I think the implication is that Gaza does have semi-autonomy (it is a complicated situation - there's a blockade, but it has security autonomy within its region. Or did before October 7th).
And Gaza was pushed towards democratic elections, which they held, elected Hamas, and Hamas hasn't permitted a democracy since then.
Let's not forget that Likud and Netanyahu were instrumental in funding and arming Hamas. The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. But the ultra right wing of Israel didn't want that, and didn't want awkward questions like "If they're willing to negotiate and work through diplomacy, why isn't Israel?" so they thought it'd be better to fund the rise of the extremist Hamas.
"From the River to the Sea" (Jordan River to the Red Sea) was not just a comment by Palestinian extremists, but was Likud's actual election campaign and slogan throughout the 1970s.
And it's hard, as a Gazan, to argue with Hamas, considering Hamas are about the only ones armed, thanks to Israel's ongoing air blockade (Arafat International Airport bombed in early 2000s), and the Israeli navy blockading Port of Gaza since 2007.
After Hamas was elected in 2006, in elections deemed democratic and fair by international observers (Jimmy Carter's organisation, The Carter Center) the US government at the time armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup, that backfired, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza.
Ever since that, there has been constant interference with Hamas' government, including multiple military campaigns by Israel - in "Operations" Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, Swords of Iron and I forget which others, Wikipedia has a timeline [1].
Basically, ever since the election, Gaza has been under attack every few months or years. Hamas probably weren't in a great hurry to have elections, although it should be noted that their ideology is to take power democratically and not through power of arms [2]. In any case, they're in a constant state of war and it's hard to hold democratic elections under the circumstances. Netanyahu has used the same excuse, repeatedly, to avoid being kicked out of government in the current crisis.
Btw, all that about the interference with the democratic process in Gaza after Hamas' election is on wikipedia [3] (meaning it's easy to get a first idea of what happened; then you can check their sources).
Stop occupying and brutalizing them, and agree to two states along the 1967 borders, as called for by both international law and every other country in the world.
"Democratic" is pushing it a tad too far—none of the Islamic world follows a rule of law that would be something akin to a democracy; they're monarchies, theocracies, or in many cases autocracies. The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.
Iran had a democracy, until the CIA toppled it in 1953. In general having oil means foreign powers will keep installing useful puppets as leaders. The middle east having few democracies may have more to do with Western greed than with the preferences of Arabs or Muslims.
There is no material proof that Hamas has put bases in any hospital, and if you think human shields are fair game, then that speaks to your willingness to dehumanize Palestinians.
It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.
I think the implication is that Gaza does have semi-autonomy (it is a complicated situation - there's a blockade, but it has security autonomy within its region. Or did before October 7th).
And Gaza was pushed towards democratic elections, which they held, elected Hamas, and Hamas hasn't permitted a democracy since then.
Let's not forget that Likud and Netanyahu were instrumental in funding and arming Hamas. The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. But the ultra right wing of Israel didn't want that, and didn't want awkward questions like "If they're willing to negotiate and work through diplomacy, why isn't Israel?" so they thought it'd be better to fund the rise of the extremist Hamas.
"From the River to the Sea" (Jordan River to the Red Sea) was not just a comment by Palestinian extremists, but was Likud's actual election campaign and slogan throughout the 1970s.
And it's hard, as a Gazan, to argue with Hamas, considering Hamas are about the only ones armed, thanks to Israel's ongoing air blockade (Arafat International Airport bombed in early 2000s), and the Israeli navy blockading Port of Gaza since 2007.
3 replies →
After Hamas was elected in 2006, in elections deemed democratic and fair by international observers (Jimmy Carter's organisation, The Carter Center) the US government at the time armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup, that backfired, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza.
Ever since that, there has been constant interference with Hamas' government, including multiple military campaigns by Israel - in "Operations" Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, Swords of Iron and I forget which others, Wikipedia has a timeline [1].
Basically, ever since the election, Gaza has been under attack every few months or years. Hamas probably weren't in a great hurry to have elections, although it should be noted that their ideology is to take power democratically and not through power of arms [2]. In any case, they're in a constant state of war and it's hard to hold democratic elections under the circumstances. Netanyahu has used the same excuse, repeatedly, to avoid being kicked out of government in the current crisis.
Btw, all that about the interference with the democratic process in Gaza after Hamas' election is on wikipedia [3] (meaning it's easy to get a first idea of what happened; then you can check their sources).
_________________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict#2...
[2] I don't have a reference for that handy. Ask and ye shall be given but I'll have to dig a bit.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
2 replies →
[flagged]
Stop occupying and brutalizing them, and agree to two states along the 1967 borders, as called for by both international law and every other country in the world.
7 replies →
> So what is israel supposed to do?
Not be an genocidal apartheid state? It's actually quite simple.
2 replies →
"Democratic" is pushing it a tad too far—none of the Islamic world follows a rule of law that would be something akin to a democracy; they're monarchies, theocracies, or in many cases autocracies. The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.
> The only actual democracy in the middle east is—well, Israel.
An apartheid is no democracy. Calling an apartheid regime 'democracy' debases the concept of democracy, and gives it bad reputation.
1 reply →
Iran had a democracy, until the CIA toppled it in 1953. In general having oil means foreign powers will keep installing useful puppets as leaders. The middle east having few democracies may have more to do with Western greed than with the preferences of Arabs or Muslims.
So you believe that Muslims and/or Arabs are incapable of democracy?
Also, Israel is absolutely not a democracy. Gazans were/are ultimately subject to Israeli law and could not vote in Israel's elections.
2 replies →
The West Bank serves as an example of that and also what happens without violent resistance:
The ethnic cleansing happens anyway, followed up by settlers.
Not having a governing body that genuinely works for their interests does not invalidate their rights as humans.
[flagged]
There is no material proof that Hamas has put bases in any hospital, and if you think human shields are fair game, then that speaks to your willingness to dehumanize Palestinians.
1 reply →