Do you even realize how difficult it would be for a child to live life normally after their school is destroyed? How do you think such actions will affect young children? If you were one of the children who witnessed the horrors during aerial bombardment, would you ever forget?
Part of the issue with rebuilding is that the raw materials get confiscated to support the war effort.
The bombing is at least partly related to the reduction of other options. Israel used to have the option of driving tanks in to get at some particular problem but now Gaza is so heavily mined and full of anti-tank weapons that this can't be done. It also has a significant tunnel network which makes infantry less of an option. So if someone fires a rocket at you from Gaza you have fewer options. This is just a pure strategic calculation, not really political. Part of that calculation is also the moral side, the impact on the population and the public opinion side of bombing, hence the "knock on roof" protocols and various pre-warning to allow people to evict buildings that are targets to a bomb. But surely a lot of innocent people still do get hurt, this tends to happen in war...
At any rate, this is very much not black and white. I think these days in Israel there is a lot less interest in peace mostly because getting burned with previous attempts has left deep scars in the general population. Anything that can be done to try and normalize things is welcome...
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?
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).
Not when stopping likely means your enemy is willing to help.
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.
Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.
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. :-(
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 :(
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
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=70Oqo_wmuGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcrWy3PT6zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E
And yes, I agree with you that knocking on the roof is a very considerate "last warning". Which other country goes to such lengths to minimize civilian loss of life? There are early warnings, too, though: by phone, text and leaflets. That's why you don't see any people running out of that house: it is already empty.
Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc.
The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position).
Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign.
But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy.
(Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)
The lies you are talking about are just part of a long term negotiation until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist and live in peace. Once this milestone is achieved, Israel will not have any excuse to move forward with the peace process because the Israelis, and the jewish people will not tolerate more excuses.
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.)
The murder of Jews is regularly lauded by official Hamas spokesmen, and such murders are routinely celebrated by the Palestinian masses (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6451/palestinians-murder-israe...).
The solution is for Hamas to give up its dream of the liquidation of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist regime in which Jews are second-class citizens, in accord with the Islamist interpretation of Koranic verses which call for the subjugation of Jews by means such as the jizyah tax and so on.
- at time of withdrawal settlers were required to depart
- settlers wanted more money to leave greenhouses behind
- didn't get it from Israeli government, started demolishing
- Western philanthropists purchased remaining greenhouses and donated
- When Israelis withdrew, some greenhouses were looted
- some remained in operation, until inability to export produce through checkpoint to Israeli made them unviable
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/world/middleeast/israeli-s...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9331863/ns/world_news-mideast_n_af...
Which is not the same as "some greenhouses were looted". My image and recollection is more like everything got looted. I mean if only very little were looted it wouldn't be a "blow to efforts"?
Also see this story about the guy who paid for most it: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/nyregion/how-old-friends-o...
I'm sure those greenhouses could have been used for export or for local consumption if the Palestinians plotted a different course after Israel withdrew. There wouldn't be a blockage on Gaza either. The whole point wrt/ to Gaza is that once Israel left their next actions were looting of greenhouses (all or some, doesn't matter) followed by an endless stream of attacks against Israel (and the excuses don't really matter either, "they started" isn't a good enough reason for shelling Sderot e.g. unless you're a 3 year old).
For sure there are two sides to the story and many Palestinians who think differently but Hamas in Gaza does not wish to lead a peaceful life side by side with its neighbors and that has consequences.