Hamas attacks Israel with kit rockets and AK47's... US sends aircraft carrier in support.

[MigL]

Attempting to compare the 'liberalism' ( or lack of ) of Gaza and Israel is akin to D Trump saying "There are good people on both sides".

[TheVat]

Nope.  You are seemingly denying the words and actions of Bibi and his Far Right coalition.  Bibi has said on multiple occasions that there is no two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty, or any return of stolen land.  That's not someone seeking peace or justice for all parties.   His position is a radical Zionist position backed up with harassment and killing of West Bank people, fomenting vigilante murder done by illegal settlers,  massive and indiscriminate bombing that has in the current war killed over 18,000 civilians, half of them children, use of white phosphorus, starvation of civilians, murder of POWs and surrendered soldiers, etc.  These are the actions of an unlawful and immoral regime.  There is nothing liberal about them, and my sympathies to the Israelis who have broken free of their national news bubble and realize what their government is doing.

So yes, I will compare the illiberal actions of both Israel and Hamas.  Look up "Israel War Crimes" on Wikipedia - it's a real eye-opener.

[MigL]

And Bibi is just an election away from the dustbin of history.
If Israelis are no longer afraid of incoming rockets and suicide bombs, that is.

What 'election' will get rid of Hamas if Palestinians are no longer afraid of IDF retaliation ???

How many 'war crimes' would Gaza, and its effective government , Hamas, have perpetrated, through their indiscriminate rockets fired  into civilian population, if it wasn't for Israeli tech, and  keeping munitions  out of Gaza ( that's what Hamas uses their tunnels for ), but some call those attempts a 'concentration camp'.

I will agree that both sides have a long way to go to establish a lasting peace, but the solution for Israel is evident; for Gaza, not so much.

Edited December 13, 2023 by MigL

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm astonished that there can really be so much debate as to whether Gaza is a place of inhumane confinement or not.  Numerous posts have documented this reality.   Few people could leave, except for maybe half a percent who had work permits (also a feature of some prisons).  Food and water constantly rationed.  Normal trade and economic opportunities blocked.  Every few years, jets pass over and destroy part of the infrastructure and housing.  Who gives a FF what it's called, it is still inhumane and strips people of basic sovereignty over their own lives. 

Weird that members here who could easily grasp the miseries of places like East Berlin or the Ghetto of Warsaw, find it difficult to empathize with the 99% of Palestinians who are not Hamas militants and are simply trying to survive.  

Both Israel and Hamas are at fault, each feeding the endless cycle of vengeful hatred and reprisal, each dominated by an illiberal and miltant faction in a part of the world where liberalism is most sorely needed.  

Israel's MO is to constantly play the victim to justify its asymmetric ability to apply aggression.

Interesting to see Biden losing his grip on the situation and inability to rein in Netanyahu and his coalition attack dogs. Netanyahu/Ben-Givr will stop when the situation suits them strategically.

Edited December 13, 2023 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How many 'war crimes' would Gaza, and its effective government , Hamas, have perpetrated, through their indiscriminate rockets fired  into civilian population, if it wasn't for Israeli tech, and  keeping munitions  out of Gaza ( that's what Hamas uses their tunnels for ), but some call those attempts a 'concentration camp'.

There are numerous publications investigating the decline of terrorism. While there is not necessary broad agreement on how to fight terrorism and how unique each case might be, there is evidence that repressive military force has little evidence for being a solution. Most effects were found to temporary, counterproductive or export the issue to other countries. Targeted elimination of leadership will (hopefully) reduce Hamas' capabilities in the short term. In the long-term only a lasting peace agreement can end the conflict. And this has to include violence in the West Bank (again, where Hamas is not a major player). 

How do you remove Hamas? Present the Palestinian people a viable alternative. Something that promises peace and self-determination. Netanyahu understood that, which is why he bolstered Hamas. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

nd Bibi is just an election away from the dustbin of history.

And who comes after him? If folks are sufficiently afraid the idea of suppression is likely to continue. And where does it leave the option for peace?

[geordief]

The thing I find confusing is that on the one hand it must be clear that Israel has such a back history of truly despicable behaviour against the Jews down the years culminating in the most odious collective stain on our common civilisation  that it is incredible to imagine that it can be forced out of its one  last refuge. 

On the other hand its  behaviour has more or less united (if they dare speak it) all the countries in the world against them.

It seems like the irresistible object meeting the immovable force.

Noone has any idea how this car crash develops

I hope Netanjahu gets his comeuppance but it would be more than naive to suppose that his removal (and being held to account) will move anything forward.

It feels like this drama has its own life force  and is pulling us all along with it.

Against that Israel has only been in existence for 75 years -a blink in the eye of nothing at at and so there is all the time in the world for things to evolve (at their own pace) 

[CharonY]

Also, some thoughts from folks who have thought more deeply about it:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/opinion/gaza-israel-palestinians-plans.html

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

there is evidence that repressive military force has little evidence for being a solution.

Yet repressive military force seems to  counter terrorism quite well in places like Iraq under S Hussein, Russia/USSR, China, and a lot of South American countries under oppressive regimes.
It is a non-viable solution for OTHER evident reasons.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

How do you remove Hamas? Present the Palestinian people a viable alternative.

Palestinians need to present themselves with  a viable alternative.
They did not accept the PA, and will certainly not accept anything presented by Israel.
So that is not a solution to the Hamas problem for Israel.
What else have you got ?

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

And who comes after him? If folks are sufficiently afraid the idea of suppression is likely to continue.

That is why I said as soon as Israelis are no longer afraid ( of the threat from Gaza, and other neighbors ), Netanyahu will be gone.
If, on the other hand, Hamas is allowed to retain power( along with Hezbollah, and Iranian backing/interference ) then it is guaranteed that sooner, rather than later, someone even worse than Netanyahu will come to power and push for a 'final solution' to the Gaza problem.

PS
The English were subjected to the imminent threat of air raid sirens for a couple of nerve racking years, during the battle of Britain.
Rockets fired into Israel from neighbors have been activating air raid sirens for about 50 years.
I think that would scare and stress out most people who are just trying to live their lives.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Palestinians need to present themselves with  a viable alternative.
They did not accept the PA, and will certainly not accept anything presented by Israel.
So that is not a solution to the Hamas problem for Israel.
What else have you got ?

And which party is able to present themselves as viable alternative if they are not supported or otherwise seen to be able to talk to Israel as equals? What should they do in response of getting displaced by Israeli settlers, for example?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That is why I said as soon as Israelis are no longer afraid ( of the threat from Gaza, and other neighbors ), Netanyahu will be gone.

Yet Netanyahu was not the only one responsible for propping up Hamas. 

 

Some excerpt from the opinion series linked above that focus on potential solutions and way forward, rather than playing the blame game.

Peter Beinart

Quote

But while Israel can depose Hamas, its leaders have not explained how it can rule Gaza — either directly or by proxy — without inviting a future insurgency. That insurgency will be powered by Palestinians seeking revenge, since, as Israeli experts have noted, Hamas recruits fighters from the families of people Israel kills. As that quagmire deepens, Israel would look about as strong and competent as the United States did when it could not quash insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
 

To negotiate seriously with Israel, Palestinians need legitimate leaders — not the discredited Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, who hasn’t stood for election since 2005. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has advised in the past, Israel should release the imprisoned Palestinian nationalist Marwan Barghouti, who is more popular than the leaders of Hamas. Mr. Barghouti was convicted of murder and membership in a terrorist organization during a trial at which he declined to offer a defense and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction. But despite defending Palestinians’ right to violently resist Israeli oppression, he has also lauded Nelson Mandela’s willingness to “defy hatred and to choose justice over vengeance.”

Israel should then empower Mr. Barghouti and other credible, non-Hamas Palestinian leaders by showing that they can improve Palestinian lives and give Palestinians hope that they will gain their freedom. It should begin dismantling the West Bank settlements whose inhabitants terrorize their Palestinian neighbors and help Palestinians forced from their villages by settler violence to return. It should prevent Jewish ultranationalists from undermining the status quo on the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, and promise not to establish diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia until Palestinians are free.

Ehud Olmert:

Quote

As that campaign now continues, Israel, the United States and other allies in parallel must agree on the deployment of an international force drawn from NATO countries, with their deployment agreed on by Israel and the United States and operating under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council.

The international force would take the place of the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza. Arab nations will probably not be willing to send in troops. While Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia desire nothing more than the destruction of Hamas, which is a destabilizing force for their own governments, none will want to be seen as lending a hand to Israel’s military campaign.

The international force would help create a different governmental administration and would start to rebuild the civilian authorities and governing systems in the Gaza Strip for approximately 18 months.

Israel must announce that with the cessation of its military campaign, talks will immediately begin with the Palestinian Authority based on a two-state solution — which is the only political horizon that can offer stability and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians and diplomatic, military and economic cooperation between Israel and the moderate Arab states.

Limor Yehuda, Omar Dajani, John McGarry:

Quote

THE MOST PROMISING COURSE of action, and one that has not been widely discussed, is a temporary international trusteeship under a U.N. Security Council mandate encompassing Gaza and the West Bank, not just for Gaza. Such a trusteeship would offer a viable immediate alternative to Israeli rule, which is unacceptable to Palestinians and counterproductive for Israel; to Hamas, which cannot serve as an acceptable interlocutor; and to the Palestinian Authority, which needs reform and revitalization to regain public trust.

 

[MigL]

I would suggest that the 'blame game' is being played by all, including you and the writers of the NYT link.
Why is the onus always on Israel to do this or that, as a means of resolving the issue ?
Is it because they are expected to be reasonable , while Hamas/Palestinians are not ?
Why is Israel expected to provide Palestinians with reasonable leaders when they themselves choose unreasonable ones like Hamas ?
Why, in other words, are we absolving Palestinians from any responsibility in the matter ?

You say Israel should worry about the fact that Hamas recruits from the families whose members were killed by the IDF, thereby ensuring a never-ending supply of fighters and continued Hamas presence; I say Palestinians should be worried that if the hardliners get their way, there are only 2.3 Million possible new recruits that they have to get rid of.

Who do you think should worry more about these two worst case outcomes ?
It seems only logical that those who have the most to lose should take more actions to prevent the worst case scenario, in the same way that I look both ways before crossing a road, not simply expecting car drivers to look out for me, as I would be much worse off in a car vs. me collision.

[CharonY]

Hamas is a terrorist organization. What onus do you want to put on them? Yes Palestinians are worried that they may get wiped out. So why should they think that throwing themselves at the mercy of those with the power to wipe them out will work out?

And why is the discussion focused on Israel? Well you just argued that one party is in the position to wipe the other one out.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

You mean like the following?

8 hours ago, joigus said:

And sure, let's not mention that big, scary, monstrous, barbaric, medieval, inhumane, irrational, unmentionable thing that we don't want to mention, lest we finally understand somehow what we're really dealing with here.

No, that's no example of either one of them, because:

Quote

 

Big: large in size, degree, amount, etc.

Scary: frightening

Monstrous: considered to be shocking and unacceptable because it is morally wrong or unfair

Barbaric: cruel and violent and not as expected from people who are educated and respect each other

Medieval: connected with the Middle Ages (about AD 1000 to AD 1450)

Inhumane: not caring about the pain or problems of other people or animals; very cruel

Irrational: not based on, or not using, clear logical thought

Unmentionable: too shocking or embarrassing to be mentioned or spoken about

 

(from oxfordlearnersdictionary.com)

At what point did I cross into 'hyperbolic' or 'metaphoric'? I think I was quite literal. Flooding the sentence with adjectives does not constitute by itself any kind of exaggeration or dishonest comparison. Each and every one of those adjectives totally apply to Hamas' way of launching their "liberation war".

The part "lest we finally understand somehow what we're really dealing with here" was intended as sarcasm. Demagogues rarely use sarcasm. But I am guilty of sarcasm, that's all.

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

I have no idea how that ties into whether or not you can compare Gaza to a concentration camp.

Well, things going on in alleged concentration camp and what kind of reactions, comings and goings --or lack thereof-- take place, have some bearing on judging whether said place is a concentration camp or not. But never mind. I do recognise that as possibly the weakest part of my argument.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Weird that members here who could easily grasp the miseries of places like East Berlin or the Ghetto of Warsaw, find it difficult to empathize with the 99% of Palestinians who are not Hamas militants and are simply trying to survive.  

I'm glad that wasn't intended for me:

On 12/9/2023 at 1:41 PM, joigus said:

and it breaks my heart seeing Palestinian kids used as cannon fodder by Hamas,

Unless it's actually me and you think I'm lying and really I don't care about that 99%? I wonder where you got that number from.

Of course Gazans are the first victims of most of what's going on there. Never mind that 3/4 of them seem to have applauded the mayhem of 10-7. What do they know? Regular Abdullah or Fatimah in the street is no political analyst. Not to mention the poor kids.

And,

Never mind it's quite impossible to tell which one is a civilian and which one is not. UNRWA also plays a big role in decreeing that no Palestinian will be relocated, that never mind that Hamas has been documented as stealing supplies, and that the condition of refugee (only for Palestinians) lasts forever and is inherited from parents to children, to grandchildren, to grand grandchildren, and so on for all of eternity, so that they can never ever go to a safe place. Never mind that the UNRWA (a refugee-problem managing organisation that's exclusively for the Palestinian problem) has been found to publish twits incriminating Hamas, only to delete them minutes later.

Here's a sequence of "innocent civilians" manhandling a woman that's been identified as Re'im music-festival attendant, Art student Inbar Haiman, after an Israeli air strike,

These poor people are in a multi-pronged stranglehold by their own religious creed, some neighbour countries not really giving a f**k about them, Netanyahu making deals with the devil and hard-pressed for expediency, and other neighbour countries pushing their particular agendas. A horrible tragedy for all involved that will go on and on, be in no doubt about it. As it's only too obvious seeing how the roots of the problem are not even being addressed.

Two-state solution. Yeah, righ! See you in 10 years to check how that's gone down.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

Ehud Olmert:

Suggesting NATO countries take over from the IDF? At what point? Near future?

Make it their job to root out Hamas and bring those criminals to justice?

Under the auspices of the UN?

Maybe after the war Hamas started is over?

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

Limor Yehuda, Omar Dajani, John McGarry:

 

This also requires Hamas removal from the equation

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Peter Beinart

This suggests Israel promoting their choice of leadership to the Palestinians.

I guess it's good to look at the better possibilities even if they seem like longshots.

Might help eventually lead to a plausible solution where none seem workable at this time.

But right now it seems like Hamas's removal is essential as a start, and only Israel is willing to do that. Until it's done or a reasonable proposal to take on that task by others willing to do it no one should be requiring any more of Israel than abiding by agreed laws of war to the degree that protects civilians (which unfortunately will never be sufficient even with other countries stepping in to take over the task of Hamas's removal). Insisting on Israel abiding by a truce they haven't agreed to, in a war declared by Hamas, requires a commitment to upholding the peace that no one is currently willing to offer.

 

I will say though, that the rules of war could use significant improvement. I just don't know how.

Maybe though as a start, a commitment to sanctions not just against obvious aggressors, but to those unwilling to sanction them or continue to support them...

If NATO does form a task force to take over from the IDF to root out Hamas and bring the criminals to justice I think a good name for the operation might be "The Final Crusade".

Edited December 14, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[geordief]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If NATO does form a task force to take over from the IDF to root out Hamas and bring the criminals to justice I think a good name for the operation might be ........"The Final Crusade" (my edit)

Seriously,or did you just mislay the sarcasm emoji?

[dimreepr]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:44 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because here, although we have evolved to have the capacity for peaceful coexistence, we have also all evolved to have the capacity for instinct to take advantage of those that demonstrate excessive pacifism.

When not sure we tend to poke the bear to find out...

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to be divorced from reality.

The reality in this case is, hamas poked the bear and now it just wants to kill the humans.

Like I said many pages ago, a far more aggressive approach to the situation is to smother their army with pacifism, that's heroism; killing babies is much easier, because the cowards among us demand it... 

As long as they don't have to look...

Edited December 14, 2023 by dimreepr

[iNow]

In this horrible situation, where nuance matters a lot, 

We keep aligning with extremes, helpful it is not. 

We agree Hamas is evil, different from Palestine,

And Israeli response asymmetric, at least adjacent to a crime. 

We can pick at nits and exaggerate where we each disagree,

Or we can advocate for the end of killing, and for humans to all be free.

Limericks are much easier to write than stopping endless war,

I’m in town all week folks, when you’re ready for some more. 
 

 

The Final Crusade: Starring Sylvester Stallone and Dolf Lundgren, coming soon to theaters near you 

[dimreepr]

+ 1

Edited December 14, 2023 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Why is the onus always on Israel to do this or that, as a means of resolving the issue ?
Is it because they are expected to be reasonable , while Hamas/Palestinians are not ?
Why is Israel expected to provide Palestinians with reasonable leaders when they themselves choose unreasonable ones like Hamas ?
Why, in other words, are we absolving Palestinians from any responsibility in the matter ?

This is my opinion only and it may be misguided in part but...

The Palestinians feel oppressed by the Israelis. They seem to have two options wrt to Israel; accept the limits placed on them by Israel or lash out. They cannot take land by force, limit the movement of Israelis, cut off food or water for the Israelis, control communications or trade of the Israelis, etc. About all they can do is lash out periodically then take the beating that follows.

By comparison the Israelis are the more powerful of the two groups and as such have more options. All of the things the Palestinians cannot do, the Israelis can, and much more.

The Palestinians basically have one thing they can offer; a cessation of hostilities. The Israelis can offer the same, as well as freedom of movement, land, trade, money, political support, and all the other things a successful nation has at their disposal.

The natural tendency of many third party observers is to expect that the party in power, who has more options, to work toward resolution. And thus that is why we put the onus on Israel to do more than the Palestinians; because the Israelis CAN do more.

Both sides need to concede to some extent if they want peace, but the Israelis have more and thus are going to have to give up more than the Palestinians if they want that to happen. Israel is suffering less than the Palestinians and thus can live with the status quo more easily.

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Seriously,or did you just mislay the sarcasm emoji?

I didn't think it was required. Kidding, but serious that NATO countries should not get directly involved, other than perhaps peacekeeping along with non NATO countries after Hamas is removed aside.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The reality in this case is, hamas poked the bear and now it just wants to kill the humans.

Like I said many pages ago, a far more aggressive approach to the situation is to smother their army with pacifism, that's heroism; killing babies is much easier, because the cowards among us demand it... 

As long as they don't have to look...

If somehow some elements of your suggestion could be incorporated in a pragmatic solution, that would be a very good thing.

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This is my opinion only and it may be misguided in part but...

The Palestinians feel oppressed by the Israelis. They seem to have two options wrt to Israel; accept the limits placed on them by Israel or lash out. They cannot take land by force, limit the movement of Israelis, cut off food or water for the Israelis, control communications or trade of the Israelis, etc. About all they can do is lash out periodically then take the beating that follows.

By comparison the Israelis are the more powerful of the two groups and as such have more options. All of the things the Palestinians cannot do, the Israelis can, and much more.

The Palestinians basically have one thing they can offer; a cessation of hostilities. The Israelis can offer the same, as well as freedom of movement, land, trade, money, political support, and all the other things a successful nation has at their disposal.

The natural tendency of many third party observers is to expect that the party in power, who has more options, to work toward resolution. And thus that is why we put the onus on Israel to do more than the Palestinians; because the Israelis CAN do more.

Both sides need to concede to some extent if they want peace, but the Israelis have more and thus are going to have to give up more than the Palestinians if they want that to happen. Israel is suffering less than the Palestinians and thus can live with the status quo more easily.

 

They can do more than the Palestinians, but unfortunately they cannot do more than all of the Arab and Islamic countries, which in population outnumber them 200 to 1. So if just 1% are willing to continue to act against them they are outnumbered 2 to 1.

The Palestinians are isolated by all other nations in peace, but not in war, nor in acts of terror.

Also add that it seems very unlikely to me that in numbers Hamas represents only 1% of the Gazan Palestinians. Surely many more condone their actions. I don't think they would have survived as long as they have if that was the case. Though I don't know

Edited December 14, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They can do more than the Palestinians, but unfortunately they cannot do more than all of the Arab and Islamic countries,

Do they have to do more than all Arab countries? They are not oppressing all of Arabia, only all of Palestine. Doesn't the give and take only have to happen between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Israel has made a separate peace with individual Islamic countries, can't they do similarly with the Palestinians?

[CharonY]

The idea of the longshots is to look at potential scenarios because the only other ones I have seen in this thread is basically Israel commits genocide or the Palestinians submit fully to Israeli rulership in a rather nebulous but forever peaceful way.

Saying that killing any number of Gazans of any age is alright because Hamas does nothing except to make folks feel better about the ensuing suffering. The US is currently urging Israel to switch to more targeted "commando-style" attacks (similar to what some of the folks in the above link suggested. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The idea of the longshots is to look at potential scenarios because the only other ones I have seen in this thread is basically Israel commits genocide or the Palestinians submit fully to Israeli rulership in a rather nebulous but forever peaceful way.

Saying that killing any number of Gazans of any age is alright because Hamas does nothing except to make folks feel better about the ensuing suffering. The US is currently urging Israel to switch to more targeted "commando-style" attacks (similar to what some of the folks in the above link suggested. 

I was critical of the longshots individually but not the idea of bringing them up. +1 in fact.

As I said maybe they will help someone somewhere come up with something that might work.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do they have to do more than all Arab countries? They are not oppressing all of Arabia, only all of Palestine. Doesn't the give and take only have to happen between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Israel has made a separate peace with individual Islamic countries, can't they do similarly with the Palestinians?

Most directly, Iran supports Hamas and it's terrorist activities. Hezbollah in Lebanon as well. Other Arab countries have supporters of Hamas. And as I mentioned Israel is outnumbered by the Islamic population 200 to 1, so a relatively small percentage of support becomes quite significant. Given that, Gaza is not quite as powerless as it might seem especially given the willingness to resort to terror and to hide behind civilians.

Edited December 14, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[AIkonoklazt]

I still can't get over the fact that Congress basically took military aid money away from Ukraine and directed at the IDF instead.

Could someone explain to me how it somehow isn't simple political pettiness driving such a move? As in how it's practical. IDF needs that aid more than Ukraine? Ukraine doing better on the battlefield than IDF? The approaching winter is more urgent for IDF than Ukraine??

[MigL]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

The idea of the longshots is to look at potential scenarios because the only other ones I have seen in this thread is basically Israel commits genocide or the Palestinians submit fully to Israeli rulership in a rather nebulous but forever peaceful way.

Are we still talking about Gaza ?
Because that is not how some of us see the situation.

In 2005 Israel pulled out their occupying forces from Gaza, and pretty well left them on their own as a separate state. They did control border crossings into Israel, as any sovereign state does, to prevent armaments/suicide bombs from crossing. They also controlled sea access for the same security reasons, and their 'control' might be a little more strict because of past occurrences, but I also have to present a passport when entering the US ( did not need one 25 years ago ), and the Coast Guard controls sea access to the US mainland.
The border between Gaza and the Sinai is controlled by Egypt, and I expect it is rather porous, and the entry point for those thousands of rockets Hamas fires at Israel.
Yet even though the Egypt/Gaza border is also fenced, and 'controlled', no one, not even the UN, accuses Egypt of being an apartheid state, like they do Israel ( maybe if Israel starts letting arms/bombs through, the UN will stop calling them an apartheid state also ).

But lets return to 2005.
What did Gaza do with their newfound freedom ( except, of course, restrictions on importing arms, and exporting terror into Israel ) ?
Did the build resorts along their beautiful beaches, to bring in foreign ( maybe even Israeli ) currency ?
Did they drill for gas, within their limits of the South-East Mediterranean, an area rich in natural gas ( just ask the Israelis ) ?

No to all the above.
They allowed Hamas (who are controlled/supported by the Iranians ) to take over and pursue their strategy of 'revenge at any cost', which culminated on the Oct.7 intrusion into Israel by an effectively foreign state ( an act of war; just ask the Ukrainians ), the subsequent massacre of 1400 people, and the kidnapping of hundreds more.

So, YES, they did have options other than 'the longshots'.
Options which could have resulted in better lives for the Palestinians.
Yet instead of holding them responsible for their choices and actions, the world ( other than the US ) is telling Israel they should accept a ceasefire ( wasn't there one in 2005 ? And who broke it on Oct. 7 ? ).
That Israel should respond proportionally ( that isn't deterrence ).
That Israel's response is criminal ( making no mention of the criminality of the incident that prompted the response ).
That Israel is responsible for the bad choices Gaza made/makes/will continue to make.

Manwhile Hamas and the iranians are laughing and saying "No matter what atrocities we perpetrate on Israeli civilians, the world continues to blame then. All is good; we can really step up the brutality of our next attack."

Edited December 14, 2023 by MigL