Fair point. I concede that Israel is currently conducting a siege against Gaza. As is Egypt. The point I think I was trying to make is that Gaza cannot be UNDER a siege without TWO nations conducting a siege. It is entirely reasonable for Israel, in times of war, to place a siege on Gaza. (You really gotta ask yourself what's up with Egypt, though. *Noting that humanitarian aide entered Gaza through the Rafah crossing just today.)
I don't think it can fairly be called collective punishment though. Israel is at war (and rightly so!) against a foreign governing entity. Israel, as a result of war brought against her, is responding to that state of war. The state of war involves two governments. The state of war exists, and people are affected. It sucks, but it is. There is a necessary distinction here. Example: displacement of Arabs and Jews during the Israeli war of independence is a direct result of war and conflict between two warring factions. The expulsion of the Jewish people from all Arab countries was collective punishment on Jews for being Jews.
I see what you mean about a state of war, but think we will remain at odds regarding collective punishment. I agree, the expulsion of the Jews was collective punishment, but so are a number of policies that Israel has imposed that target Palestinians specially - where an entire family or community or even the entire people is punished for the act of an individual.
I also think there is a very fine line here regarding the siege and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Anger at what Hamas did is understandable as is the need to eliminate Hamas, but at what point does it go from a military operation to an act of vengeance, one directed at all of Gaza? I think that is a legitimate question.
Israel blockades Gaza's territorial waters. It doesn't control them. And the airspace is sort of a moot point. (Not that it isn't important, but that the conversation is already so huge, I feel as though we can come back to this.)
How is a blockade not control? But aside from that, it does effectively control those waters limiting fishing boats to 3 miles out since 2006.
We agree that Gaza needs water, and fuel, and electricity. My point is that Israel is not obligated to provide it. Or even to provide access to it, especially during wartime. We fundamentally seem to disagree on where to place the responsibility. Hamas, as governing body, has a responsibility to its citizens. A responsibility to prevent emptying the aquifer, to prevent sewage from contaminating the aquifer, to ensure water infrastructure is not dug up to make rockets, and to ensure that vital resources and humanitarian aide is not diverted from infrastructure projects to impotent jihadi projects.
I am going to agree and disagree here. In a normal situation, yes, a government has those responsibilities, but if all access in and out is dependent on Israel’s and Egypt’s will, there is some responsibility.
And honestly, it does a disservice to the people of Gaza to claim that they are incapable of (eventual) self-determination and self-sufficiency. They are capable of it. They just need to turn the resources they have, the resources they are given, towards self-sufficiency instead of towards the slaughter of Jews.
Who is claiming they are incapable?
Last I checked Egypt was not at war with Gaza. Any blockade of Gaza by Egypt is an act of war. Why would Egypt initiate an act of war against Gaza?
Is closing border crossings in and of itself an act of war?
All sorts of things might have been. Yeah, many groups did things and it affected the outcome. Who knows how it might have turned out had any one group made different choices. Shrug. It's a big, complex problem. The one group you've left out of the responsibility pile here is the people of Gaza. They also bear a responsibility.
I haven’t included the people of Israel either.
Well, let's talk specifically, if you don't mind, about the period between the disengagement from Gaza by Israel in September of 2005 and the rockets fired from Gaza, if memory serves, 12 days later. During that time period, what control - what opportunities - did Gaza not have? You say that Gaza did not have control. What did they not have control over?
Their territorial waters, free trade, the ability represent themselves in the UN, the ability to negotiate agreements with other nations, autonomy and self rule.
My question shouldn't be a tough one. (With all due respect). What might have happened had Gaza chosen peace in 2005, and again in all the years from then until now? Given that one shift in parameters, what are some of the possibilities?
I thought I answered it? If they had chosen peace, who knows? It’s possible that with the help of the international community they could have created a better future for themselves, a more prosperous society and a thriving economy.
There are a lot of questions and what ifs, including what if they had not had an election?
An interesting article that makes some good points I never thought of.
How George W. Bush Helped Hamas Come to Power
