Israel left Gaza and then blockaded it, and has carried out major bombing campaigns against Gaza and ground invasions several times.
The conflict is not limited to Gaza. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel continues to build its illegal settlements, to subject the Palestinian population to a humiliating and brutal military occupation, and to kill Palestinians regularly (several hundred in the West Bank this year).
Until Israel leaves the occupied territories and allows the Palestinians to live as normal people, there will be Palestinian resistance. A few years ago, the people of Gaza tried nonviolent resistance, protesting at the border fence. Israel responded with live ammunition, killing hundreds of protestors.
The Palestinians have tried every way to obtain their freedom: protest, negotiation, armed resistance. Nothing works. Israel is, by far, the stronger party, and it does what it wants to the Palestinians with no consequences.
Israel is stronger than Palestine, sure, but that's not the most relevant comparison to think about. Think about all the neighboring countries that do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Think about their financial and military support for Hamas. Think about all the extremists that come from Syria and Iran to help Hamas.
Notes: I'm offering these statements in a self-contained way that I hope is fair. / I'm not claiming any one side is blameless. / I reject any moral equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. / I reject belief systems that say adherents should kill non-believers. / I don't support Netanyahu; he's not fit for the job. / I want to reduce the suffering of all people, including the people of tomorrow. / The past is gone; we can only work for a better future. / I hold out hope for a moderate 'middle' of everyday Israelis and Palestinians wanting peace. / Moderate views can only traction if the extremist elements on all sides are reduced. / By reduced I mean with minimum coercion. / But I'm not a pacifist; violence is sometimes necessary albeit never to be celebrated.
> Israel left Gaza and then blockaded it, and has carried out major bombing campaigns against Gaza and ground invasions several times.
The blockade is for fear of Hamas gaining even more weapons, a fear that seems incredibly justified given what Hamas did. The bombing campaigns were mostly responses to Hamas firing rocket attacks at Israel.
> The conflict is not limited to Gaza. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel continues to build its illegal settlements, to subject the Palestinian population to a humiliating and brutal military occupation, and to kill Palestinians regularly (several hundred in the West Bank this year).
Yes, I completely agree that Israel's actions in the West Bank, the settlement program and the resultant military rule are terrible and should be condemned.
> The Palestinians have tried every way to obtain their freedom: protest, negotiation, armed resistance. Nothing works. Israel is, by far, the stronger party, and it does what it wants to the Palestinians with no consequences.
I'm sorry, but this is a misread of history. The Palestinians have been offered a state multiple times, and have walked away from the negotiations every time. Israel has successfully negotiated a peace with historic enemies like Egypt, given back huge amounts of land in the process, these peace agreements have lasted for 40 years now.
Only with the Palestinians this negotiation has not worked, despite Israel having offered between 95% and 99% of the land Palestinians claimed they wanted.
Though to be clear, Hamas's official position, near as I can tell, remains that Israel itself must be completely destroyed and all the land given "back" to Palestinians.
The backdrop of most Israeli's having "given up" on the idea of a peace agreement was the failure of multiple attempts at reaching a deal, attempts that the Palestinians walked away from, and that resulted in terror attacks killing Israeli citizens.
That all said, Israel has more-or-less checked out of the peace process for the last 15 years, if not actively undermined it by weakening any serious leader that could've helped achieve peace. And given that Israel is the stronger party, I think it's not morally justified to "give up", Israel must keep striving for peace, and trying to make conditions on the ground that will allow for an eventual peace agreement.
> The Palestinians have been offered a state multiple times ...
No Israeli government has yet offered the Palestinians a sovereign state. The offers that have been made have been for some sort of entity with limited autonomy, but under effective Israeli control. The Palestinians have not simply "walked away" from negotiations. They have repeatedly tried to negotiate something better. After the Camp David negotiations broke down, the Palestinians returned to negotiate at Taba. Those talks ended because of the upcoming Israeli elections (which were won by the hard Right, which absolutely opposes any Palestinian state).
If you go back and read about the history of the Oslo process, the Israelis systematically reneged on their promises throughout the 1990s. The PLO made major concessions which were not reciprocated, and it ultimately got nothing.
Israel didn't just make peace with Egypt out of the goodness of its heart. Egypt gave Israel an enormous scare in the 1973 war. That experience made the Israelis realize that it was possible for them to lose a war against Egypt in the future. The Israelis have no such fear of the Palestinians now. If the Palestinians had an army like Egypt, things would be very different.
Israel is also able to make peace with Egypt, Jordan and the other Arab states because Israel doesn't covet their land. But the desire to have all of historic Palestine is fundamental to Zionism, and Israel never intends to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
> No Israeli government has yet offered the Palestinians a sovereign state.
I'm not sure why you think that, that's exactly what the peace process of the 1990s and early 2000s was about. E.g. the Camp David Summit.
> If you go back and read about the history of the Oslo process, the Israelis systematically reneged on their promises throughout the 1990s. The PLO made major concessions which were not reciprocated, and it ultimately got nothing.
That's not at all true. The Palestinian Authority was formed and given control in the West Bank, independently of this Israel left Gaza and gave Palestinians control there. The peace process broke down in part due to the terror attacks that were happening in Israel, many carried out by Hamas in order to stop the peace process.
> But the desire to have all of historic Palestine is fundamental to Zionism, and Israel never intends to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Some people in Israel certainly think this. Not a majority of Israelis. And the peace processes did offer land to the Palestinians including the WB.
I'm not saying Israel has done everything right, it's certainly done a lot of things wrong, and the for the last fifteen years has done things against the peace process. But it is still a true fact, attested to by people involved in the peace processes, that Israel did make offers, the Palestinians did reject them and walk away. And that has happened multiple times, including the founding of the state of Israel. (People like to relitigate this one, and there's certainly a compelling reason that Palestinians disliked the UN's partition plan - but it's still a fact that the Palestinians and Arabs generally rejected the peaceful offer, chose war instead, lost the war, and therefore lost more territories than they could've had had they accepted the partition plan to begin with.)
> I'm not sure why you think that, that's exactly what the peace process of the 1990s and early 2000s was about. E.g. the Camp David Summit.
Actually, one of the fundamental flaws of the Oslo process was that Israel did not have to commit, at the outset, to recognizing a Palestinian state. The PLO recognized the state of Israel, and in return, Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO. What the final status of the Palestinians would be was very much up in the air.
Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, said that there would be a Palestinian "entity," by which he meant something with partial sovereignty, under significant Israeli control.
Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist, and Netanyahu came to power. Netanyahu was totally opposed to the peace process, and both he and his party have always fundamentally opposed any Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu refused to carry out the promised military withdrawals, and generally stalled and sabotaged the peace process at every turn. He simply didn't believe in the process.
Ehud Barak won the elections in 1999, and tried to revive the Oslo process. However, he was unwilling to make an offer that met the Palestinians' bottom line: a sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. The "state" that the Palestinians were offered in 2000 at Camp David would not have controlled its own borders, airspace or water. The Israeli military would have maintained bases in the Palestinian state, overseen the Palestinian borders, and had the right to conduct military incursions into the Palestinian state. The Palestinian state would have been demilitarized (except for the IDF, of course), and the Israelis would have had veto power over its foreign policy.
Beyond that, Barak was demanding major territorial concessions (the Palestinians would have had to give up the most important parts of East Jerusalem, and Palestinian territory would have been cut up by corridors annexed to Israel), and refused any meaningful right of return for Palestinian refugees. That's the offer the Palestinians rejected at Camp David.
The Palestinians continued negotiating with Israel in 2001 at Taba, but those negotiations ended because Barak was facing another election.
The hard Right won again in the Israeli elections in 2001, and that was really the end of any peace process.
> The Palestinian Authority was formed and given control in the West Bank, independently of this Israel left Gaza
The PA was given partial control in a minority of the West Bank. To put it crudely, the Israelis offloaded the duty to take out the garbage and do the laundry to the PA, but maintained ultimate control. The PA has no army, and its police forces act to a large extent as auxiliaries of the Israelis, tasked with keeping the Palestinians quiet.
> Actually, one of the fundamental flaws of the Oslo process was that Israel did not have to commit, at the outset, to recognizing a Palestinian state. The PLO recognized the state of Israel, and in return, Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO. What the final status of the Palestinians would be was very much up in the air.
But.. there wasn't a Palestinian state to recognize. Agreeing to negotiate with the PLO was what made the PLO the internationally-recognized party representing the Palestinians, which didn't exist before.
> Netanyahu refused to carry out the promised military withdrawals, and generally stalled and sabotaged the peace process at every turn. He simply didn't believe in the process.
Yes, I'm hardly a fan of Netanyahu (I think Hamas is responsible for the murders on October 7th, but if any one person is most responsible for there not being peace, it's Netanyahu).
As for the rest of your post - yes, Palestinians were offered terms that they didn't like. That's part of negotiations - you don't like an offer, you come back with demands you will accept. And more importantly, it's part of compromise.
Some Israelis also believe Israel should own the entire land. Israel agreed to compromise on that. In 1947, Israel agreed to the UN partition plan, which was also a compromise.
Look, the Palestinians are in a shitty situation that's only getting worse, and there's a lot of legitimate grievances (on both sides), there really are. But at multiple times in this history, Israel agreed to what it views as compromises in order to get peace, and Palestinians have not agreed to similar compromises. This is, as far as I can tell, an accurate read of history, as told both by Israelis, but also by e.g. participants of the process.
Israel has done a lot of crappy things that minimize the chance at peace, especially over the last 15 years, but the Israeli left really did have the majority buy in in the country and the country really did try to make peace, the Palestinians could've had their own sovereign state by now, but they rejected it. I don't think in hindsight you can possibly consider this justified, given where it's lead.
There actually was - the PLO declared a state in 1988. More than that, Israel did not commit to future recognition of a Palestinian state, or declare that the Palestinians had a right to a state. Those are things the Palestinians pushed for in the lead-up to Oslo, but the Israelis refused to do them. On the Israeli side, the dominant view was that the Palestinians could maybe get some sort of autonomy within Israel, but not a state. Up until this day, no Israeli government has ever recognized the right of the Palestinians to a state.
> That's part of negotiations - you don't like an offer, you come back with demands you will accept.
That's exactly what the Palestinians have done, over and over again. Arafat walked away because Barak gave an ultimatum: either accept this offer, or nothing. Arafat didn't accept that offer, so that was it.
The Palestinians and Israelis met again several months later to restart negotiations in Taba, Egypt, and those continued until the Israelis walked away (because of the upcoming elections).
> the Palestinians could've had their own sovereign state by now, but they rejected it.
Again, I don't know what you're referring to, because no Israeli government yet has ever offered the Palestinians a sovereign state. If you think a demilitarized entity with highly non-contiguous territory (broken up by Israeli settlements and military corridors), with Israeli military bases, Israeli control over all border crossings, Israeli control over airspace, and Israeli veto power over foreign policy is sovereign, then we disagree about the meaning of that word.
> But at multiple times in this history, Israel agreed to what it views as compromises in order to get peace, and Palestinians have not agreed to similar compromises.
Giving half of Palestine to the Zionists was not a "compromise." It was an unbelievable imposition by outside powers on the local population of Palestine. Remember that in 1947, the overwhelming majority of the native population of Palestine was Arab. Almost the entire Jewish population was made up of recent European arrivals (i.e., within the last decade). The demand that the native population accept that a foreign people get half the territory was objectively insane, and no people anywhere would ever have accepted it. The Zionists accepted it because they believed that it was a springboard towards obtaining all of Palestine - Ben Gurion was very clear about that.
Leading up to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians gave up most of their central demands, forswore armed resistance to the occupation, and limited their aspirations to a Palestinian state on just over 20% of their historic land, leaving the other 80% to Israel. The Palestinians recognized the state of Israel, without reciprocal recognition from Israel, and simply asked the Israelis to let the Palestinians have their little bit of Palestine in peace. It took years for the Palestinians to even persuade the Israelis to agree to negotiate on those terms. Until 1993, the Israelis refused to meet with the PLO. It was only the outbreak of widespread civil disobedience, protests and riots in the occupied territories that finally led Israel to begin negotiations with the PLO.
> I don't think in hindsight you can possibly consider this justified, given where it's lead.
My view is that the PLO made a fatal error in agreeing to the Oslo Accords. They gave up almost everything Israel wanted, with only vague hints that the Palestinians would get something at the end. The Palestinian Authority has no real power, and actually lessens the burden of the occupation for the Israelis, since the Israelis no longer have to provide basic services to the occupied population. The Israelis did not promise to accept the 1967 borders. They did not promise that they would recognize a sovereign Palestinian state. They only really promised to negotiate a "final status," which was left vague.
As I said a few comments above here, Israel is, by far, the stronger party. It holds almost all the cards: it has overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians, is able to operate almost unhindered in most Palestinian land, is far richer, and is backed by the world's foremost superpower. Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land with almost no consequences. It can continue to expand its settlements in the occupied territories and to build new settlements, without having to fear anything more than the occasional wagging finger from some American or EU diplomat. The Israelis really believe they can have it all. The only problem, from the Israeli perspective, is that the Palestinians still exist on the land, but the Israelis will eventually move to "solve" that problem. We may be seeing their solution now in Gaza, as Israel destroys almost every single building and pushes the remaining, 100% homeless Palestinian population towards the Egyptian border.
There was no reason so far to believe that "Palestinian resistance" will end if Israel leaves the occupied territories. In fact these territories were occupied during an attempt by Arabic population to destroy Israel - which didn't include West Bank back then.
Yeah, but since it won't stop otherwise either, it's better for Israel to maintain stronger military position, which occupation provides, rather than making unilateral gestures in the faint hope for peace.
What you're saying is that millions of human beings should be subjected to brutal military occupation indefinitely, because their oppressors are afraid for their own safety, should they give up control.
If you declare war on someone, you should prepare to be occupied if you lose. The fair way out of occupation is a sustainable peace guaranteeing safe existence to Israel. And it requires a lot of good will from Arab population in both Palestine and neighboring countries that has been missing since 1948 (or even earlier if you consider Arab revolts in British Palestine).
That is kind of how occupation works? But that was not my point. My point is that if you wage an aggressive war, you deserve being occupied. Like Germany, Japan, Serbia or Iraq. And the way out of occupation is to convince your neighbours that you are not willing to attack again. Otherwise they will have no other choice than to keep you in a state that you can not attack again. And that is a miserable state indeed.
There is no comparison between aggressive imperialist world powers like Germany and Japan, on the one hand, and an almost powerless people living under foreign military occupation, like the Palestinians.
What you're doing here is just giving a justification for unlimited military repression of the Palestinian people by Israel. It reminds me of the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Palestinians will take their beatings until they completely prostrate themselves before their oppressors and accept what they're being offered: nothing.
Gaza did not elect Hamas. Hamas got 43% of the vote (their opposition was notoriously corrupt) and then they fought a civil war against the Palestinian Authority to assume control of Gaza.
That's inaccurate, Hamas won the 2006 legislative election. The reason they fought a civil war was because Fatah (with the backing of US and I think Israel) was trying to take control over Gaza despite the elections, and they fought to "keep control" of it.
From Wikipedia:
> The Palestinian legislative election took place on 25 January 2006 and was judged to be free and fair by international observers.[18][19] It resulted in a Hamas victory, surprising Israel and the United States, which had expected their favoured partner, Fatah, to retain power.
So what should Israel do specifically in Gaza?