility but not even a bit of extra credibility. Quite the contrary.

of suggesting that Israel wants to build a canal through the West bank.

Not yet.

The land grab on the West Bank has nothing to do with imperialism and everything to do with religious dogma. To pretend it is something else is to miss the point entirely.

never gets talked about but the maps generally indicate it to be a factor also.

like the Oslo accords. This gives Israel sufficient control over the resource without additional land. The illegal settlement movement is driven almost exclusively by the religious right.

and it is not about Israel having enough but rather using control to divert resources away from Palestinians in the West Bank so they leave areas where they aren't allowed the resource. Control of access is used similarly for building permits etc. Refuse almost all or make it very difficult while freely issuing for another. One can say it all goes back to a religious basis but these aspects are resources for a society nonetheless and control of them allows manipulation to occur.

Nor was this an issue you raised when you suggested that the content of the OP sounds like a land grab. I pointed out that it is ridiculous to tie Israel's incursion into Gaza with any stratgic grand plans for the territory of Gaza outside of Israel's stated goal - self-defense. Agreeing (apparently) with this point, you then suggested that the land grab is a reality in the West Bank, to which I replied that it too has no strategic significance but is rather a reflection of a religious dogma.

And now we are talking about water access on the West Bank instead of the second-rate science fiction about an Israeli canal project in Gaza.

Why?

and that he would lie to Blinken is pretty much a given.

08/20 and appears to no longer be accurate. Al Arabiya reported the following on 08/23 about a "clarification" that same day from Netanyahu's office: "The office of Netanyahu, whose hard-right coalition relies on the support of members opposed to a truce, rejected as “incorrect” media reports that “Netanyahu has agreed that Israel will withdraw” from the Philadelphi corridor."

As stated before he is playing games with the negotiators by saying different things at the same time even to his own negotiators.

Any "agreement" that comes of all of this I fully expect him to do whatever he wants and claim it was others who "misunderstood" and that he was clear all along. Past, pattern and practice.

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/08/23/hamas-official-slams-israeli-refusal-of-gaza-deal-over-border-troops

OK, let's start with your source...

said. It is not an opinion. Your same "gauge could be applied to much of the Israeli press and to the Israeli government for press restriction and oppression. Do you also doubt the audio tape played on Channel 12 of Netanyahu from his meeting with the hostage families after his supposed "agreement" with Blinken? The one where he says repeatedly there is "no deal on the table"?

because the source about Netanyahu was for that purpose of that narrow part of the report. Once again like I have tried to explain to you before when an article contains a reference that I cite and I cite or link the article then common sense says that the article is cited for the purpose of that reference and is not some blanket endorsement of every other statement in the article. The sourcing problem you have is yours. If I were to think along the lines you suggest then if Al Arabiya said the sand is dry then I should discount that statement since Al Arabiya is the one who said it.

given to you.

quote a source article about a specific statement or fact without accepting or endorsing the entire article. I'm sorry you limit your ability to accept factual reporting by doing so. Even Netanyahu once in awhile will have something factual and worthwhile to know in a long statement that otherwise may contain lies and nonsense. It's being able to discern and think for oneself rather than accepting all as true or false depending on the source or their politics and backing.

and your Netanyahu statement is from his spokesman on Thursday the 22nd. The controversy is what went down on Friday the 23rd.

Hamas has said they are listening but not attending and they are not attending because their stance is they said yes on July 2nd to the proposed Biden deal and since that time there has simply been more things added by Netanyahu. Anybody can parse Bibi saying his "clarifications" are not new items but all of the sourcing from the Western negotiators etc. refutes that. Even his own advisers say it. Even his intelligence say it.

The fact is that the radical right of his coalition does not want any agreement and has so stated. They want an entire taking of Gaza and have said so. So Netanyahu says things to appease Blinken. Blinken comes out and makes statements about "agreed proposals" and then Netanyahu gets an earful from the radical right like Ben-Gvir and then Netanyahu leaks out statements downplaying anything he said to Blinken in order to try and reassure the radical right that he is not going to make an agreement for a ceasefire. Even if he did agree to the first 6 week phase of ceasefire the entire 2nd phase is conditioned on further negotiations during the 1st phase. He will never seriously negotiate the 2nd phase during the 1st phase as called for.

The predictable end of this is Israel takes control of Gaza and expands settlements on a very large portion of the West Bank. Period. There is never going to be an actual 2 state solution. It is dogma for Netanyahu and the radical right. The world is going to do nothing to stop it other than pass resolutions and issue statements. Eventually the entirety of the Occupied Territories will be absorbed. Most of the Palestinian population will be driven out or end up living in an apartheid condition.

It doesn't matter whether someone wants to regurgitate the dead history of supposed "agreements" or "opportunities". My opinion has always been that all parties in the Middle East have never been sincere and honest about their intentions or adherence to any agreement or their role in bringing them about or supporting their application. The past is gone. It no longer matters to what remains when the bombing finally stops. All of the parties to this disgust me to my core as I have stated many times.

I believe little that comes from Hamas but I use other Middle Eastern sources like newspapers because believe it or not there are events that take place that aren't reported in the Western or Israeli media. There are stories about economic issues/development in those countries that are informative about what is going on. Believe it or not the Israeli/US view of the world and statements of fact are not always whole and complete and inclusive of facts known to others. Believe it or not people other than Israelis and Western citizens can have opinions that can be considered by a reader and may encourage more thought and fact finding for forming the opinion of the reader. Believe it or not I'm capable of discerning agenda driven BS as just that. But I am not so narrow in my thinking that I cannot read the name of an event or person mentioned in that opinion article and realize I had not known it before and then find it informative to go and further research the event or name.

you have descended into some claim that wasn't made. I posed much to think about and linked the sources. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to some outlet or other. Maybe you would benefit from reading things without automatic judgement and attack. I feel sorry for you if you look at people the same way you seem to do with publications. Too much isolationist and echo chamber for me.

does nothing to support the fanciful theory that "the road / staging area / checkpoint that Israel repaired and reinforced (the Netzarim Corridor) is really secret infrastructure for a canal to the Mediterranean".

As a matter of fact, your right wing, low credibility, state propaganda link says absolutely nothing about the Netzarim Corridor.

So is the new fanciful theory that Israel is going to build a canal to the Mediterranean via the Philidelphi corridor?

The Philadelphi Corridor is just a weird name for the border between Egypt and Israel, where Gaza is.

Once again, Israel is being treated differently than every other country, with Bibi as the head boogeyman.

Y'all ever heard of smuggling? There are tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, where guns and military equipment have been smuggled into Gaza and Hamas. Israel has every right to control what comes into their country.

that Gaza = Israel is in conflict with international law. The Philadelphi Corridor is Egyptian territory not Israeli. Israel can do what it wants within it's own borders. It has no legal claim to place troops just willy-nilly whenever and wherever it wants on the territory of other people. Yes I know they do it and get away with it because they have the US behind them but it doesn't mean it's legal under international law.

I have listened for decades and decades about terrorism and Israel defending itself but most Western media doesn't carry a whisper about Israeli terrorism in other countries over the decades. Terrorism is horrible. Everybody's terrorism. Violation of international law and treaties is horrible no matter who the violator or why. Some countries comply with obligations to international law, UN Resolutions etc. while others like Iran and Israel often do not. Iran worse than most.

Anybody can think what they want about the claim by the Israeli government that everyone is treated equally and that any abuses of people are rare and always dealt with but all of the human rights organizations in Israel and outside of Israel disagree and have the fact-finding to back it up. What they don't have is the political ability to improve the situation currently. We also have eyes to see what goes on in the West Bank with illegal squatters attacking Palestinian villagers while the IDF stands and watches. Israel is hardly "protecting their borders" with such conduct. Nor are they "protecting their borders" when they go thousands of miles away to assassinate the citizens of other countries regardless of whether they are in political or military opposition to you. Because if someone feels it is legitimate to do so then they have not one leg to stand on to complain when it is visited upon them in return.

Israel has entered into various agreements with Egypt re the border, with the Philadelphi Accords Egypt agreed to prevent the smuggling of weapons and other criminal activity. They didn't do that, in fact they allowed human smuggling along with large amounts of weapons. This all occurred because of the withdrawal of IDF from Gaza in 2005.

border. In the Sinai agreement that split land up into zones the IDF was allowed on a very narrow strip on the eastern edge aka the Philadelphi Corridor. However that presence is a negotiated matter and Israel withdrew and Egypt took over when the Gaza withdrawal took place. Returning would also have to be a negotiated matter and Egypt has said no. But then again just like in southern Lebanon the Israeli government feels it can just come and go in others countries as it pleases and hang on to chunks if it wants. Then do "negotiations" at the point of a gun or ex post facto.

Sure - maybe you get a canal from the Mediterranean down to Eilat where you’ve got about 2 miles of undeveloped Israeli waterfront before the Gulf of Aquba hits the Egyptian border.

The bigger, and probably insurmountable issue is that the Gulf of Aquba runs down between Egypt and Saudi with a relatively narrow exit to the Red Sea with a couple fair sized islands parked at the mouth, leaving two exit channels about a mile or two wide. Any ship going through a Israeli alternative canal will have to manage safe passage through 25-30 miles of what will likely be a very hostile eastern shore in the Gulf of Aquba

Then, once at the bottom of the Red Sea, they’ll encounter hell on earth in the pinch between Yemen and Djibouti. It’s tough today but you’ve got to believe the Iranian backed Houthi’s are going to be extra interested in every ship that passed through the alternate canal. It’ll be a 15 mile wide kill zone for any Israeli canal ship.

I’m sure there are some dreamers who put this stuff on paper but that’s all it is - a dream. I won’t say it’ll never happen but I doubt our grandchildren will live to see it come to fruition.

the geopolitical strife will still have the potential to affect shipping. But it's not like the Powers That Be, the US etc. aren't going to dedicate military assets for protection of such a thing. I posed this info for two main reasons. One is to highlight the super wide gash that is the bulldozed Netzarim Corridor and to highlight the subject of the canal and it's continued discussion in serious publications that does not get visibility typically in most Western media.

I think both items highlight two things. The first is potential economic/geopolitical plans that have the potential to greatly effect the economic and stability picture in the region regarding Egypt and the second being how things like the Netzarim Corridor are major features imposed in Gaza that again receive little discussion in most media. For example carving a 2 and 1/2 mile wide strip across a land that is only 25 miles long to begin with is no small matter especially when the ones who carved it are claiming they will not leave that corridor. It is also especially important when we realize that the IDF has already had to battle back radical Israeli settlers claiming they have carte blanche to move into Gaza and establish illegal settlements like in the West Bank.

I'm glad that most of the responses, yours is a very good example, have been thoughtful and indicate that my intent to stimulate serious thought and discussion about the matters I highlighted has been successful.

Israel may well carve a 100-150 foot deep channel through this area and may even promote continued speculation about an alternative canal.

The real reason, imho, is more likely to cut off the tunnel network in northern Gaza from access to the tunnel system supply lines out of Egypt. Effectively creating an underground “wall”, a water wall supplied by the Mediterranean, naturally self-repairing and likely impenetrable at hamas tunnel depth. If successful, they could build another on the southern border. I think the learnings since 10/7 say that the underground barrier is more critical to Israel’s security (and less disruptive to peaceful Palestinian left) than walls above ground.

Hell…Israel could build it, cover it like Boston’s big dig and let the surface repopulate (albeit in residences with no basements).

around $55 billion. The biggest concern for regional stability is the negative economic impact on Egypt of loss of business through the Suez. The radical elements in Egypt would likely gain power or at the very least cause great instability in Egypt. That's not good for anybody in the region.

Your thoughts about creating a "water barrier" to fight against the tunnels is an excellent point to think about.
As things move forward I'm left with many questions as to what a "reconstruction" even means or entails, who pays for it, who accomplishes it etc. and still against a backdrop of an unsettled "statehood" issue. In other words are we just building back to a "pre-Hamas" condition? Won't all of the upheaval still be just underneath if the statehood status isn't resolved? One party swears it will never allow such a thing. So are we just coming back to this repression/violence over and over as we have been for decades?

So in the end I'm left with no answers and just a feeling of pessimism that what has been will continue until eventual absorption/annexation or whatever it will be described as. Only one thing seems certain and that is no matter which way this all goes it will not be peaceful.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXO2vU3bcAAoTKE?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]