It wasn't just him, all the governments for the last decade tried to keep the peace while enforcing the blockage but allowing cash for salaries, humanitarian aid etc which made Gaza flourish with hotels, restaurants, beach resorts and high end shopping (see the videos). All no longer :(
A few months prior to October 7th, Natenyahu had allowed the highest number of work visas for Gazans to work in Israel proper. They genuinely thought economic prosperity would bring an slowdown and eventual end to terrorism. Now try and find Israelis who support the idea of 10s of 1000s Palestinians cruising the borders for work each day - thanks to Oct 7th.
Doesn't quite fit the narrative you want to portray, does it?
Not OP, but there were many videos posted, (especially early on in this conflict,) depicting very nice neighborhoods and commercial districts in Gaza (some of which were in the process of being destroyed or abandoned).
Untrue. Your quoting total imports (eg concrete that was largely misappropriated to build Hamas tunnels). The amount of food delivery on average is comparable to before the war.
Accusation of genocide is simply ridiculous considering this was without question an entirely defensive war against an enemy Hamas who wanted to commit the same atrocity repeatedly and embedded itself in civilians. International law as it exists today in allows civilian infrastructure to be targeted when it is used for military means, and each and every Israeli strike had to be approved by its legal team and were proceeded by warnings in the many situations when the military value would not be lost by pre-warning.
Having consumed far too much content and arguments throughout the past 16 months I have not once seen those that accuse Israel of war crimes being able to suggest and effective and reasonable alternative way to uproot the hamas threat (and suggesting that the two state solution which has remained elusive for 75 years and in the context of October the 7th would reward terrorism, is not a reasonable suggestion to an immediate threat)
The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack.
No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc
This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state.
I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.
"Netanyahu assembled a neo-Kahanist fringe coalition as a parliamentary maneuver to keep from losing his post, because it's widely believed he's going to end up in prison as soon as he leaves."
It may be "widely believed" but that doesn't make it true. It's highly unlikely that
Netanyahu would end up in prison. The only case with a real threat of prison (case 4000) has been collapsing steadily since the start, with dismal prosecution witnesses, and judges were pushing the prosecution team for a plea bargain [1] due to the low chances of successful conviction.
It's also clear that the court proceedings would last until the end of the decade, so extending the war by months wouldn't buy him much time. Not to mention that the war cabinet is a unity wartime cabinet that is made up of the main centrist leaders too.
The idea that Netanyahu's war strategy is based on him clinging to power is lazy thinking that keeps on getting trotted out in order to bolster the argument that the war is unjust. In fact, the Israeli public are clearly behind the war aim of dismantling Hamas, the only significant split in public opinion is whether to risk a hostage deal that may not result in many living hostages released in practice and will only encourage further hostage taking by terrorists in the future.
Only ben-Gvir can be accused of having neo-Kahanist tendencies, the rest are "merely" right wing. And forming a coalition with a large parliamentary majority after an election is hardly a "parliamentary manoeuvre", it's democracy and all too predictable after multiple elections and failure for 5 years for centrist coalition to stick together.
All but a tiny fringe of people everywhere favor the dismantling of Hamas --- something that has largely been accomplished at this point. For normal people who aren't poisoned by Twitter, the contention isn't that Hamas is worth saving, but rather that Israel's operations amount in practice to a collective punishment of Gazans for the actions of Hamas. I am deeply sympathetic to this argument, and disagree with most of what you have to say.
I was pointing out that the simplistic theory that Netanyahu is at real risk of going to prison is not true. It's a view that's put out to turn Natenyahu into a "monster" and make it easy to glibly view the war as serving Natenyahu's interests instead of the harder to swallow reality that it supported by the vast majority of Israelis (who don't have the luxury of merely "favor"ing Hamas' destruction, but as a existential necessity to ensuring Oct 7 is not repeated).
The rest of your comment is predicated on the fact that Hamas is a spent force which is nonsense. If there was a ceasefire today it's clear Hamas will regroup and reestablish. Most media sources claim 4 of their battalions are almost fully intact in Rafah.
The war aim, supported by vast majority of Israelis, is that Hamas is no longer a fighting force and will never threaten Israel again. Yes, there may be new terrorist groups that pop up, but the essential deterrent - that Israel is capable and will fully dismantle any good group that wars against it - will be reestablished. (Plus Israel has learnt a lot of lessons about how to ensure Hamas 2.0 is less of threat, including a renewed focus on insisting to the world for a Marshall-plan-style deradicalization, and the realisation that there are no bounds to what terrorists will do even if you ply them with cash and improve work opportunities for Gazans as Netanyahu and many previous governments did prior to Oct 7).
This war involves the most difficult urban warfare the world has ever seen - it's Mosul or Raqah combined with Vietnam, with extensive extensive secret tunnels and the use of civilian infrastructure to wage war. The civilian casualties and destruction where inevitable and the "collective punishment" argument simply does not stack up in this war.
I disagree with all of this. Hamas could be eliminated root and branch and still reconstitute within 10 years. My claim is that Israel has already accomplished the goal you lay out in your third paragraph. I don't believe there is any such thing as "Marshall-plan-style deradicalization".
Of course, what's really happening here is that our premises are too far apart for us to productively discuss things. To continue talking, we'd just be playing to the crowd, hoping to attract some other commenter on this benighted threat to chime in our side. Maybe there's some value in us just calling out the places where we disagree and leaving it at that?
Only Ben-Gvir can be accused of having neo-Kahanist tendencies, the rest are "merely" right wing.
Though that certain other major cabinet figure you're not mentioning (Smotrich) avoids the explicit affiliation and more obvious rhetoric -- his actions clearly resonate with the Kahanist agenda.
Other coalition members seem to be "out there" on the Kahanist spectrum. Meet Orik Strook (aka Minister of Settlements and National Missions), for example:
In 2007, Strook's son Zvi was convicted of abusing a Palestinian boy and killing a young goat, and spent thirty months in an Israeli prison as a result. In response to the ruling, Strook stated that, "Unlike the Court, who preferred to believe the Arab witnesses, we are sure of Zvi's innocence, and are hurting from the success of his haters and would assist him to deal with the difficult sentence imposed on him".
You've also got Zvi Sukkot:
In 2012, [Sukkot] was expelled from the West Bank under suspicion that he was part of a group of 12 that had planned and carried out violent attacks against Palestinians and their property. ... On 6 July 2017, he was arrested on suspicion of engaging in "price tagging". ... At the onset of the Huwara rampage, Sukkot tweeted that "Huwara's killers' nest needs to be taken care of", and posted a picture of himself among a group of settlers gathering at Tapuach Junction, to the immediate south of Huwara.
Finally, it's important to note that the vast majority of the folks who helped the Nazis do their dirty work throughout Europe were not members of their local Nazi parties (or if so, only on paper and sometimes under duress). By and large, they were "merely" right-wing or apolitical.
Not OP, but it magically appeared by League of Nations (UN) vote in 1948.
"Stealing land" is a very one-sided war to look at it. The legalities and mortality of land captured in self defence are debatable to some extent, but clearly not theft. Pre 1948 there was never a Palestinian state (no Palestinian government, currency, army).
2005 disengagement was a more right-wing government. Interestingly, the real peace actions in Israel tend to be achieved by the right wing government.
But if by your argument every Israeli government is somehow a separate state entity, why did the terrorist attacks continue non stop through right wing and left wing Israeli governments?
War is not genocide. Using overly emotive terms does not make your argument stronger.
> it magically appeared by League of Nations (UN) vote in 1948.
> "Stealing land" is a very one-sided war to look at it. The legalities and mortality of land captured in self defence are debatable to some extent, but clearly not theft
Why does it need to be some other state there to be theft?
If some lobbied politicians voted to establish a state that takes over your house and farm, would you just consider it ok? Because they voted for it? So then it’s not theft?
If then the people that take over your non-state land, start taking over your neighbors’ land, sometimes even killing them, that’s also not theft? Because the UN voted for it?
Also, Israel keeps doing it. Even right now, illegal settlement activity in the West Bank (as well as violence) are ongoing and increasing. Do you not consider that theft either?
Not sure what you mean about the Israeli government
What’s going on now is clearly not a war but genocide. The historical context, the literal intent expressed by Israeli political and military leadership, as well as the insane slaughter and destruction executed by Israel both in Gaza and the West Bank, all together very clearly fit both the dictionary and legal definitions of genocide
You think denying that makes Israel’s horrendous actions any better?
You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules).
If you’re referring to 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement. Many millions of people have fled war, more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
> 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement
What weasel way to say killing and displacing the Palestinian to steal their land
On top of that, regardless of whatever history, it’s something that is happening right now. Everyday settlers are forcing Palestinians out of their homes, farms and land in the West Bank
Or are you saying Palestinians in the West Bank are also just “fleeing either from fear or through encouragement”?
None of those had a massacre like Oct 7 with 1200 dead (and as a proportion of Israeli population count that makes it proportionally more devastating than 9/11 for Israel, not too mention it was also more cold blooded and barbaric in methodology).
A better example is eg Mosul which had a far higher death toll, as well as other Isis warzones.
Plus none of those threats are anything like Gaza (and indeed Jenin) which is 5 minutes drive from Israeli towns and so a far greater persistent threat.
Plus those terrorists aren't part of a pattern of repeated wars by neighbouring countries for the same cause that Israel had to endure since its founding.
Abbas is no Lee Kuan Yew, and that comparison is already way more charitable than Abbas deserves...
Wikipedia describes Lee as such: "Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning, championing civic nationalism through meritocracy[3] and multiracialism[4][5] as governing principles, making English the lingua franca[6] to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve the students' mother tongue and ethnic identity."
That's a forward looking vision, not a backwards looking vision like the "Palestinian cause" that seems to end with restitution.
Would any politician with such a vision like Lee's even have a chance with Palestine's electorate? No idea, elections were last held in 2006...
A few months prior to October 7th, Natenyahu had allowed the highest number of work visas for Gazans to work in Israel proper. They genuinely thought economic prosperity would bring an slowdown and eventual end to terrorism. Now try and find Israelis who support the idea of 10s of 1000s Palestinians cruising the borders for work each day - thanks to Oct 7th.
Doesn't quite fit the narrative you want to portray, does it?