[johnnyworker]

First Israel "completely withdrew", now it didn't, but for good reasons.

There simply aren't justifications for using starvation against civilians, calling them animals and calling for their extermination, while IDF soldiers make videos rifling through the belongings of Palestinians to mock them, talking about colonization. "They" (Israeli hard right etc.) always wanted to take the land, so using the crimes of Hamas as an excuse to do just whatever, for just targeting infrastructure to make Gaza unlivable, as they so proudly describe in interviews, while repeating how it's all just self-defense is just too transparent.

> it's clear that this would have been a lot worse for Israel if the blockade wasn't there

You think? As they say, there is nothing scarier than a man without hope, and nobody is complaining about not letting weapons in. At least I am not.

There is the cost to Israel. You cannot commit and justify atrocities, dehumanize other humans completely, without getting deeply damaged yourself. As Chris Hedges wrote about comraderie (versus friendship), it feels great in war time, it's a high, for a while, but the comedown is really depressing and lonely.

And then there is the damage in the eyes of the world, which will keep trickling in for many years. The US, UK, Israel and Germany have no credibility right now except to each other and the usual vassals.

[vasilipupkin]

Israel completely withdrew from Gaza. This inability to deal with the basic facts of the situation is amazing to me. Are you seriously arguing that Israel didn't withdraw? here, watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueN-wntJqNE

After it withdrew and Hamas took over and started firing rockets, after that, Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade. This is not hard, this is not confusing.

"here is the cost to Israel. You cannot commit and justify atrocities"

They are not committing atrocities. What you call atrocities is the inevitable tragedy of war. Yes, war is bad, it's bad for everyone, including Israel

But what's the alternative? Leave Hamas in power? that is not a possible alternative, that's been tried for 17 years, it has failed.

[runarberg]

Israel only withdrew ground troops and settlers from the Gaza strip, it maintained the occupation via other means, including full control over the airspace, telecommunication, sea access, the population registry, etc. Israel fully controls all but one border crossing, and the only remaining is controlled by Egypt, but fully monitored by Israel and is subject to Israeli approval.

Israel maintains a 300 meter no-go zone inside the Gaza strip which they regularly shoot at Gaza residents for entering (although reports exist which states people have been shot at up to 1.5 km from the border).

Israel reserves the right to enter the Gaza strip whenever they see fit.

Israel has kept a continuous blockade of Gaza since 2007, between 2005 and 2007 there were also blockades of various levels of intensity. This started before the Hamas takeover of the strip.

Israel claims it ended the occupation but nobody outside of Israel believes that. This includes the UN, EU, International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, etc. Even the US state department considers Gaza to be occupied territory.

No, Israel only ever partially withdrew from Gaza. Their conduct prior to oct 7 is more then enough to qualify as occupation.

[vasilipupkin]

You are missing the point. Israel physically withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, without any agreement, without any negotiation. It simply withdrew its forces and moved its people out of there at huge cost. Subsequently, the expectation was that the security situation would improve. Had that happened, then you could talk about airspace, waters, etc. But that did not happen, the opposite happened. Israel's security worsened as a result of the withdrawal. Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for 17 years now. The blockade happened not because Israel woke up one day and for no reason other than its own amusement ( and apparently Egypt too ) and decided to blockade. The blockade happened because a terrorist organization which is dedicated to destruction of Israel took over and at that point, Israel and Egypt had very little choice other than blockade Hamas. Alleging that blockade did not happen in response to Hamas is just flat out false. Did Egypt also blockade Gaza for no reason whatsoever? Come on, this is just absurd argumentation.

[runarberg]

It is good that we can finally agree that Gaza is occupied by the Israeli military.

> Alleging that blockade did not happen in response to Hamas is just flat out false.

Never alleged that. The current variation of the blockade is in response to Hamas’ takeover. However there were blockades before Hamas’ takeover:

> The special envoy of the Quartet James Wolfensohn noted that "Gaza had been effectively sealed off from the outside world since the Israeli disengagement [August–September 2005], and the humanitarian and economic consequences for the Palestinian population were profound. There were already food shortages. Palestinian workers and traders to Israel were unable to cross the border

> On 15 January 2006, the Karni crossing – the sole point for exports of goods from Gaza – was closed completely for all kinds of exports.

Hamas is elected to government in a fair election on 25 January 2006

> Between 1 January and 11 May [2006], more than 12,700 tonnes of produce were harvested in Gaza's greenhouses, almost all of it destined for export; out of it, only 1,600 tonnes (less than 13%) were actually exported.

Hamas takes control of Gaza in March 2007 after winning the civil war.

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

So for 2 years between the partial withdrawal and Hamas taking power Israel is limiting imports and exports into the Gaza strip.

The blockade follows a similar pattern as other illegal conduct in other occupied territories, is to limit the potential of a free Palestinian state. Israel didn’t wake up one day and decide to blockade for fun. It remains a colonial power with aims to keep its colonial holdings and limit any potential of its colonial subjects.

> Subsequently, the expectation was that the security situation would improve. Had that happened, then you could talk about airspace, waters, etc.

You are arguing in alternative history, any argument rooted in alternative history is pure speculation. You have no proof that would be the case. Who is to say that without the rocket attacks, the Gaza strip would have continued to be subjugated, economically suppressed, and turned into a bantustan for Israel to exploit?

[vasilipupkin]

Gaza is not occupied by Israeli military. After Israel withdrew from Gaza and ended its physical presence in Gaza, some still consider Israel as occupying Gaza due to control of airspace, etc. Some consider, that does it make it a settled fact. THere is disagreement on this from legal point of view its not a settled legal question.

Leaving the legal definition of occupation, here is the simple dictionary definition of occupation from wikipedia

Military occupation, also known as belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is the temporary military control by a ruling power over a territory that is outside of that power's sovereign territory.[1][2][3][4]

Israel did not have military control over Gaza, it is absurd to allege simultaneously that Israel had military control over Gaza and also allowed Hamas to build 500 miles of tunnels and attack itself on October 7th from the territory it militarily controled.

So no, by any sane definition of occupation, such as Wikipedia, Israel was not occupying Gaza before October 8th

These greenhouses you are referring to were run by Israeli settlers in Gaza. They were dismantled when the settlements were dismantled. Not by Israel, by Palestinians themselves https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9331863

"You are arguing in alternative history, any argument rooted in alternative history is pure speculation."

Sorry, that is a weird analysis. By your logic we can't anticipate or logically analyze anything at all, it would all be speculation

The point of Israeli withdrawal was that if the occupation ends, maybe there is more chance for peace, that was the point of it and the opposite happened.

[runarberg]

> There is disagreement on this from legal point of view its not a settled legal question.

The disagreement is Israel says there is no occupation while the rest of the world says there is. This is hardly a disagreement as much that one party is simply wrong. It is like Iran stating it does not have a nuclear weapons program or Russia claiming their elections are fair.