Comment by YZF | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YZF | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank.

Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US?

Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community.

This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians.

After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.

Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation.

Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.

Israel had no control of the Egyptian border to Gaza since it withdrew in 2005. That is a fact.

You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).

Alternatively, the settler movement has its own start, unrelated to violence, and will continue whether there's violence or peace.

Yes and Israeli violence against Palestinians also dates from 1948. In fact the Israelis killed much more Palestinians than the reverse.

Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already.

I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement.

I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza.

Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.

The Israeli right wing is supports (to some extent) settlement in the west bank and the rise of the Israeli right is related to Palestinian violence. That's the correlation/connection. Israel's left wing, that used to support a two state solution and peace, has ceased to exist as a direct result of Palestinian terrorism.

You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank.

The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas.

When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up).

Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either.

Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).

Hamas is in the west bank? I'm sure they have a few militants but they literally are hunted down and killed by the Fatah. Also, I really wonder what happened in the 1980s that lead to more violence. Could it be that the IDF enabled and even caused the massacre of 3000 Palestinians in Lebanon?

I'm not sure I'm following though. You are saying that Palestinian terrorism caused the right wing to come in power and disregard international law. Sure, okay. I hope you realize that in the 1980s, most of said terrorism was happening in areas that Israel was already occupying. Also, again, you seem to imply that Israel's left wing actually gave the Palestinians more than apartheid and at best, a ghetto to live in semi undisturbed. That has never happened. Again, the poster child for that was 2005. What the Palestinians got was a a completely choked out, blockaded strip of land.

Like were the Palestinians supposed to be grateful and just accept that they will have to live in a state of semi servitude and protectorate because at least it wasn't the right wing in power? That's just completely irrelevant from the Palestinians pov. Again, who cares about the political climate of Israel as if it's some sort of actual excuse for settling and stealing land at gun point? Again, there's an incredible double standard here.

Palestinian motives and goals and politics don't matter, but Israel is always justified because it could've done worse. I mean sure? It reminds of Russian propaganda for the war: they have really tried to stay peaceful but NATO FORCED them to invade and steal land. It could've been worse though! They could've used nukes.

Yes, Israel wasn't doing settlement back then. But that's the point now isn't it? Back then, they already occupied the west bank. And the extremism and fascist inspired ideology of settlers didn't emerge yet. On both sides, extremism was less prominent. But again, the double standard is to excuse the Israeli settlers and their batshit insane ideology.

> During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement.

I think murdering Rabin was also part of the Israeli support for peace?

> Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped.

Even if this is true, all it demonstrates is that Israel is willing to take any measure necessary to avoid giving Palestinians in the West Bank full legal and political rights. Mere military occupation was met with violence, so instead of taking it as a sign that they weren't welcome and letting the population govern itself, they resorted to civilian settlement on top of that to solidify their hold.

Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Many (IMO most) Palestinians don't want to govern themselves. They want Israel erased. Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

There is nobody representing Palestinians that will accept resolving the conflict in return to control over the west bank and Gaza. This is true in multiple ways, firstly the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative. None of the different factions would accept this either. Find me one Palestinian leader that says that.

It's super naive (sorry) to think that this conflict would be over as soon as Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Ariel Sharon wanted to withdraw from the West Bank if the withdrawal from Gaza proved successful. Most Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers (at least that's the way it used to be, public opinion shifted a lot with all the violence). What would happen is that Hamas would take over, just like it did in Gaza. The PA is relies on Israel's support right now which prevents that from happening. Then all of Israel would be bombarded with rockets, mortars, etc.

The Palestinians demand the right of return, that is any refugee from the war of 1948 and all their descendants should be allowed to return to Israel. This is a non-starter for Israel and something without precedent in any other war in history. What this means in practice is the destruction of Israel by killing or expelling all Israelis. The other point of contention is Jerusalem. Israeli maintains freedom of religion and access to all religions. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jordan did not. It's unlikely that Jerusalem under Hamas control would maintain free access. Jersualem is the holiest city for Jews.

> Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Oslo (which never included a firm promise of a Palestinian state in the first place, or even an end to the settlements) was sabotaged by the extremist fringe on both sides. If there is ever to be peace, those fringes can't be allowed to have a veto over the process. As for Camp David: https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_m...

> Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

To be specific, Israel tried "govern themselves, but also help fund and bolster Hamas terrorists. And blockade Gaza by land, air, and sea (including bombing out their airport) so their economy has no possibility of ever growing. And shoot to kill civilians in wheelchairs if they dare protest this state of affairs." That's what the situation in Gaza has been for the past two decades. Any nation—any nation—subjected to such treatment for such a span of time would consider it casus belli.

> the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative.

Yes, and that's because Netanyahu and co worked tirelessly for years to fracture them, so that they would be able to make this argument. https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2023/10/27/netanyahus-sup...

Barghouti perhaps could be a unifying figure if released, though maybe that wouldn't be a good thing… In any case, lack of unity between Gaza and the West Bank is no excuse to block work towards peace and ending the occupation in either locale. Israel could make separate deals with both factions.

> The Palestinians demand the right of return

They demand that RoR be acknowledged. In practice, their negotiators have admitted on several occasions that all of them returning would be impracticable. Instead, Israel could let only a small percentage in, and financially compensate the rest as restitution.

> Israeli maintains freedom of religion

Eh, they are trying to destroy the Armenian Christian quarter. But mostly true

Egypt is a sovereign nation with control over their borders. It is entirely within their power to facilitate as many border crossings as they see fit. The Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing is staffed by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. The Philadephi Corridor is demilitarized as per the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and is controlled by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. Egypt has chosen to cooperate with Israel on the security arrangements at the border, largely because the Egyptian government regards Israel as an ally and Hamas as a hostile power.

This is either not true or misleading. Palestinians can't move without Israeli consent. It doesn't matter that what the egyptians have chosen voluntarily (they haven't), when every other path in and out of Gaza is controlled by Israel and subject to force and threat of death. For any other territory or nation that would be considered a threat of war.

>Under the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, part of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) of 15 November 2005, EUBAM was responsible for monitoring the Border Crossing. The agreement ensured Israel authority to dispute entrance by any person.[14]

This was in 2005, before Hamas. Now if you can't get to Gaza from the sea, because of Israel. Or from Egypt, because of Israel. Or from Israel itself...

Again, any territory or nation would consider something like this as an act of war, or if we don't see them as nation then apartheid. But no, the Gaza strip was completely free otherwise I guess?

Well, Hamas and Israel are at war, and have been at war since Hamas came to power, so not sure why "act of war" matters here. Firing rockets at Israel surely is an act of war.

If Israel has such good control over the Egypt-Gaza border how do Hamas fighters get to train in Iran?

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...

How did they get all the rocket manufacturing technology? Weapons?

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing says: "It is located on the Egypt–Palestine border. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."

There is no mention of controlling movement of people. Anyways, this is something Egypt agreed to and it's sovereign and free to agree to anything it wants to. What do you mean "Egypt has no chosen voluntarily"?

Do you have a reference to your claim that Palestinians can't move without Israel consent?

You're mentioning EUBAM but EUBAM hasn't been there since 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Border_Assistan...

This was before Hamas took power. That's why I said 2005.

And yes, so between 2005 and 2007 Israel already had control over the border. That's before Hamas. Once Hamas got into power, Israel restricted the border policy even more, but Egypt just basically closed theirs.

I mean I'm not sure what's the debate here. Even Israel is very clear that they issue visas for entry to Gaza. That sure sounds like administering a border to me. In the west bank, they completely control every border point. In Gaza, it's de facto the same thing as Egypt doesn't open theirs for most of the year as they consider Israel the administrative authority that deals with Gaza borders. Which is something Israel acknowledges. Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?

https://www.gov.il/en/service/entry-to-gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-10/ty-article/.p... https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/20170515_thousan...

Edit: as for Egyptian control of the border, here's a source that explains how it's in many ways nominal only, with a tacit agreement between Israel and Egypt about dual use materials.

https://features.gisha.org/red-lines-gray-lists/

Which I guess can make sense considering Hamas. But then one has to remember that this has been the case before Hamas took power too. So that catch all excuse doesn't hold water.

Gaza was under Israeli control until 2005. The Agreement on Movement and Access was made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as part of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. That agreement collapsed in 2006 when Hamas took power. The PA had fled Gaza and were no longer able to uphold their side of the agreement; Hamas did not recognise the agreement and were unwilling to negotiate with the PA, Egypt or Israel on border security arrangements.

The debate is about the false claim that Israel has control over all of Gazas borders. Egypt has control over one border. That is a matter of fact. The Anti-Israeli crowd refuses to deal with facts.

Israel administers it's border with Gaza. That's not the debate.

Israel requires people to get a permit to enter Gaza from Israel. It does not control who goes into Gaza from Egypt.

Your claim: "Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?" is nonsense and factually incorrect.

So Israel does not administer the emission of visas? And does not have a gray list with Egypt on the Palestinian border? And there were no border agreements in the context of camp David and other related agreements with Egypt?

Israel has shown itself to basically have 0 regard for international law. It's not like they haven't shown that they will attack any way to cross the border that they don't have some sort of control on. I mean, why would they attack the Gaza flotilla and enforce a maritime blockade on Gaza if the border with Egypt was already "free" from their control?

Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree with the fact that enforcing a maritime blockade is usually an act of war and grounds for retaliation? Btw, you still haven't shown me a single example of a country that emits a visa of entry for a territory that isn't under occupation (or under blockade).

But sure, I guess Egypt totally has control over the crossing that is within shelling range from Israeli military outposts, in an area that they did shell in the past too.

So if we ignore the soft military threat on Egypt, the choking out of the border crossing opposite of the Egyptian side, the lists of goods that can't make it through due to israeli graylists, the fact that every other border crossing is controlled by Israel, and that they did control human passage before Hamas even at Rafah until 2007... oh and also the fact that Gaza has no rights to maritime traffic or air traffic.... then yes sure you're completely right.

I'm sure Palestinians should be glad that Israel gives them the privilege of being a notch more "open" than Warsaw ghettos. The few weeks per decade when Rafah is actually open, that is.

Egypt lost the six-day war and had to sign the Camp David accords and peace treaty to regain the Sinai peninsula. In return it gave up upon part of its sovereignty needing consent of Israel on topics like arming of the border guard or wares that are allowed the crossing.

> if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens

I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.

They would. Even with the current numbers Israel still maintains Jewish majority and also the proponents of this annexation also say it'll come hand in hand with a "de-radicalization" program. There are other tools Israel can leverage (e.g. a constitution) to ensure Israel remains the Jewish homeland while making Palestinians full citizens. These don't have to contradict. Either way the Palestinians have no interest in being equal citizens in the country of Israel so it's more or less a moot point, for now.

Previous negotiations like the 2000 Camp David Summit have failed because (among other points) the right of return:

> Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

That is correct. My scenario of annexation does not include the right of return. Israel is never going to allow that.

> then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish

It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com