[Cyph0n]

It is indeed not black and white. But when you are surrounded on all sides by a wall, when living conditions never improve, when hospitals lack even the most basic equipment, and when there is no improvement in sight, doesn't armed resistance make sense?

Hamas sometimes takes it a bit too far, I'll definitely admit that, but I think resistance is a valid approach to their conundrum. When you are outgunned and outnumbered, does that mean you just give up?

[YZF]

Don't take it personally but it sounds you're not really familiar with the details and the history of the conflict.

Gaza is not surrounded on all sides by a wall. They have a long border with Egypt that's been relatively porous until fairly recently when Egypt has begun to construct obstacles, they have the sea (under naval blockade but they're allowed to fish) and even the border with Israel is not 100% walled. You might be confusing Gaza with the wall that was erected between Israel and parts of the West Bank. It's true they are isolated which again is what happens when you piss off your neighbors. There are border crossings and people and goods do cross.

Their living conditions do improve, but slowly, and tend to regress when a conflict flares out. Again, partly by their choice of what to invest in.

Resistance is the cause of their (well Hamas or a portion thereof) conundrum and it's going to get them nowhere. What are they resisting? They're resisting the existence of the state of Israel.

As long as they continue "resisting" in the form of tunneling under the border, investing all their resources in arming themselves to the teeth, building and using an arsenal of rockets, supporting the ISIS contingency in Sinai, indiscriminately attacking civilians, inciting hate and racism, etc. they are going to find themselves in a bad spot. The answer to your question for most people is yes, if you're outgunned and outnumbered by many of orders of magnitude you "give up" or at least try and avoid outright war. They could get an agreement tomorrow if all they cared about was living peacefully in Gaza and improving their condition but they want to get territorial ownership of the entirety of Israel which they claim to be the rightful owners of from before 1948 when Israel was created. That's is closer to (but still not the complete, it's more complicated) root of the conflict.

If they stuck to peaceful forms of protest they'd have some chance of having their voice heard while at the same time improving their conditions vastly. If they seek a peaceful solution they must convince Israelis that peace is possible in some form. It seems they are thinking about taking Israel by force eventually and are willing to wait it out as long as it takes (at least the leaders, not necessarily the man on the street who has no say).

[serge2k]

> doesn't armed resistance make sense

Not when stopping likely means your enemy is willing to help.

[berntb]

As far as I know, the walls came up as security measures because of the second Intifada. Before that, people lived in Gaza and worked in Israel and people travelled between for shopping, etc. (This isolation gave serious economic problems in Israel too.)

So the isolation and security came up because of violence, the terror against civilian Israelis is not an original reaction to the wall.

But I suspect you know this.

[Cyph0n]

So when a population misbehaves, you setup a ghetto to isolate it? We're talking about upwards of a million people here by the way. Is that really the right way to handle things?

Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.

[serge2k]

When they are actively trying to murder people, yes. It's not right, but neither is sending in suicide bombers.

[iblankm]

I doubt any of THESE people are actively trying to kill people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8

[berntb]

You don't contradict that you were aware of my points..?

If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza...

(And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.)

The situation is:

Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense.

It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(

[Cyph0n]

I did not respond because you are oversimplifying the issue. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict is long and bloody. Claiming in such a confident and final manner that the building of the wall was because Gaza started is very narrow-sighted.

Your analogy is incorrect.

When a sovereign nation attacks another, war ensues. That is very clear. But when resistance elements arise within a city that is supposedly part of a sovereign nation, you don't build a wall around the city. That's how you would handle it in the Middle Ages.

But the issue is even more complex than that, since the resistance aims to gain independence from the state. So I would say that the Gaza situation is somewhat similar to that of the IRA and the UK.

I don't recall the UK building a wall around Ireland and carpet bombing it every few years?

Woah woah woah man... quite moderate? The destruction of a third of Gaza and the death of thousands of people is quite moderate?

I give up. This discussion is going nowhere :(

[kirillkh]

Do you truly believe that Israel carpet bombs Gaza, or is it just a figure of speech (to make an impression on a reader who doesn't know better)?

This is carpet bombing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzRY0DdRXk

This is a typical Israeli strike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAT1uBNcOHU

And while we're at it, this is indiscriminate bombing of an Israeli town of Sderot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRz3nHwgjHY

[Cyph0n]

My bad. Let's call it "indiscriminate bombing" instead then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqAmIcIpq_4

The "knock on the door" technique employed by the IDF seems very considerate by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjxsrqCdl-4

[wslh]

If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist, the walls will be broken and the major part of the settlements moved. Israel has shown several times that they can exchange land for peace, even within right wing governments.

[ghostDancer]

No one can believe that. That's one of the big lies of the Israeli government. Settlements will never be given back and the mission is to get all the land. That was the idea from the beginning and they think they have their god on their side.

[berntb]

What I've read, is that the border to Gaza was open enough for commuting and shopping trips -- until the systematic attacks on civilians.

You had no problem with that description in your previous comment.

But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting?

(AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)