Comment by smt88
2 years ago
It sounds like you think they should have autonomy and a democratic state, which most of the world also agrees with.
2 years ago
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.
> The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution.
You said this in another comment. While I agree that Netanyahu has done a lot of harm over the last 15 years, specifically by on-purpose shooting down chances for peace, I think you are giving the PA and Arafat too much credit. They were offered multiple deals that they turned down, walking away from negotiations without offering alternatives.
It's totally possible that with leadership towards peace on the Israeli side, that might've changed and we would've eventually seen a true peace deal signed. And for sure Netanyahu put effort into quashing that, one of his many sins. But we don't need to pretend that the PA was better than it was. It's not at all clear that, absent Netanyahu, a deal coudl've been agreed on.
2 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...
> 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].
Just to state the obvious context you didn't include, these operations were usually the direct result of rocket attacks on Israel. Every time an operation ended in ceasefire, a few years later, Hamas would start up rocket attacks again, and Israel would retaliate.
1 reply →
[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.
They did, in Gaza, in 2005. Only to wake up to a Hamas takeover and rocket shooting on Israel civilians (war crime), which brought the Gaza siege.
Or maybe the world can give some new suggestion that was not disproven by history?
5 replies →
[flagged]
> So what is israel supposed to do?
Not be an genocidal apartheid state? It's actually quite simple.
[flagged]
1 reply →
"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.
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.
Incapable is a strong word—but much (if not most) of the Muslim world advocates for Sharia law which is essentially the opposite of a democracy. When it's practiced in it's truest form it's the most repressive system of laws against women in the modern world.
As the world becomes more modern and democratic principles become more highly prized, I think we see some glimmers of hope in the muslim world as parts of the population begin to value more democratic principles. But they have to do this in the context of the theocratic states in which they live in where these values were never first class citizens—so I think that's why we haven't seen much progress on these fronts in that part of the world.
I agree with you that there's a double standard in regards to the application of the law—I'm not privy on why Palestinians are subject to Israel's laws, and I wouldn't charitably say it's for reasons that are morally sound. I do think that allowing Palestinian's to vote in Israel's parliamentary elections is a non-starter for obvious reasons.
1 reply →