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.

  • probablyaCat
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    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.

    • @jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      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.

        • @jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          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

            • @jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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

      • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        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.

        • @gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Okay but you have to understand that by doing so you are decidedly and actively shifting the discourse to favour the Israelis, right?

          • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            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.

            • @gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.