Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday he doesn’t know that a ceasefire is possible in the Israel-Hamas war with “an organization like Hamas” involved.

“I don’t know how you can have a ceasefire, (a) permanent ceasefire, with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos and destroying the state of Israel,” Sanders told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday.

  • @bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Yes and no, there was a lesser blockade starting in 2005, that’s correct. Then halfway into 2007 after violence broke out between Hamas and Fatah which resulted in the first of Hamas’s civilian executions in Gaza, the current, and more draconian, blockade was instituted.

    Which then, you are correct, Hamas responded to the new restrictions by committing another war crime of firing missiles into urban areas.

    That’s why it’s yes and no, the original blockade no, the much stricter one that is in effect today was however a direct result of Hamas’s first war crime after being voted into office.

    Like quick edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

    This is what caused the blockade that was supposed to be a temporary one to shift to a draconian ongoing one. War crimes.

    • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      08 months ago

      That Wikipedia article is a mess that sounds like it was written by a high school student. He said, she said, with very few citations.

      • @stevehobbes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        That’s basically the entire history of the region and current conflict. Everyone is lying, IDF and supporters, Hamas and supporters. You have to treat all of it as the propaganda it is.

        There is no one with clean hands over there.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness
      link
      fedilink
      -38 months ago

      That’s why it’s yes and no, the original blockade no, the much stricter one that is in effect today was however a direct result of Hamas’s first war crime after being voted into office.

      Which was a result of the first blockade. You say lesser, and while it was more lenient that doesn’t mean it was fine. Israeli actions in late 2005/2006 destroyed the Gazan economy, and had large destructive effects on the West Bank’s.

      • @bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I never said it was fine, but no Hamas’s first war crime in Gaza after taking control was not because of the blockade. They straight up publicly executed their political opponents in the Palestinian Authority. You can’t do that and not be labeled terrorists.

        But yeah their first war crime in office wasn’t even against Israel, it was against fellow Palestinians.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          Oh you’re talking about that. Yeah that’s just indefensible, but I don’t see how that meant a permanent blockade was the right move. It was nothing short of pure tyranny.

          Also, how was the blockade supposed to be temporary? It lasted for more than a year and a half and showed no signs of being lifted. It only seems to me like Israel took the chance to tighten the blockade.

          • @bustrpoindextr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Well, yeah so we have to take that with a grain a salt. It was claimed that the original blockade was meant to be temporary and the reason it went draconian instead of ending after the transition of power was because the transition of power was violent.

            But yeah, just because those are the claims doesn’t mean it’s actually true, you’re correct.

            Edit: found it under “description of plan” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

            Eventually Gaza was supposed to be opened up and have the airport rebuilt etc etc, whether you take the plan was in good faith though is another thing.