[flagged]
Israel has long prevented the import of all sorts of goods. They do not provide "everything necessary." Israel also has prevented the export of almost all goods, so that the Palestinians will have no money and be completely dependent on Israel to provide for basic needs.
I'm sure you're right that if the border were opened up that Hamas would import weapons and attack Israel, which is why Israel surrounded Gaza, as I said.
As you say, "peace requires proof", but that goes both ways, and ever since Camp David collapsed, Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements, and generally making the lives of the Palestinians intolerable, often in capricious ways that do not enhance Israeli security.
The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
So this "A 21-year-old woman kidnapped by Islamic State militants in Iraq a decade ago" came to Gaza thru Israel?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed...
There are many variants of the slogan of course, but for some reason you're picking one of the more uncommon (and more virulent) versions. However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel, and from which nobody will be expelled.
This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
The PLO recognizes that Israel has a right to exist and has abandoned official "armed resistance" approaches. They understand that this never worked and ultimately only hurt the Palestinian people.
I'm explicitly talking about Hamas and making a clear distinction between them and the Palestinian people at large.
> use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews
That was suggested in the past and has gone back in vogue for some extreme liberals but it's probably not what any side wants. I don't think it's something that's workable. See Lebanon as a case in point where three different conflicting cultures are constantly violently clashing.
> This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Well... What *some* people mean doesn't really mean anything. There was a Nordic Journalist who recorded pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the Arabic slogans people yelled were VERY different.
But even without that. Hamas is looking at these protests and seeing them as Israel losing support. So they keep fighting, keep holding hostages and keep sending children as carriers. Netanyahu points at these demonstrations as how the world is turning anti-semetic so Israelis MUST fight for their home. And yes, Israelis 100% hear "Palestine will be free of Jews". Trump is pointing at them as a failure of the liberals...
These protests are only helping bad people and increasing strife. If they were indeed pro-Palestinian they would carry both flags in support of a two state solution. They would also support the cause of returning the hostages. They are now for peace, they are anti-Israel protests.
> Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
That was not an official slogan but yes people on the more extreme right did sing it. People still do and also say worse things. There are several big problems with whataboutism... Palestinians are the weaker part of this situation, violence will always end up worse for them. That's why the PLO abandoned that approach (at least officially excluding lynch mobs), it doesn't help Palestinians to keep that rhetoric.
Also the Likud was the party that voted to leave Gaza. That included Netanyhau who signed that law. A PM who originated from the Likud offered a Palestinian state in 2008.
Hamas’ 2017 charter states that in principle, it “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” In a 2012 speech, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said, “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
Regarding the nicer-sounding variants that "nobody wants / aren't workable": That may be, but it is significant that the variant that most folks in their camp at least pretend to believe in (as an "aspiration") is at least nominally non-genocidal. And that the genuinely genocidal variants -- just aren't on display that often.
(Might get back to the other stuff you wrote later)
من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية, "from the water to the water / Palestine is Arab"
Notice that this is nitpicking since the intention is clear to Israelis/Palestinians even in the moderate version of the slogan.
This hurts Palestinians because it discourages their leaders from compromises that might have ended this conflict (see the 2000 and 2008 statehood rejections). It also strengthens the sense within Israelis that there's no partner for peace on the other side.
It's like using the N-word. Once you said that you have that label and feeling, nothing you say will matter to any side.
I think the big problem with this approach is that actions taken now, which lead to deaths, lead to the friends & family of said people becoming more radicalised and thus to more terror attacks/wars in the future.
I read recently in the FT that 60% of current Hamas fighters have lost family to previous conflicts, suggesting that this isn't going to end.
And more generally, it's basically impossible for conventional armies to defeat guerilla fighters who have the support of the population (c.f. Irish/English conflicts, Iraq, Afghanisation (multiple times) etc).
Like, fundamentally the only way this can end is through either extermination or negotiation. Given the relative power imbalances, it'll be extermination of the Palestinians, which would be terrible (and incredibly depressing given that a lot of Israeli citizens are descended from survivors of the Holocausts and the various pogroms in European history).
If it were true that violence breeds violence then Jews would have blown up post war Germany with suicide vests. It was still filled with Nazis and their collaborators.
Hamas is a different story, there's no amount of negotiations or compromise that will placate a fanatic. They will probably keep doing these things forever just like Isis didn't fully go away. But once the leadership got cut down Isis found it much harder to pull off the same level of terror.
I agree that this needs to be a dual motion. Young frustrated people are kindle for these organizations and this won't work without a peace process that would give hope to the people. That's why I don't have any faith in the current Israeli government. I hope it can be replaced so there would be a parallel process that would help rebuild and pave a way for peace again.
Like, it's worth noting that the core of the nationalist and unionist terrorists still live in Ireland and engage in a bunch of criminality. These organizations don't disband, they just die off/become politicians.
The big problem with Israel making peace is that it appears a solid majority don't want that, which depresses the hell out of me.
There are many peace activists on both sides but also a lot of fatigue and disillusionment. Don't let that get you down too. I think once the dust settles things could change. The pendulum always swings to the other side, we just need patience and to set an environment receptive for that. If Trump wins this election things will probably get much worse before they get better. But I think that they will get better even in that worst case scenario.