The European Union on Sunday condemned Hamas for using "hospitals and civilians as human shields" in Gaza, while also urging Israel to show "maximum restraint" to protect civilians.
The ideal solution would be to see why there’s fighting in the first place and work on that (hint: It’s the Israeli occupation of Palestine. And yes, that includes Gaza, as much as Israel would like you to believe otherwise).
hint: It’s the Israeli occupation of Palestine. And yes, that includes Gaza, as much as Israel would like you to believe otherwise
The aggressive settlement politics of Israel in Palestine is sad enough, but would you care to elaborate on the second part? That seems to be a pretty bold claim, considering that Gaza has been militarily occupied by Hamas since the civil war of 2007 and is still de facto not in the control of either Palestine or Israel. I don’t understand how that could be the case if your claim was true.
According to Hamas doctrine Israel does „occupy“ them by simply existing where Hamas would like to create their caliphate (i.e. Jerusalem). So that might be where the confusion is coming from.
No no, take a look at the UN position among others. Gaza is subject to a land, air and sea blockade that gives Israel near-total control over the Gazan economy, alongside ludicrous amounts of surveillance and more. Gazans are also forbidden entry to some parts near the border.
Israel doesn’t have people physically in Gaza most of the time, but with the amount of control Israel has over Gazans Gaza is most definitely under military occupation by Israel. For example, it’s Israel who decides how much food, water, electricity, medicine, etc etc Gazans get every day, and the answer is always “not enough”.
Thank you! The English wikipedia article is very different to my own native language’s one (German). I didn’t know that some people call the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt an occupation. These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).
The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization. Both Israel and Egypt tried to loosen the blockade multiple times in the last decade. But any relaxation was answered with violence. I don’t know how anyone should or could possibly proceed in this setting. All I know is that I do sympathize with the civilians on both sides that are suffering because of it, even if one side elected literal terrorists as their leaders and the other side elected a vengeful right-winger.
These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).
That’s the same in English, but the idea is that there’s not much difference between what’s going on in Gaza and having boots on the ground. When whether you can eat for the day or whether your children can get treated for some illness is dependent on someone other government, that dependence is enforced at gunpoint, and the local government having no say in the matter, that’s an occupation.
The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization.
That’s what Israel would like you to think; the blockade started in 2005, before Hamas even won the election.
Just a little nitpick: The article you posted recites the position of Human Rights Watch at the UN Human Rights Council. It is not the position of the UN. Still, thanks for the link and your otherwise helpful response!
Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi, Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy, John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, and Iain Scobbie) maintain that Israel’s extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.
No, ideally it’d shoot down the rockets. Or potentially they might need to send in soldiers who would be able to adequately discriminate between civilians and militants. That would cause more Israeli casualties, but likely less casualties overall than less discriminate bombing.
Good, as it should be. Hamas shouldn’t be using them, but Israel also definitely shouldn’t be bombing them.
What should it do then? Just watch as Hamas launches rockets at their citizens from hospitals and schools?
The ideal solution would be to see why there’s fighting in the first place and work on that (hint: It’s the Israeli occupation of Palestine. And yes, that includes Gaza, as much as Israel would like you to believe otherwise).
The aggressive settlement politics of Israel in Palestine is sad enough, but would you care to elaborate on the second part? That seems to be a pretty bold claim, considering that Gaza has been militarily occupied by Hamas since the civil war of 2007 and is still de facto not in the control of either Palestine or Israel. I don’t understand how that could be the case if your claim was true.
According to Hamas doctrine Israel does „occupy“ them by simply existing where Hamas would like to create their caliphate (i.e. Jerusalem). So that might be where the confusion is coming from.
No no, take a look at the UN position among others. Gaza is subject to a land, air and sea blockade that gives Israel near-total control over the Gazan economy, alongside ludicrous amounts of surveillance and more. Gazans are also forbidden entry to some parts near the border.
Israel doesn’t have people physically in Gaza most of the time, but with the amount of control Israel has over Gazans Gaza is most definitely under military occupation by Israel. For example, it’s Israel who decides how much food, water, electricity, medicine, etc etc Gazans get every day, and the answer is always “not enough”.
For more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Israeli_occupation
Thank you! The English wikipedia article is very different to my own native language’s one (German). I didn’t know that some people call the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt an occupation. These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).
The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization. Both Israel and Egypt tried to loosen the blockade multiple times in the last decade. But any relaxation was answered with violence. I don’t know how anyone should or could possibly proceed in this setting. All I know is that I do sympathize with the civilians on both sides that are suffering because of it, even if one side elected literal terrorists as their leaders and the other side elected a vengeful right-winger.
Edit: Removed last paragraph (see below).
That’s the same in English, but the idea is that there’s not much difference between what’s going on in Gaza and having boots on the ground. When whether you can eat for the day or whether your children can get treated for some illness is dependent on someone other government, that dependence is enforced at gunpoint, and the local government having no say in the matter, that’s an occupation.
That’s what Israel would like you to think; the blockade started in 2005, before Hamas even won the election.
You realize Hamas doesn’t want peace or a better Palestine right? They want the absolute extermination of Jews globally
No, ideally it’d shoot down the rockets. Or potentially they might need to send in soldiers who would be able to adequately discriminate between civilians and militants. That would cause more Israeli casualties, but likely less casualties overall than less discriminate bombing.