• NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No no, take a look at the UN position among others. Gaza is subject to a land, air and sea blockade that gives Israel near-total control over the Gazan economy, alongside ludicrous amounts of surveillance and more. Gazans are also forbidden entry to some parts near the border.

    Israel doesn’t have people physically in Gaza most of the time, but with the amount of control Israel has over Gazans Gaza is most definitely under military occupation by Israel. For example, it’s Israel who decides how much food, water, electricity, medicine, etc etc Gazans get every day, and the answer is always “not enough”.

    For more details:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Israeli_occupation

    • Tarte@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thank you! The English wikipedia article is very different to my own native language’s one (German). I didn’t know that some people call the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt an occupation. These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).

      The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization. Both Israel and Egypt tried to loosen the blockade multiple times in the last decade. But any relaxation was answered with violence. I don’t know how anyone should or could possibly proceed in this setting. All I know is that I do sympathize with the civilians on both sides that are suffering because of it, even if one side elected literal terrorists as their leaders and the other side elected a vengeful right-winger.

      take a look at the UN position among others

      Just a little nitpick: The article you posted recites the position of Human Rights Watch at the UN Human Rights Council. It is not the position of the UN. Still, thanks for the link and your otherwise helpful response!

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).

        That’s the same in English, but the idea is that there’s not much difference between what’s going on in Gaza and having boots on the ground. When whether you can eat for the day or whether your children can get treated for some illness is dependent on someone other government, that dependence is enforced at gunpoint, and the local government having no say in the matter, that’s an occupation.

        The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization.

        That’s what Israel would like you to think; the blockade started in 2005, before Hamas even won the election.

        Just a little nitpick: The article you posted recites the position of Human Rights Watch at the UN Human Rights Council. It is not the position of the UN. Still, thanks for the link and your otherwise helpful response!

        Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi, Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy, John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, and Iain Scobbie) maintain that Israel’s extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.