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.

  • @NewDark
    link
    English
    9
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    There’s so many problems with this take.

    • I absolutely sympathize with the Vietnamese cause during that war. The United States were LITERALLY the invaders and deserved retaliation / defense.
    • Gaza has been an open air prison for 16 years, with horrifying material conditions, which is precisely WHY the average age is 18. Here’s a short that explains them as concisely as I’ve seen. I would 100% sympathize with Japanese or Jewish terrorism under that level of barbarity. Also, to be clear, those camps in all those situations were wrong. Are you defending them?
    • West Bank, which has no Hamas, is still an apartheid state where the people who are acting with the Israelis are STILL GETTING FUCKED OVER by Israel and subjected to settler colonial terrorism.
    • Obviously I don’t like terrorism as a method, but at a certain point, it becomes the only option. Peaceful protests have been met with bullets and international silence. See the Great March of Return, 13,000 Palestinians wounded and 1,400 killed. What’s the lesson there do you think?

    This is primarily not a religious conflict, it’s territorial and racial.

    Please tell me you would be super chill with having your home stolen by some fucking white guy from Brooklyn because the newly formed government wants to form an ethnostate, because I sure fucking wouldn’t be.

      • @NewDark
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Something like 80% of the water they get from Isreal is contaminated.

        The Israeli government counts the calories of the food they receive so they get the minimum amount to sustain their life.

        The health care isn’t great (obviously)

        And if you don’t know what “mowing the lawn” is, look it up.

          • @NewDark
            link
            English
            28 months ago

            The IOF literally seal water wells with cement.

            On top of that, you can’t get cement to build with in Gaza in order to build desalination facilities, even if they wanted to.

    • @kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -4
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Obviously I don’t like terrorism as a method, but at a certain point, it becomes the only option.

      No, it’s never the option, and always has blowback that harms the very people in whose interests it was rationalized in the first place.

      Go ahead and point to when guerilla attacks on civilians achieved the original aims and didn’t result in retaliatory violence.

      Also, to be clear, those camps in all those situations were wrong. Are you defending them?

      Did you read my comment before going off on a rant?

      The point of discussion was that people being harmed by other people inevitably results in generational retributive violence. And that’s simply not correct.

      Nowhere am I saying that the initial violence is a good thing. I’m just pointing out that this sort of rationalization is BS. That’s not how it actually works. (Normal people realize that bad people of an identity group doing bad things doesn’t reflect all people of that identity group, so even if there’s a desire for justice against the specific people that did bad things, that doesn’t translate into a desire to do bad things to any member of that identity group for non-psychopaths.)

      Most civilian victims of violence want nothing more than to avoid future violence. They don’t want to commit their lives to more violence.

      The exception is religious violence, where there’s a long history of commitment to violence (retributive or not) out of a sense of justice inherent to it and an ‘otherness’ and superiority over anyone that isn’t part of the same religious group.

      This is primarily not a religious conflict, it’s territorial and racial.

      Oh really now? So how many of the Hamas terrorists attacking civilians in their homes and burning children alive were atheists do you reckon? 50%?

      And how many Zionists who refuse to consider any kind of compromise regarding Palestine’s existence are atheist? My guess is not much more than the relative number of atheist Zionists in 66 CE who thought it would be a great idea to rebel against Rome because God was going to be on their side in the resulting conflict.

      This is primarily a longstanding religious conflict.

      Racial!?! WTF are you talking about? The DNA of Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians is effectively identical. They are the same people. The difference is primarily religious, and extends a bit beyond that to cultural differences. Sure, Ashkenazi and Sephardic only share half the DNA. So that portion of the population are simply partial relatives of the Palestinians, as opposed to effectively the same people ‘racially’ - the equivalent of a half Palestinian.

      If at a snap of one’s fingers both sides suddenly became 100% atheist, there’d be nothing more to be fighting about. Just like the many, many peoples throughout history who have had atrocities committed against them by neighbors and yet generations after live in complete peace with one another.

      This is almost exclusively a religious conflict, with Jews and Muslims at each other’s necks and with Christians only giving a crap because they think Jerusalem must be inhabited by the Jews for their zombie to float down from the sky. The underlying reasons are much more insane than the more palatable reasons that get talked about publicly by the parties involved, but those insane underlying reasons are the real ones, and the ultimate driving force behind why there will never be peace in the region as long as any of those three motivations have a seat at the negotiating table.

      • @NewDark
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Look, you’re obviously a debate pervert. I’m not going to engage your entire diatribe, but a few things to note…

        The blowback was the Hamas attack. The Israelis are the ones who created and have control over the conditions. The attack was the response. History did not start on Oct 7th.

        This is an imperfect example, but if you mistreat a dog for long enough and it lashes out, who is at fault?

        If it was religious, why would they be sterilizing Ethiopian jews?

        If I’m a Palestinian, and I become a convert, can I join Israel?

        What percent of Isreal has a Jewish faith, and what percent is non-religious?

        • @kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -28 months ago

          This is an imperfect example, but if you mistreat a dog for long enough and it lashes out, who is at fault?

          Pretty sure the dog gets put down, even if the owner was negligent.

          What percent of Isreal has a Jewish faith, and what percent is non-religious?

          Good first step. Now look at whether attitudes towards expulsion of Arabs from Israel is a minority view or majority view depending on that identification…

          If it was religious, why would they be sterilizing Ethiopian jews?

          Huh? I don’t see sterility listed as a side effect for the medication they were given. So “why were the Ethiopian Jews given birth control with ambiguous degrees of informed consent” is certainly a topic worth exploring, but is quite different from what you stated.

          If I’m a Palestinian, and I become a convert, can I join Israel?

          No, and that’s messed up, especially given the risks they face in Palestine.