The Israelis withdrew their personnel, but then just placed the city under siege. They control the airspace, they control how far out to sea Gazan fishing boats are allowed to go, they control the movement of people in/out of Gaza, and they control whether and how much food, medicine, rebuilding supplies, and other resources are allowed …
The Israelis withdrew their personnel, but then just placed the city under siege. They control the airspace, they control how far out to sea Gazan fishing boats are allowed to go, they control the movement of people in/out of Gaza, and they control whether and how much food, medicine, rebuilding supplies, and other resources are allowed in. The whole place is surrounded by a wall patrolled by remotely-controlled robotic machine guns. Indeed, given the change in tactics toward Gaza after the withdrawal - away from counter-insurgency, targeted assassinations, etc to full-blown military assaults - it's pretty clear that the decision was made by Israel to pull their people out to give them a freer hand when "mowing the lawn."
Wait, is it really true that Israel controls the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza? I was just reading this Wikipedia article about the Rafah Crossing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing) and it makes it seem like it's mostly Egypt in charge of Rafah.
"On 3 February 2008, the border was closed again by Egypt"
"on 29 April, Egypt announced that the border crossing would be opened on a permanent basis."
"On 22 January 2015, Egypt closed the border crossing."
"In May 2018, Egyptian authorities opened the crossing"
"In February 2021, Egypt opened the crossing "indefinitely" for the first time in years"
As for supplies, the Wikipedia "Gaza imports" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_imports) says: "The Rafah Border Crossing is the sole crossing point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. It has been closed for the transfer of commercial goods since 2007, and Egypt maintained that it would only open the crossing if forces from the Palestinian Authority presidential guard and a European supervisory force returned to guard the border crossing."
I don't want to argue just to argue; the Rafah Crossing and the involvement of Egypt is important, because it's a significant difference between military occupation and blockade. If Gaza was genuinely militarily occupied by Israel, Egypt wouldn't matter -- Israel could just set up a checkpoint in front of Rafah. But under blockade, Gaza has a significant degree of freedom that it wouldn't have under occupation: they can go to Egypt, if Egypt will let them.
And the Egypt border situation is a big plank in the pro-Israel side's arguments: You can tell that the problem is with Hamas, not Israel, they say, because Egypt has the same problems with Hamas as Israel does.
I know Wikipedia can be biased, and I didn't check its sources. Do I have false facts? Or is there more context I need to really understand it? Like, is Egypt secretly an Israeli puppet?
This is mendacious nonsense. The restrictions on sovereignty are either (a) perfectly reasonable measures to stop Gaza being used as a base to attack Israelis (which clearly didn't go far enough) and (b) measures taken after Gazans overwhelmingly elected Hamas* and Hamas attacked Israel. 'Mowing the lawn' is a concept invented afterwards when the military reported back that Hamas was too well dug in to re-occupy the Gaza strip without massive casualties. It's basically a fancy word for Cope.
In 2005, Gaza benefitted from massive international aid, and, even more importantly, massive international good will. It's not an exaggeration to say that had they decided to set up an international tax haven they would have been allowed to go ahead with it. What they actually did is celebrate their victory over Israel and start pressing ahead for more victories. Sure, not everyone felt this way, and no doubt many 17 year old girls would have preferred to focus on Harry Styles, but that it was Palestinians collectively chose.
What this shows is that the 2 State Solution is a complete non starter. Whatever deal is made, there will be some conditions attached to it that mean ackshully Palestinians are under occupation, Palestinians will attack because this is all they actually want to do, and deep thinkers will justify it. Every single step towards the 2 State Solution has made everything worse, for Israelis, for Palestinians, for everyone.
*While overall the 2006 elections were close, Hamas won a massive victory in Gaza itself hence their subsequent takeover.
If Trump got 56% everyone would say this was a massive victory. What is the pertinence of saying Hamas do not speak for everyone (something that is probably true of any regime anywhere, ever)?
Note that there was an alternative:
"Also known as the National Coalition for Justice and Democracy, the Wa'ad list was headed by Gazan Eyad El-Sarraj, who was a consultant to the Palestinian delegation to the Camp David 2000 Summit and heads a group of Palestinian and Israeli academics working towards a peace agreement.[17] The list's main platform is security reforms, establishing the rule of law and respect for human rights."
Guess how many seats they got? (It rhymes with 'hero').
You're right, people might say that, but is it true? No, 56% is not a massive victory. 56% is almost literally if you and 9 and of your friends voted and 6 of you wanted something and 4 of you didn't (I say almost because the situation I describe is actually a larger margin of victory than 56% but I digress). Is that massive? Hardly. Just like you probably don't want someone throwing you in an identity or ideological group that you aren't part of or don't like so those 44% probably don't either. Maybe they should be speaking up louder maybe a lot of things, but also maybe they are scared and persecuted and don't want to be killed in the crossfire...the at least 5% of Palestinian Christians that make up the Gazan population I'd be willing to bet don't.
The pertinence is to remind people that Hamas is not everyone and so to simply speak in terms that removes the humanity of the innocent people on the other side simply because they live mixed within that side is a dangerous path to head down so that we do not slowly turn into the evil we are seeking to be rid of.
To be clear, in response to whatever you are assuming, my belief is that civilians should never be targeted in war, even if they are provably Nazi paedophile space aliens. The purpose of the rules of law are to limit and contain conflict, not to administrate abstract justice.
Now, as regards the public opinion of people in Gaza. First, what you probably haven't even considered is that some people who did not vote for Hamas are just as or *more* extreme. The PFLP, which quite recently entered a synagogue in West Jerusalem and massacred the people there, gouging out their eyes, also did quite well. Further, many Fatah supporters are also rejectionists, but they don't support Hamas because they are not into strict Islam. Again, Gaza has a peace party. It got no seats, because peace is not a popular policy in Gaza; war is.
I appreciate the response! So you would say that it's a de facto military occupation, basically. The seeming difference between the West Bank and Gaza is actually a propaganda smokescreen, which the Israel apologists have failed to see through. And the Israelis didn't really make any kind of concession or sacrifice when they "withdrew", it was just a different strategy for the same oppression.
I had been under the impression that Hamas was able to flourish in Gaza only because of Israel taking a genuine hands-off stance. If it was really so locked down, how could such a violently anti-Israel group become the government?
It’s my understanding that Hamas much like bin Laden received a fair amount of support from governments that would later come to regret that support under the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. On top of that there are always people who are willing to profit off conflict.
Think about it for a minute. The US government just sent a pile of US taxpayer dollars and weapons constructed with US taxpayer dollars to Israel to fight Hamas. Hamas is using, at least in part, weapons paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and abandoned in Afghanistan. The US also sent a pile of US taxpayer dollars to help humanitarian efforts in Gaza, a substantial chunk of which will undoubtedly wind up in the control of Hamas since they hold the power in Gaza. So the US taxpayer is paying for both sides of the conflict. Meanwhile those in the US government do everything possible to pay the least amount of tax possible and also own a pile of defense contracting stocks that are doing very well right now. So the US taxpayer foots the bill for both sides of a war that has little to nothing to do with us and our political elite get rich on war profiteering. Then they raise our taxes to pay for their war. I highly doubt the American government is any sort of special sort of evil and suspect this is more the norm for how the world’s governments operate. I suspect there are plenty of people in the Israeli government who will benefit from instability and lose power or control if peace is ever established. That is why Hamas was allowed to come into and maintain power.
The Israelis withdrew their personnel, but then just placed the city under siege. They control the airspace, they control how far out to sea Gazan fishing boats are allowed to go, they control the movement of people in/out of Gaza, and they control whether and how much food, medicine, rebuilding supplies, and other resources are allowed in. The whole place is surrounded by a wall patrolled by remotely-controlled robotic machine guns. Indeed, given the change in tactics toward Gaza after the withdrawal - away from counter-insurgency, targeted assassinations, etc to full-blown military assaults - it's pretty clear that the decision was made by Israel to pull their people out to give them a freer hand when "mowing the lawn."
Wait, is it really true that Israel controls the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza? I was just reading this Wikipedia article about the Rafah Crossing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing) and it makes it seem like it's mostly Egypt in charge of Rafah.
"On 3 February 2008, the border was closed again by Egypt"
"on 29 April, Egypt announced that the border crossing would be opened on a permanent basis."
"On 22 January 2015, Egypt closed the border crossing."
"In May 2018, Egyptian authorities opened the crossing"
"In February 2021, Egypt opened the crossing "indefinitely" for the first time in years"
As for supplies, the Wikipedia "Gaza imports" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_imports) says: "The Rafah Border Crossing is the sole crossing point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. It has been closed for the transfer of commercial goods since 2007, and Egypt maintained that it would only open the crossing if forces from the Palestinian Authority presidential guard and a European supervisory force returned to guard the border crossing."
I don't want to argue just to argue; the Rafah Crossing and the involvement of Egypt is important, because it's a significant difference between military occupation and blockade. If Gaza was genuinely militarily occupied by Israel, Egypt wouldn't matter -- Israel could just set up a checkpoint in front of Rafah. But under blockade, Gaza has a significant degree of freedom that it wouldn't have under occupation: they can go to Egypt, if Egypt will let them.
And the Egypt border situation is a big plank in the pro-Israel side's arguments: You can tell that the problem is with Hamas, not Israel, they say, because Egypt has the same problems with Hamas as Israel does.
I know Wikipedia can be biased, and I didn't check its sources. Do I have false facts? Or is there more context I need to really understand it? Like, is Egypt secretly an Israeli puppet?
This is mendacious nonsense. The restrictions on sovereignty are either (a) perfectly reasonable measures to stop Gaza being used as a base to attack Israelis (which clearly didn't go far enough) and (b) measures taken after Gazans overwhelmingly elected Hamas* and Hamas attacked Israel. 'Mowing the lawn' is a concept invented afterwards when the military reported back that Hamas was too well dug in to re-occupy the Gaza strip without massive casualties. It's basically a fancy word for Cope.
In 2005, Gaza benefitted from massive international aid, and, even more importantly, massive international good will. It's not an exaggeration to say that had they decided to set up an international tax haven they would have been allowed to go ahead with it. What they actually did is celebrate their victory over Israel and start pressing ahead for more victories. Sure, not everyone felt this way, and no doubt many 17 year old girls would have preferred to focus on Harry Styles, but that it was Palestinians collectively chose.
What this shows is that the 2 State Solution is a complete non starter. Whatever deal is made, there will be some conditions attached to it that mean ackshully Palestinians are under occupation, Palestinians will attack because this is all they actually want to do, and deep thinkers will justify it. Every single step towards the 2 State Solution has made everything worse, for Israelis, for Palestinians, for everyone.
*While overall the 2006 elections were close, Hamas won a massive victory in Gaza itself hence their subsequent takeover.
I don’t that I’d say 56% is a massive victory and hardly means they speak for everyone.
If Trump got 56% everyone would say this was a massive victory. What is the pertinence of saying Hamas do not speak for everyone (something that is probably true of any regime anywhere, ever)?
Note that there was an alternative:
"Also known as the National Coalition for Justice and Democracy, the Wa'ad list was headed by Gazan Eyad El-Sarraj, who was a consultant to the Palestinian delegation to the Camp David 2000 Summit and heads a group of Palestinian and Israeli academics working towards a peace agreement.[17] The list's main platform is security reforms, establishing the rule of law and respect for human rights."
Guess how many seats they got? (It rhymes with 'hero').
You're right, people might say that, but is it true? No, 56% is not a massive victory. 56% is almost literally if you and 9 and of your friends voted and 6 of you wanted something and 4 of you didn't (I say almost because the situation I describe is actually a larger margin of victory than 56% but I digress). Is that massive? Hardly. Just like you probably don't want someone throwing you in an identity or ideological group that you aren't part of or don't like so those 44% probably don't either. Maybe they should be speaking up louder maybe a lot of things, but also maybe they are scared and persecuted and don't want to be killed in the crossfire...the at least 5% of Palestinian Christians that make up the Gazan population I'd be willing to bet don't.
The pertinence is to remind people that Hamas is not everyone and so to simply speak in terms that removes the humanity of the innocent people on the other side simply because they live mixed within that side is a dangerous path to head down so that we do not slowly turn into the evil we are seeking to be rid of.
To be clear, in response to whatever you are assuming, my belief is that civilians should never be targeted in war, even if they are provably Nazi paedophile space aliens. The purpose of the rules of law are to limit and contain conflict, not to administrate abstract justice.
Now, as regards the public opinion of people in Gaza. First, what you probably haven't even considered is that some people who did not vote for Hamas are just as or *more* extreme. The PFLP, which quite recently entered a synagogue in West Jerusalem and massacred the people there, gouging out their eyes, also did quite well. Further, many Fatah supporters are also rejectionists, but they don't support Hamas because they are not into strict Islam. Again, Gaza has a peace party. It got no seats, because peace is not a popular policy in Gaza; war is.
I appreciate the response! So you would say that it's a de facto military occupation, basically. The seeming difference between the West Bank and Gaza is actually a propaganda smokescreen, which the Israel apologists have failed to see through. And the Israelis didn't really make any kind of concession or sacrifice when they "withdrew", it was just a different strategy for the same oppression.
I had been under the impression that Hamas was able to flourish in Gaza only because of Israel taking a genuine hands-off stance. If it was really so locked down, how could such a violently anti-Israel group become the government?
"If it was really so locked down, how could such a violently anti-Israel group become the government?"
Because it isn't and people who say so are just liars. Not everything is all that complicated.
It’s my understanding that Hamas much like bin Laden received a fair amount of support from governments that would later come to regret that support under the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. On top of that there are always people who are willing to profit off conflict.
Think about it for a minute. The US government just sent a pile of US taxpayer dollars and weapons constructed with US taxpayer dollars to Israel to fight Hamas. Hamas is using, at least in part, weapons paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and abandoned in Afghanistan. The US also sent a pile of US taxpayer dollars to help humanitarian efforts in Gaza, a substantial chunk of which will undoubtedly wind up in the control of Hamas since they hold the power in Gaza. So the US taxpayer is paying for both sides of the conflict. Meanwhile those in the US government do everything possible to pay the least amount of tax possible and also own a pile of defense contracting stocks that are doing very well right now. So the US taxpayer foots the bill for both sides of a war that has little to nothing to do with us and our political elite get rich on war profiteering. Then they raise our taxes to pay for their war. I highly doubt the American government is any sort of special sort of evil and suspect this is more the norm for how the world’s governments operate. I suspect there are plenty of people in the Israeli government who will benefit from instability and lose power or control if peace is ever established. That is why Hamas was allowed to come into and maintain power.