6 ms·

Israel never left Gaza. They surrounded it. They controlled the entire land border and didn't let ships sail or planes take off from Gaza. It's as if, after

by throwaway920333 2y ago

Israel never left Gaza. They surrounded it. They controlled the entire land border and didn't let ships sail or planes take off from Gaza. It's as if, after a prison riot, all of the guards just said fuck 'em and decamped to a perimeter around the prison with machine guns with orders to shoot to kill. Gaza is way too small and densely populated to be remotely self-sufficient. Now, just to short-circuit the reply chain, you're going to say that Hamas would have just used the borders to move in weapons. Sure, that's true. In fact, they dug a bunch of tunnels under the Israeli controlled border crossings and smuggled in a bunch of weapons. Normal stuff like food and medicine though were constantly blocked or delayed. By the way, I don't know how to solve this problem well at this point. Both sides have done enough evil shit to each other that they will want to kill each other for generations. Israel though, has never withdrawn from Gaza, and Israel has never agreed to abide by the terms of UN Resolution 242 that obligates them to withdraw from the 1967 occupied territories. What I expect to happen based on the ground reality and statements from members of the Israeli government is that the Palestinians in Gaza will either die or have their lives be made so intolerable that they leave, and then Israel will annex the land, just as they have in Jerusalem and many areas of the West Bank.

weatherlite 2y ago
Israel did withdraw from Lebanon though, this wasn't effective at all at promoting peace as we're now seeing, and same thing has happened in Gaza; Israel did uproot all the settlers from Gaza and there was no single Israeli soldier left in Gaza - you can say the Gaza withdrawal was incomplete but saying it never happened at all is incorrect. Unfortunately Israelis only learned that withdrawals from enemies who have sworn to destroy you only make things worse for them.
invalidname 2y ago
[flagged]
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  > As long as Hamas exists in a functioning form there can be no peace. I think the big problem with this approach is that actions taken now, which lead to deaths, lead to the friends & family of said people becoming more radicalised and thus to more terror attacks/wars in the future. I read recently in the FT that 60% of current Hamas fighters have lost family to previous conflicts, suggesting that this isn't going to end. And more generally, it's basically impossible for conventional armies to defeat guerilla fighters who have the support of the population (c.f. Irish/English conflicts, Iraq, Afghanisation (multiple times) etc). Like, fundamentally the only way this can end is through either extermination or negotiation. Given the relative power imbalances, it'll be extermination of the Palestinians, which would be terrible (and incredibly depressing given that a lot of Israeli citizens are descended from survivors of the Holocausts and the various pogroms in European history).
  - invalidname 2y ago
    I used to be of that mindset and no longer am. Hamas killed more people in a single day than the IRA killed in its entire existence. The Irish conflict which is more similar to the conflict Israel has in the west bank, is mostly a territorial conflict. If it were true that violence breeds violence then Jews would have blown up post war Germany with suicide vests. It was still filled with Nazis and their collaborators. Hamas is a different story, there's no amount of negotiations or compromise that will placate a fanatic. They will probably keep doing these things forever just like Isis didn't fully go away. But once the leadership got cut down Isis found it much harder to pull off the same level of terror. I agree that this needs to be a dual motion. Young frustrated people are kindle for these organizations and this won't work without a peace process that would give hope to the people. That's why I don't have any faith in the current Israeli government. I hope it can be replaced so there would be a parallel process that would help rebuild and pave a way for peace again.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      I agree that the Irish conflict is more like the West Bank (but that's super super bad and has been for a long time) and that October 7th was much more destructive than anything in the Troubles. Like, it's worth noting that the core of the nationalist and unionist terrorists still live in Ireland and engage in a bunch of criminality. These organizations don't disband, they just die off/become politicians. The big problem with Israel making peace is that it appears a solid majority don't want that, which depresses the hell out of me.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Their slogan in Arabic is "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab", the river and the sea are the borders of Israel and its tantamount to "kill all the Jews". There are many variants of the slogan of course, but for some reason you're picking one of the more uncommon (and more virulent) versions. However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel, and from which nobody will be expelled. This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version. Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
  - invalidname 2y ago
    > However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) The PLO recognizes that Israel has a right to exist and has abandoned official "armed resistance" approaches. They understand that this never worked and ultimately only hurt the Palestinian people. I'm explicitly talking about Hamas and making a clear distinction between them and the Palestinian people at large. > use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews That was suggested in the past and has gone back in vogue for some extreme liberals but it's probably not what any side wants. I don't think it's something that's workable. See Lebanon as a case in point where three different conflicting cultures are constantly violently clashing. > This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version. Well... What *some* people mean doesn't really mean anything. There was a Nordic Journalist who recorded pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the Arabic slogans people yelled were VERY different. But even without that. Hamas is looking at these protests and seeing them as Israel losing support. So they keep fighting, keep holding hostages and keep sending children as carriers. Netanyahu points at these demonstrations as how the world is turning anti-semetic so Israelis MUST fight for their home. And yes, Israelis 100% hear "Palestine will be free of Jews". Trump is pointing at them as a failure of the liberals... These protests are only helping bad people and increasing strife. If they were indeed pro-Palestinian they would carry both flags in support of a two state solution. They would also support the cause of returning the hostages. They are now for peace, they are anti-Israel protests. > Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." That was not an official slogan but yes people on the more extreme right did sing it. People still do and also say worse things. There are several big problems with whataboutism... Palestinians are the weaker part of this situation, violence will always end up worse for them. That's why the PLO abandoned that approach (at least officially excluding lynch mobs), it doesn't help Palestinians to keep that rhetoric. Also the Likud was the party that voted to leave Gaza. That included Netanyhau who signed that law. A PM who originated from the Likud offered a Palestinian state in 2008.
- throwaway920333 2y ago
  Israel does not exist around Gaza. It exists on two sides of Gaza. On the Egyptian border, Israel has made an agreement with Egypt to prevent imports and exports, and on the Mediterranean, they prevent access to the sea by force. Israel has long prevented the import of all sorts of goods. They do not provide "everything necessary." Israel also has prevented the export of almost all goods, so that the Palestinians will have no money and be completely dependent on Israel to provide for basic needs. I'm sure you're right that if the border were opened up that Hamas would import weapons and attack Israel, which is why Israel surrounded Gaza, as I said. As you say, "peace requires proof", but that goes both ways, and ever since Camp David collapsed, Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements, and generally making the lives of the Palestinians intolerable, often in capricious ways that do not enhance Israeli security. The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
  - rasz 2y ago
    >they prevent access So this "A 21-year-old woman kidnapped by Islamic State militants in Iraq a decade ago" came to Gaza thru Israel? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed-gaza-us-led-operation-after-decade-captivity-2024-10-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed...
  - invalidname 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwaway920333 2y ago
      I think we're in agreement then. The current, democratically elected government of Israel intends to remove the Palestinian population and annex the territories. When you talk about "a*holes like Netanyahu", he's the Prime Minister, and has been for something like 17 of the last 30 years. He speaks for the country. If Israelis don't support his actions, they should elect someone different.

weatherlite 2y ago

Israel did withdraw from Lebanon though, this wasn't effective at all at promoting peace as we're now seeing, and same thing has happened in Gaza; Israel did uproot all the settlers from Gaza and there was no single Israeli soldier left in Gaza - you can say the Gaza withdrawal was incomplete but saying it never happened at all is incorrect. Unfortunately Israelis only learned that withdrawals from enemies who have sworn to destroy you only make things worse for them.

invalidname 2y ago

[flagged]

disgruntledphd2 2y ago
> As long as Hamas exists in a functioning form there can be no peace. I think the big problem with this approach is that actions taken now, which lead to deaths, lead to the friends & family of said people becoming more radicalised and thus to more terror attacks/wars in the future. I read recently in the FT that 60% of current Hamas fighters have lost family to previous conflicts, suggesting that this isn't going to end. And more generally, it's basically impossible for conventional armies to defeat guerilla fighters who have the support of the population (c.f. Irish/English conflicts, Iraq, Afghanisation (multiple times) etc). Like, fundamentally the only way this can end is through either extermination or negotiation. Given the relative power imbalances, it'll be extermination of the Palestinians, which would be terrible (and incredibly depressing given that a lot of Israeli citizens are descended from survivors of the Holocausts and the various pogroms in European history).
- invalidname 2y ago
  I used to be of that mindset and no longer am. Hamas killed more people in a single day than the IRA killed in its entire existence. The Irish conflict which is more similar to the conflict Israel has in the west bank, is mostly a territorial conflict. If it were true that violence breeds violence then Jews would have blown up post war Germany with suicide vests. It was still filled with Nazis and their collaborators. Hamas is a different story, there's no amount of negotiations or compromise that will placate a fanatic. They will probably keep doing these things forever just like Isis didn't fully go away. But once the leadership got cut down Isis found it much harder to pull off the same level of terror. I agree that this needs to be a dual motion. Young frustrated people are kindle for these organizations and this won't work without a peace process that would give hope to the people. That's why I don't have any faith in the current Israeli government. I hope it can be replaced so there would be a parallel process that would help rebuild and pave a way for peace again.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    I agree that the Irish conflict is more like the West Bank (but that's super super bad and has been for a long time) and that October 7th was much more destructive than anything in the Troubles. Like, it's worth noting that the core of the nationalist and unionist terrorists still live in Ireland and engage in a bunch of criminality. These organizations don't disband, they just die off/become politicians. The big problem with Israel making peace is that it appears a solid majority don't want that, which depresses the hell out of me.
aguaviva 2y ago
Their slogan in Arabic is "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab", the river and the sea are the borders of Israel and its tantamount to "kill all the Jews". There are many variants of the slogan of course, but for some reason you're picking one of the more uncommon (and more virulent) versions. However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel, and from which nobody will be expelled. This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version. Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
- invalidname 2y ago
  > However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) The PLO recognizes that Israel has a right to exist and has abandoned official "armed resistance" approaches. They understand that this never worked and ultimately only hurt the Palestinian people. I'm explicitly talking about Hamas and making a clear distinction between them and the Palestinian people at large. > use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews That was suggested in the past and has gone back in vogue for some extreme liberals but it's probably not what any side wants. I don't think it's something that's workable. See Lebanon as a case in point where three different conflicting cultures are constantly violently clashing. > This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version. Well... What *some* people mean doesn't really mean anything. There was a Nordic Journalist who recorded pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the Arabic slogans people yelled were VERY different. But even without that. Hamas is looking at these protests and seeing them as Israel losing support. So they keep fighting, keep holding hostages and keep sending children as carriers. Netanyahu points at these demonstrations as how the world is turning anti-semetic so Israelis MUST fight for their home. And yes, Israelis 100% hear "Palestine will be free of Jews". Trump is pointing at them as a failure of the liberals... These protests are only helping bad people and increasing strife. If they were indeed pro-Palestinian they would carry both flags in support of a two state solution. They would also support the cause of returning the hostages. They are now for peace, they are anti-Israel protests. > Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." That was not an official slogan but yes people on the more extreme right did sing it. People still do and also say worse things. There are several big problems with whataboutism... Palestinians are the weaker part of this situation, violence will always end up worse for them. That's why the PLO abandoned that approach (at least officially excluding lynch mobs), it doesn't help Palestinians to keep that rhetoric. Also the Likud was the party that voted to leave Gaza. That included Netanyhau who signed that law. A PM who originated from the Likud offered a Palestinian state in 2008.
throwaway920333 2y ago
Israel does not exist around Gaza. It exists on two sides of Gaza. On the Egyptian border, Israel has made an agreement with Egypt to prevent imports and exports, and on the Mediterranean, they prevent access to the sea by force. Israel has long prevented the import of all sorts of goods. They do not provide "everything necessary." Israel also has prevented the export of almost all goods, so that the Palestinians will have no money and be completely dependent on Israel to provide for basic needs. I'm sure you're right that if the border were opened up that Hamas would import weapons and attack Israel, which is why Israel surrounded Gaza, as I said. As you say, "peace requires proof", but that goes both ways, and ever since Camp David collapsed, Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements, and generally making the lives of the Palestinians intolerable, often in capricious ways that do not enhance Israeli security. The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
- rasz 2y ago
  >they prevent access So this "A 21-year-old woman kidnapped by Islamic State militants in Iraq a decade ago" came to Gaza thru Israel? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed-gaza-us-led-operation-after-decade-captivity-2024-10-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed...
- invalidname 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway920333 2y ago
    I think we're in agreement then. The current, democratically elected government of Israel intends to remove the Palestinian population and annex the territories. When you talk about "a*holes like Netanyahu", he's the Prime Minister, and has been for something like 17 of the last 30 years. He speaks for the country. If Israelis don't support his actions, they should elect someone different.