Yes, everything can be litigated to the beginning of time, WW-2, WW-1, the Romans. But the fact still stands that all those "moral" countries didn't hesitate to lay siege, starve people, bomb civilians, for tbh little reason. I don't recall hearing even crickets protest.
Why can't the "Islamic State" have their own country? Sure their culture of beheading and kidnapping Yazidi as slaves is a bit weird but come on.
If you read your own link, note how Israel has a near-total blockade and maintains military control. I have absolutely no love for Hamas but I also recognize that there are a ton of civilians caught between the hammer of Israeli and the anvil of Hamas with zero opportunity for self-determination. They have no control over Hamas - the last election was in 2006 so the majority of the Palestinian population has literally never once been able to vote – and they have even less influence with the Israeli government. That is a tragedy by any measure, and Israel’s wanton killing and collective punishment is a recipe for continued conflict because it ensures that there’s a constant supply of people who have a personal grudge because they know someone innocent whose life has been tragically altered.
> If you read your own link, note how Israel has a near-total blockade and maintains military control
For most of the period since 2005, it has been a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade, not an exclusively Israeli one. That has recently changed now that Israel has militarily occupied the Gaza side of the Egypt-Gaza border
But I do find it interesting how Israel gets exclusively blamed for something which Egypt also had a hand in - and they weren’t doing it because “Israel made us”, they had their own security reasons - they feared Hamas would support Islamist rebels in Egypt.
It does seem to support the claim that Israel gets “picked on”, when a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade gets presented as an exclusively Israeli one
Yes, Egypt has some control (imports still require Israeli approval) but they also do not have a great reputation internationally. Israelis are objecting to being seen like Egypt when they aspire to being seen like a western democracy rather than an authoritarian state.
> Israel did give up Gaza and gave Palestinians full control of it
From the very first paragraph in your own link:
> Since then, the United Nations, many other international humanitarian and legal organizations, and most academic commentators have continued to regard the Gaza Strip as being under Israeli occupation ...
"Full control" - except over their border, their imports, their airspace, their electromagnetic frequencies, their coastline, their construction industry, etc etc.
> WW-2, WW-1, the Romans. But the fact still stands that all those "moral" countries didn't hesitate to lay siege, starve people, bomb civilians, for tbh little reason.
... If you're taking the Romans and WW-2 as your baseline for morality, that would start to explain things.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. The reasons the UN and others still regarded Gaza as under Israeli occupation are either political or technical. In practice when Israel left Gazans got full control. They had a border with Egypt, not to mention tunnels for smuggling goods under that border. They had enough control to build a large army, tunnels, rockets etc. I.e. they had control. They were able to send people to train in Iran.
This anti-Israeli argument that somehow Israel dismantled its settlements and left but yet still "occupied" Gaza is nonsense. It does not stand any minimal scrutiny.
Yes, as a result of Gazans making a choice to engage in war with Israel there was a blockade over that territory. That's about it. Do you expect Israel to allow them to import tanks and jets?
And build and train a large military force. And build an extensive tunnel network in the entirety of the Gaza strip. Complete control over every day to day aspect of their lives, government, healthcare, police force. Elections. Extensive weapons manufacturing. Control of the borders with Israel and Gaza.
Israel has been blockading and controlling Gaza since the 90s. To argue that they've had complete control is just historically and factually wrong. Israel has been gradually tightening the screws on the region for decades.
Nobody has complete control over anything but the true story is that Israel withdrew in good faith wanting to give Palestinians a chance to build their own lives. Israel did exactly what all the good people here want it to do so badly. Stop the "occupation". Since the outcome of that doesn't fit the narrative (10's of thousands of rockets on Israel, suicide bombing attacks, Hamas taking over, leading to Oct 7th) then we need to do some mental gymnastics to somehow claim that despite Israel no longer occupying Gaza it somehow still was.
The "tightening of the screws" is a result of Palestinians deciding to wage war against Israel, build rockets, fire them into civilian populations.
It's really pretty simple. Palestinians want to destroy Israel. They have and had no interest having a "Singapore" in Gaza.
I'm not sure how you get to the 90's. We are talking about the disengagement in 2005.
I lived in Israel during this time and I know very well what the mood was. I've also seen interviews with people who were in the loop who say Ariel Sharon (who architected the withdrawal) sincerely wanted to see Palestinians succeed and use this as a blue print to also end the conflict in the west bank. International donors even bought equipment from Israel (like greenhouses) so they can leave it for the Palestinians who promptly proceeded to destroy them.
Nobody has "complete control", sure, but there's a reason Gaza doesn't have an airport (destroyed by the IDF) and can't receive aid by sea (intercepted by the IDF).
Thunberg's flotella isn't a very good example of Israel preventing aid. The flotella carried a symbolic bit of aid, and Israel didn't reject it, they just insisted that it go through proper channels rather than violate a blockade which is in place for justifiable security reasons.
They bombed the first boat. In international waters.
Extremist ideology makes people say some strange things, but the intellectual contortion dlubarov asks the reader to endure in order to see Israel as a bonafide example of “proper channels” is tantamount to lobotomy.
> The movement, founded in 2006 by activists during Israel’s war on Lebanon, went on to launch 31 boats between 2008 and 2016, five of which reached Gaza despite heavy Israeli restrictions.
> Since 2010, all flotillas attempting to break the Gaza blockade have been intercepted or attacked by Israel in international waters.
I don't quite get the point you're getting at; we're all in agreement that there is a blockade. The flotella doesn't really add anything to our understanding of the situation - we already knew there was a blockade and that unauthorized ships wouldn't be allowed to pass.
That doesn't imply much about aid; it's not a total blockade and there are mechanisms for importing aid. One can argue that the aid distribution mechanisms are bad, and it might be reasonable to propose various changes (different aid mechanisms, a relaxation of the blockade, etc), but it wouldn't really make sense for Israel to make exceptions and allow certain unauthorized ships to just circumvent its blockade.
The devil is in the details. From the river to the sea is different. There are some moderate Palestinians and then there are Hamas and other extremists. So the goal of destroying Israel has different interpretations. Moderates just want Palestine instead of Israel and Jews out "back to Europe" ( or whatever the came from) and extremists just want to slaughter (aka October 7th but their buddies Hizballah and Iran failed to help them, the "Khaiber, Khaiber" crowd that wants what ISIS did to Yezidis )
You keep repeating things that are simply not historically true. We know factually that Israel was blockading and enforcing their will in Gaza as early as 1991.
I don't see a need to engage with you further, especially as you increasingly use dog whistles to tacitly support the actions of Israel while repeating clear propaganda. Your arguments are not helping as much as you think, and only increasingly turning people against Israel as their actions become more and more obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the...
Yes, everything can be litigated to the beginning of time, WW-2, WW-1, the Romans. But the fact still stands that all those "moral" countries didn't hesitate to lay siege, starve people, bomb civilians, for tbh little reason. I don't recall hearing even crickets protest.
Why can't the "Islamic State" have their own country? Sure their culture of beheading and kidnapping Yazidi as slaves is a bit weird but come on.