By Henri Astier BBC News
Israel has suggested that the long-term aim of its military campaign in Gaza is to sever all links with the territory.
Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said that once Hamas had been defeated, Israel would end its “responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip”.
Before the conflict, Israel supplied Gaza with most of its energy needs and monitored imports into the territory.
…
They had complete control of Gaza and the whole Sinai Peninsula. Which quadrupled the size of land Israel controlled. But they gave control back to Egypt to make peace in 1978. Then in 2004-05 they completely withdrew from Gaza and dismantled and (sometimes forcefully) removed all settlements and settlers in an attempt at making peace.
Now in the first situation since for 45 years, the two groups have maintained peace. The other Arab nations were less peaceful with Israel, however. Islamic jihadists even assassinated Sadat. But there has been peace with Israel.
In the second, they used it an opportunity to essentially become a terrorist controlled territory. And increased the attacks. And reject any peace negotiations.
So what should Israel do? What solution might you suggest.
If they want to make Gaza a independent state, then let them have unrestricted maritime trade access with the world. Build them enough water and power capability to self sustain - then they can truly say ‘we did all that we could do, our responsibility is over’
This escape from new york style prison city with no trade, no water, no electricity, and no imports, isn’t going to make peaceful neighbors.
Populations that co-depend on each other for economic success are more peaceful, trade, and integration are keys to long term stability.
deleted by creator
It’s only responsible that any decolonization process have the colonizer ensure basic services exists at the time of independence. In this circumstance the colonizer has prevented any imports of technology which could be used to create energy and water independence. Not to mention the bombing of infrastructure over time. They had more power generating capacity, but it’s been bombed.
So if you want to get to a clean slate, clean hands, you need to provide the bare minimum so that there’s not an immediate humanitarian crisis when you give them full independence, and you’re no longer responsible.
That being said I’m sure the Palestinian people would value independence over water and electricity, as long as they’re allowed to trade with other countries, they will take independence and a humanitarian emergency any day over no independence. It’s just not a good look for the colonizer
Look the problem is that is that any official actions by any government is done on paper and you may have “good” interactions or good feelings with any number of people in their governing organizations, but technically on paper they are very clear on their objectives, that is the annihilation of the state of Israel and its citizens. The question is how can you allow them to bring anything they want inside the country without supervision when it is part of their written policies in laws to use what they have available to attack another country. If they changed their constitution, that would be a first step to trust.
If you’re saying they’re an independent country and you’re not responsible, fine, treat them like an independent country. Don’t embargo their sea trade
If you are going to control what goes in and out, and not let people leave, and not let trade happen, call it what it is, a prison.
Governments running prisons have obligations and responsibilities to prisoners. Water food health care
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed under Rule 4. We aren’t going to let people call for the dissolution of a state or people. It doesn’t matter if they’re Israeli or Palestinian.
Okay but you have to understand that by doing so you are decidedly and actively shifting the discourse to favour the Israelis, right?
Not if the discussion moves towards the Israeli talking points of the Palestinians are animals who need to be exterminated.
Atticles exposing that outlook are definitely allowed, comments advocating it are not.
No my point is that in an asymmetrical situation like this actions banning speaking out over “both sides” really only favours one side.
Like if we have an issue with a large group of homophobes who have systemic power calling for the death of gay people, and in return those gay people making similar statements about those homopohbes because the homophobes want them dead, then by giving those two opinions equal value and banning them both you are intrinsically favouring the homophobes as they both hold the power and are morally in the wrong.