Isreal/Palastine conflict

Perhaps I'm opening up too big of a can of worms here, but this has been on my mind a lot lately (and probably has for many others as well). Is there an appropriate Jedi response or perspective on this conflict.

I have to acknowledge that I don't understand it very well. I've been trying to dig into both the history and the current events to get a better handle on it. It seems that on some level the conflict is spurred by the reality that the same place is the ancestral home and spiritual center for two different groups of people, and geopolitics over the past century have only further muddied the waters of what part of that place should belong to each of them. The limited resources and in particular water and energy resources which are particularly critical are in short supply in the region and so distribution of natural resources is no small component either. Regardless of where one sits on the current events of the last few weeks, it seems clear according to pretty much any international authority or human rights organization that the situation the people in Gaza have had forced upon them is untenable and clear violation of human rights with some estimates putting the number still living as refugees as high as 80%. Without control of their own airspace or coastline, and with basically no imports/exports/or people leaving to pursue things like education permitted, on top of the already limited natural resources in the area, there is pretty much no hope for a stable economy or any reprieve for the desperate situation in Gaza.

On the other hand, the acts the spawned the present conflict of the past few weeks are abhorrent no matter what they are in response to. At first I was hesitant to believe the stories, figuring they were at the very least exaggeration or representing a few isolated incidents as representative of the whole ordeal. As more and more nations and organizations confirm more and more details though, it seems pretty clear that the initial attack targeted children and schools. They beheaded and kidnapped any civilians they could. These were not the acts of a desperate people fighting for survival. These are the most heinous atrocities they could think of, seemingly in a bid to get as much attention and provoke as strong a response as possible (largely because of how that would play out amid bigger geopolitical events). There are certainly those who understand this conflict better than I do in my brief attempt at researching it, so I'd welcome feedback on where my understanding of the situation is inaccurate.

Still, the question becomes this: Can we simultaneously hold two seemingly opposing views? One a view of sympathy for the citizens of Gaza who have been living in inhumane conditions and are now desperately trying to find a way to flee their home in fear for their lives when the paths out are restricted and they have no place to go. The other view a condemnation of the Hamas military who serves the government in charge of Gaza and the atrocities they committed, and a sympathy for the citizens of Israel who themselves have also been living in fear and are recoiling from the trauma of the terrorist strikes. So much of the world right now seems to be roiled in debate between these two seemingly opposing views: Which side is right and which side is wrong? Who is the villain here that should be condemned? Those taking opposing stands on this issue are finding themselves at political and financial odds with each other. In truth, it doesn't seem this is as black and white as many conflicts, or as stories like Star Wars. Perhaps leadership on both sides bear blame, and citizens on both sides require sympathy and support. How does that blame and sympathy play out though? Does that mean finding a way to take out Hamas while finding ways to support Gaza citizens? How does all this play out into the larger situation? How do we ensure that after the dust settles, everyone has the resources they need to live, on both sides of the conflict? This isn't even getting into the larger geopolitical issues around the world and how it is effecting or may effect groups and individuals throughout the world.

All of this comes back to my first question: Is there a Jedi way of looking at all of this? There's a lot to look at, a lot of emotions, and - no matter what side of the debate one sits on - very much a lack of peace and harmony, both short term and long term.

not one person here is able to speak on the matter, because its beyond the scope of so many to even imagine how bad this has gotten. 

Anyone can speak on this matter. You have no clue what experiences people have been through. Trying to shut down a thread because YOU don’t feel anyone is qualified or experienced enough to talk about it just advertises how huge your ego is. People are allowed to have opinions on this topic based on their views and experiences. Just because you deem them not good enough doesn’t make them any less valid. I personally spent 20 months in the Middle East when the war in Iraq first started, and I’ve spent a lot of time in other middle eastern and 3rd world countries. I’ve seen and experienced things so grotesque, and inhumane that it would make most people not sleep for a year. So please let’s reframe from telling other people what their minds can comprehend.

i have neither the power or ability to whats being ascribed to me. shut down a thread? if i had that power this thread wouldnt even exist. but i do not. 

i served too. and nothing, NOTHING we've seen can compare to whats happening right now, becayse unless youre over seventy, theres no conflict thats happened that can hope to come close to what we're only hearing whispers of.

edit if you dont like my opinion thats fair. but dont shut down my opinion if we're creating an effort to not shut down opinions. its self defeating.

Again….maybe nothing “you have seen”. You speaking for others is the point I’m addressing. Your exact words were “nothing we’ve seen” …. You have no clue what I or anyone else has seen or experienced.

I doubt anyone can speak to the totality of these events. Even the people in the thick of it are still trying to grasp what is going on in a rapidly changing and chaotic situation. This occupies space in our most if not all of our minds and how we respond to it has impact, and so figuring out how to process everything we are hearing and learning about is important. This kind of goes back to my original question: how do we, as Jedi approach thinking about topics like this?

To perhaps build on what Wraith said a bit, is just staying out of it, recognizing what we don't know and leaving it at that okay? That was kind of my approach initially. I tried to dance around the topic a bit, show sympathy for the fact that I recognize people are suffering, but avoid using words that stirred things up more or indicated a judgement I was not informed enough to make. This oddly enough only stirred things up more. My lack of understanding of the conflict meant the the words I was using to describe the location and the suffering occurring themselves caused conflict. I needed to at least understand enough to speak semi-intelligently about it. I am no expert on the subject for sure, but at least for me I found completely bowing out and more or less ignoring it was not working.

On the other hand, the doctrine reminds us that it's important to understand our limitations, recognize what we don't know. That's sort of what I was doing opening this thread: recognizing that my own perspective was limited, both in terms of the current events and in terms of the Jedi approach to addressing events like this. I think that while it's important to recognize our own limitations, it's also important to knowledge to fill in those gaps within us.

Really, though, this was as much a question about Jediism as it was a question about the current conflict. How do we as Jedi process complex global conflicts like this? Recognizing our own limitations is an important first step, and trying to learn what we can is probably a good second step, but then how do we process these things emotionally, how do we decide which side to take or if we should take a side at all? After learning what we can (and asking others who know more than we do), how do we process it and come to an opinion or perspective on a topic that occupies so much of our world's mental and emotional bandwidth right now, and how do we make sure that any opinion we come to is valid and just? The current conflict is an example, but I imagine the principles can apply in many places.

Remember jedi are aware of the world around them. Any feelings or opinions you have are valid. Your job is to gather information from credible sources, then form an opinion based on fact. But I’d say it’s every jedis job to be aware of what’s going on in the world. In fact that’s one of the driving factors behind our degree scheme. How the world works, and how the people in the world think is the most valuable information you can have as a jedi.

Interesting perspective from someone with a unique insight;

You are correct. It's a complex issue and there is a way to be on both sides. Let me explain.

First, let's understand that the universe is always trying to balance itself. And often this happens through conflict. Two forces collide; both trying to survive against the other. One thing I like to do is play devil's advocate. In this case imagine removing the circumstances from their current context.

Imagine a family has been living in a house for generations. There is a terrible war that produces refugees and because of the intervention of the government, these refugees move into the same house but now they control who gets which bedrooms and who gets to put food in and take food out of the fridge; and all of this while still getting money from the government - way more than what the original family got.

It's not the refugees fault they had to be refugees. However, the allied forces, I think, allowed the bible to play too big a role in determining what should happen next. Ultimately, Nazi Germany wanted to get rid of the Jews. They started that process and then the allies resettled them in Israel under the notion that this was their ancestral home.

I also have to add that although I detest what the Nazis did with every fiber of my being, there is a part that I honestly have to admit wasn't right on the Jews part. That's because, if they were following the bible, it allowed them to discriminate within their business practices in ways that will always benefit them, as a group, possibly to the detriment of others around them. I wouldn't be lying if I said these were unfair business practices. But again... they were just following their religion as a precedent for how they live. But its also not everyone else's fault that this rubs them the wrong way.

So because of all that, now the problem isn't concentrated in Germany. Now they have their "own" territory that the allies handed to them based on the biblical storyline of YHWH giving that land to the Israelites. One... this assumes these Jews (which is a religion) are the same people as the tribal blood descendants of Jacob. And if that's true then their national identity of "Israeli" should have been preceded by a tribal identity (Judah, Dan, Rueben, Levi, Benjamin, etc.), not necessarily "Ashkenazi" which could simply be people who adopted the same religion. Why is this important? If they didn't live there before then it becomes more like an invasion of religious people who simply identify with (not necessarily "as") the people that (may have) and (at one time) conquered the land. 

What's important about that? Well, there are tons of people who feel like America mistreated its native inhabitants and shoved them onto reservations and so on and so forth but that there's no reason or point in "going back" because what's done is done. And that's outside the scope of this thread. But... if that is the case then why ignore the fact that even if the Israelites did, at one time, conquer the region, they certainly didn't hold it because they were conquered by Rome and by other nations before that. So to say that "God gave them the land" is... similar to the same bogus sentiment that American settlers used called "manifest destiny".

But however we may feel about what the allies did we can recognize the fact that there were 3 groups of people caught in the middle:
The natives
The refugees
The Germans (including them because it doesn't mean there was 100% agreement to everything that happened)

I don't believe in any "chosen people". I think that is a plot narrative that makes certain people feel entitled to what has been given to them, not by God, but by the world-only because the world includes many people who share in the same belief.

But from this place... of being the "chosen people" of God the world has really kind of turned its head to the abuses and mistreatment that they have done for a long long time. And part of this includes the same type of business practices they were doing before because it works for them (discrimination in general works for the people doing the discriminating). 

When the American settlers went to war against the crown it was because of they believed themselves to be treated unfairly, especially with regard to taxation. When the NT's main conflict against Rome was happening, it too, was fueled by a negative reaction to Rome's taxes on Israel as a vassal state. If they would have shut up and just paid this would have brought unimaginable wealth and prosperity to England. But here and in different other parts of the world, the English yoke was cast off in exchange for freedom.

So instead of simply saying "I stand with Israel", we need to stand with freedom and justice FOR ALL. Does it mean we should fight for everyone to be free? No. But it means we shouldn't fight against people who are fighting for freedom and self-determination; especially if they have the desire and means to self-govern. And then on top of that, we should use our foreign aid to have checks and balances on any ally who is oppressing another group of people just like if we had an ally that was known for human trafficking or drug cartels. 

And sometimes people are going to fight by any means necessary (like IEDs or drone attacks that cause collateral damage) and the people of that nation may not agree with every strike or every decision that causes harm to innocent civilians. So I would say the Jedi response would be advocating first for a cease-fire, and then to address atrocities on both sides. One thing we always have to be conscious of is which side we're simply taking because it represents the side of authority (like a Republic that turned into the Empire). This is somewhat similar to partisanship in politics. Once, you pick a side it's easier and easier to demonize the other side while what your own side does is also bad. At that point, it starts to look to the rest of the world like Jedi are bad, acting as a police force to stop people who want to fight for the very same freedoms that we enjoy. Imagine if your kid was destined to earn low wages for the rest of their lives because they were being actively denied education. How long must those atrocities escape our notice? Is it when children get killed? Seems like innocent children are always the sacrifice for the world.

I have 3 strong dislikes that all have been invoked by this:
(I) Devil's advocacy. It usually ends up on a trajectory for going pro se with extra steps.
(II) Reductive arguments. Just because one can edit a narrative down that way doesn't mean one should leave out relevant information.
(III) Ad Hitlerum. Any time that anything about Nazis is brought up, thoughts should be subject to a hard look before they're posted.

There are some points that have been edited in a way that's very prejudicial which I find at least discouraging. To answer the original prompt, I'd like to echo what Zero said and encourage awareness of the rich history behind this conflict in order to take a view that accounts for all the interests involved. This conflict has existed in its current state since WW1 because there isn't an easy solution. And unless one of us here is secretly a foreign policy buff, I think our opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think you all will find that in any conflict, there is right and wrong on both sides… especially when you’re there to see it first hand. There are good and decent people on both ends of the rifle, fighting for what they believe in….but only at first. Let me explain the best I can.

Reasons, beliefs, excuses, sides, and groups often go right out the window when the bullets start flying. All too often these conflicts, regardless of why they started, end up being about survival. I vividly remember The first firefight I was involved with in Iraq, and I went into it as a proud American soldier, there to do what’s right and save a persecuted people. My last firefight, I spent over 600 rounds of ammo and hit nothing but sand, because I just didn’t care about the “why” anymore. They were shooting at me, so I shot back. My personal reasons shifted the longer I was in that hell to the point that all I cared about was getting myself and my soldiers home. In more organized conflicts, you see the same thing on both sides. In Ww2, when The war was ending it wasn’t uncommon to see German POWS are playing cards with their American captors, or even having a drink together. The why we were at war didn’t matter, and we were all feeling the same way on both sides.

This conflict in Israel has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, this is just the latest iteration. It makes me wonder as a jedi how much of the “why” has been lost to time? How much of that conflict in engraved into the culture itself? How many children are taught to hate the other side no matter what from birth? Whose reason was right and who’s reason was wrong prolly doesn't come as much into play now as it did 500 years ago.

That all said….the current issue at hand we should be concerned with isn’t the why, but the how. How this conflict will be fought by either side will have consequences. Targeting civilians, kidnapping women and children, targeting hospitals…..those things will change it from an Israel Gaza conflict to a global conflict with a quickness. The US, england, Canada, France, Germany, and many other countries will only let that go so far before we put our foot in it. If and when we do, it will be quick and dramatic, and no matter what, we will be viewed as the bad guy. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we show up all shock and awe, (which is the only way it’s done now) we will bee seen as bullies, and world police, and so on. If we stay out of it, then we “allowed” it to happen and are just as guilty as anyone else. No matter what, we lose.

This has been another 2am rant from a very sleepy Zero. Hopefully this one is a bit coherent and makes an ounce of sense when you all read it. It did in my head when I wrote it.

I disagree that this is a problem created by the fallout of WW2. The region known by different groups as Israel or Palestine has been inhabited by both groups for around 4000 years, and both have deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the area, particularly the area of the old city in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall or Wailing wall is the remnant of a Jewish Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. It was itself a rebuilding an older temple built around 3000 years ago. The Dome of the Rock (significant to Palestinians) was built around 1300 years ago nearby. To what extent each occupied that area throughout the different centuries of that time and who should have claim to the land seems to be the subject of extensive debate full of partial histories that make an armchair historian like myself dizzy trying to follow the details (and sift through unbiased fact versus revisionist history). On some level, I also don't know that it matters. At this point both groups have deep cultural and historical ties to the area and to the monuments within it and would feel like they've lost one of the core parts of their identity if that was taken away.

ZealotX wrote:

So I would say the Jedi response would be advocating first for a cease-fire, and then to address atrocities on both sides.

 

I think this is an interesting observation, and I'm not sure if it's an accurate one. (I'm also not sure it's an inaccurate one). There are certainly a lot of people who consider a cease-fire to be the inhumane response at this juncture. I think I remember seeing in the doctrine somewhere something along the lines of it being important to know when action or inaction is most appropriate. The argument for cease-fire seems to revolve around the idea that attacking Gaza puts a lot of civilians in harm's way, civilians that in many cases have no way to escape and nowhere to escape to even if they could. On the other hand those arguing against a cease-fire seem to be mainly focused on the idea that Hamas (the political group running Gaza, which will likely remain in power until removed by some force internal or external) will continue to commit atrocities and intentionally hurt civilians until they are stopped, and that a cease-fire is effectively putting innocent civilians in harm's way through inaction. The argument is that Hamas is hell bent on hurting people and will continue to do so until forcibly stopped. The unfortunate reality is that there's probably truth to both sides of that debate. Continued attacks on Gaza will almost certainly means more civilian deaths, but as far as I can tell Hamas whole identity and goal seems to be taken back the entire land by force and seems to prefer the more inhumane strategies for doing so.

I think there is a lot of reason to be concerned about the conditions that civilians in Gaza have been living in under the Israeli blockade and I think that needs to be addressed, but I also see that as a closely related but separate issue. It wasn't really the people of Gaza that staged the terrorist attacks a few weeks ago, it was Hamas, and while Hamas is among the people of Gaza and holds control of Gaza that doesn't mean they are interchangeable or that they are acting out of the interest of the people of Gaza. Of course mixed up in all of this is the right to self determination. Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza (about 15 years ago, with no elections since, and was not elected to a majority but simply the largest percentage among multiple groups, but still seem to hold wide support among the people of Gaza), and by going in and effectively eliminating the political movement that the people of Gaza have elected does raise some ethical questions as well. I think those questions are a lot smaller (especially considering the lack of elections since they came into power), but it's worth at least pondering how that fits in. I'm not sure where exactly I was going with this paragraph, just that there are deeper issues that still need to be resolved but those may need to come after addressing the most immediate conflict.

Rex wrote:

I have 3 strong dislikes that all have been invoked by this:
(I) Devil's advocacy. It usually ends up on a trajectory for going pro se with extra steps.
 

Personally, I agree with your reasoning, but disagree with the sentiment as a whole. I can appreciate that sometimes "playing devil's advocate" is cover for sharing a controversial opinion without having to take ownership of it. On the other hand, it's also kind of the core of the Socratic method if I understand it correctly: question and challenge everything, look at the opposite point of view and verify that the original view was valid by basically arguing against it as much as possible.


Zero, your 2AM rant was indeed coherent, and insightful as well. It was also a little light in the "hope" department, but that seems to just be a reality of this entire situation. Pretty much every angle we can look at it from is tragic and worrying. That seems to be the one thing that just about everyone agrees on.

Unfortunately with this conflict there is an enduring belligerency in various Muslim groups going on now over 100 years - that have seemingly wanted to keep those lands under Islamic control ever since they lost them to the Brits in WW1. My concerns is as long as major elements within disputing parties wants nothing less than the destruction of the other, then nothing anyone can do will satisfy them short of meeting their demand.... and so when it's an untenable demand it just perpetuates ongoing conflict. That is the first and main problem IMO, the rest seem to have more to do with Palestine being unable or unwilling to manage their own security be it internally (stopping their people attacking Israel) and externally (reaching stable border agreements with Israel) - with so many super wealthy Muslim countries in the region I've never known why they can't sort it out - not withstanding the first aforementioned problem (which be extension falls within the solution to the second problem!?).

It might be of note to remember Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years, even during Islamic rule post 7th century, for example in 1914 while still under Ottoman Turk rule they numbered nearly 100,000 or 1/5th of the population, apparently. But according to Wikipedia lots of Jews left Palestine (after the Muslim armies invaded) in the 8th and 9th century because of discrimination by the recently invading Islamic armies.

So going back to when this started more recently, the Brits having control and authority over those lands post 1917/1922 saw them start progress on building a Jewish homeland - not instead of Muslims living there but alongside until an enduring solution could be created. Despite effectively (roughly speaking) being ruled by the Brits between 1917 and 1947, conflicts ensued. Some Muslim groups even sided with Nazi Germany in WW2 to that same end. When the UN proposed the two state solution under their Partition Plan in 1947 the Jews accepted it but the Arabs rejected it and started decades long string of campaigns to destroy Israel.

Today the issue is the same, but a bit different, but the same at its root drivers IMO. So to me it seems more like a religious conflict than a political one.... certainly it's dressed up as a political one seemingly. AFAIK Hamas's stated reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and creation of an Islamic State over those lands... but I think its inaccurate to view it in a political context as per their narrative. Which is another point, I think its worthwhile trying to avoid either sides narrative as gospel.

But a conflict going on this long will have plenty of problems on both sides, as population increases, technology changes, and histories become bloodier. It's easy for both sides to find reasons to fight, whats hard is finding solutions. I think when in complex situations sometimes ya have to step away from the emotion as much as possible, step away from the tit for tat, and instead start looking for compromises by both sides.

Not only coherent and insightful but pointedly quick in cutting to the bone of the issue. Which I think is that a lot of conflicts are played out on different levels. There is a political level of mostly theater where there "idea" of the conflict is planted, germinates, and is fueled by rhetoric. On this level, the conflict still exists but is fought with words. If this fight happens in temples and mosques without the other side represented, that side almost cannot lose and therefore it is easy to commit hearts and minds and eventually recruit actual bodies. Therefore, every wrong done by one side to the other serves as a recruiting tool and it is often the religious leaders, using the idea of God and of divine justice, to not only justify the taking of land but then also revenge against those trying to take it or retake it.

But on the physical/military level, it boils down to survival and warm bodies are smashed into warm bodies until so many are cold that the two sides are too tired or weak to continue. The reasons at this level don't necessarily matter because it's simply kill or be killed.

I think that is why a cease fire is necessary. Because both sides have a lot of bodies as well as resources/energy to exhaust. Both want to prove they have the will to win but often people don't necessarily care about winning or what winning means or looks like. Survival IS winning. Therefore, the way both can win is to stop fighting and instead of fighting in different rooms with verbal ammunition, they need to fight with words in the same room where both sides can be fairly represented, express their fears, hurts, and anger, and find solutions that don't involve the utter annihilation of the other party. Then they need to negotiate peace.

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. It does seem that part of the issue with the Egypt/Gaza border also stems from Egypt's dislike for Hamas leadership which is in part of the internal/external security issues you mentioned, but that wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if Israel wasn't already exerting some control over the border with Egypt and total control over the airspace and coastline. It really is a blockade more than a border agreement issue at that point. Of course even in all of this, it does still come back to the militant/combative nature of Hamas and the fact that they have had control internally within the borders since first elected, and there has been no mechanism for them to be ousted by the people of Gaza even if they wanted to, which all flows into the other point I found interesting:

ZealotX wrote:

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.
 

This seems hit the core of the cease-fire debate. Is the source of the conflict the desire of a king (or party that is in power) who has, as previously mentioned, stated their core reason for being as the total destruction of Israel? If that head is cut off will the conflict die down enough that cooler heads and diplomatic efforts have a chance? Are the people's desire sufficiently different that the removal of the head would remove much of the conflict? Or is this just a natural and inevitable manifestation of the deeper desires of the people and culture and cutting off the head will only at best temporarily delay the conflict? The argument against the cease-fire seems to be that it is Hamas that is the big issue, and that peace cannot happen so long as Hamas remains, and once Hamas is gone there is hope for peace. On the other hand, the argument for a cease-fire seems to be exactly what you've been proposing: this is a deeper conflict that won't be resolved simply by cutting off the head of the latest manifestation of the conflict and the only way to resolve it is by getting to that deeper conflict and resolving that first. In this argument, the sentiment seems to be that eliminating Hamas itself won't really make a big difference and is going to cost far too many civilian lives in the process of accomplishing very little in the bigger picture.

The question then perhaps becomes: what would things look like if Hamas were successfully eliminated? Who would take power in the region? Would it be the unpopular but more diplomatically favorable Fatah, or would one of the other smaller parties rise from the ashes of Hamas to take power? If so, how antagonistic or diplomatic would that new group be? What would change with the economic/border situation following the elimination of Hamas? Would the people of Gaza finally have the freedom they desire or would Israel continue to blockade the territory and limit its economic potential, and if so will that just foster new parties to rise and repeat the cycle of violence once again?

Two interesting observations I've made in this conversation (and more accurately my own side research throughout it) is that of Egypt's relationship with Hamas, and that of Hamas and Fatah's relationship with current public opinion. One of the reasons why Egypt has been stingy with opening its border over the last several years is disagreements with Hamas and not wanting anyone from Hamas at the border. Egypt in general is more allied with Palestinians than Israel, but Hamas control has shifted them toward policies that are more favorable to Israel. On some level that suggests that Hamas really is the problem, and if they were removed some of the other issues would themselves at least be reduced considerably. On the other hand, it isn't Hamas that has stopped a new election from happening. In fact they are very critical of the Palestinian Authority's president for not holding new elections, which is largely because Fatah who currently holds the majority in the PA has lost a lot of popularity, and a new election would likely hand more power to Hamas, probably giving them control of the West Bank as well. That seems to suggest that Hamas is not the problem but a manifestation of the people being fed up with the iron fist they feel they are under and are eager to have leaders who will fight back and do whatever it takes to win their freedom. That indicates that it is not Hamas and eliminating Hamas will not fix the issues and the underlying issues must themselves be fixed first. I think this also puts the video previously shared by Master Adder in an especially interesting light as it cuts to the core of what Hamas really want and what things might look like if a cease-fire does happen. What isn't as clear to me is what would happen if a cease-fire doesn't happen and Hamas is eliminated. Who would fill that void created?

Cornilion Seadragon wrote:

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. 


 

Didn't Israeli control of the Gaza border with Egypt effectively stop in 2011?

Israel's direct control of that crossing ceased, yes, but they have continued to exert influence on the crossing indirectly through a number of means.

The first is that Israel still controls the Palestinian population registry, and many Palestinians in Gaza have been unable to get IDs or passports which are issued by Israel and necessary in order to leave regardless of which border they are crossing, and even necessary in some cases to move from town to town across internal military checkpoints.

The second is the multiple attacks they have carried out on Rafah, the town the border crossing is in. Israel bombed this town in 2014 shutting down the border crossing (Israel said they were destroying the tunnel system in the town), and again just a couple days ago did a large strike on Rafah complicating any passage through the Rafah border crossing.

The third is that Egypt, not wanting to see relations with Israel sour any more than necessary, have largely been following Israel's lead on what good and population can cross the border. The only goods that cross are construction materials and food, and on multiple occasions specific demographics (like men younger than 40) have been barred from crossing. Most recently Egypt blamed Israel for the closing of the Rafah crossing during the current conflict as well. Because Egypt has been trying to act as a mediator between Israel and Palestine, they have been cautious of any activity that might piss off Israel.

The fourth influence is through the pressure that Israel puts on that crossing by cutting off all other potential ports of entry. Israel controls any other way in or out of Gaza by land via Israel, by air, and by sea. This means any refugees trying to leave Gaza would pour into Egypt (which Egypt doesn't really want) since they can't leave any other way. Being the sole port of entry not directly controlled by Israel also means that any activity permitted there that Israel itself wouldn't permit would quickly earn Israel's ire. If there were multiple ports of entry it would put a lot less political pressure on that one crossing, but since there aren't it becomes a political firestorm causing an extraordinary amount of caution by Egypt.

All of these issues just compound the fact that Egypt itself has some political instability and change in regime in Egypt has led to temporary border closures in the past, and the fact that Egypt itself doesn't like or trust Hamas has meant that even when Israel isn't interfering with people crossing this border it can be unpredictable with it only seeming to be open about half the time from what I can tell. Since Gaza doesn't control any of its own ports of entry (including air or sea ports) and all other ports of entry are controlled by Israel who is very restrictive, the largely unstable Rafah crossing becomes the only way in or out and the unpredictability with that port makes it difficult for people to be able to reliably come and go as needed.

Because of all of this, Israel may not be directly controlling that crossing anymore, but they are still exerting a lot of indirect influence on who, what, and when people/goods can cross and still gets in the way of Gaza having a predictable port of entry/exit. There are certainly both internal and external security issues and those are no small part of why the Rafah crossing is complicated and unpredictable (Egypt, for example, won't accept Hamas forces manning the border, only Palestinian Authority, because they don't trust Hamas, and some of the restrictions at the border are out of concern for security in the Egyptian controlled Sinai peninsula), but the larger issue restricting passage in and out of the the Gaza territory is still Israel's blockade and influence on Gaza, which would remain a significant hurdle even if the security concerns were removed. The fact that Palestinians are reliant on Israel to get IDs and other paperwork needed to cross and that there have been significant issues for a lot of people trying to get IDs itself is a huge way that Israel continues to control all border crossings even as they officially withdrew from controlling the crossing into Egypt.

Is there a way to rescue Palestinian LGBTQ couples from the Isreal-Hamas war? Many Palestinians fled to Isreal to escape persecution over the years just for being gay?
Because the Gay Palestinian refugees already have a strong community in Isreal, I find the “open air prison” argument rather sus. 

https://www.jta.org/2023/10/25/ideas/the-abandonment-of-israel-by-lgbt-groups-is-hypocritical-and-cruel

https://www.haaretz.com/life/2022-09-22/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-tragedy-of-queer-palestinians-now-on-stage/00000183-65d3-db87-a18f-67ff48420000

I haven't seen anything about specifically LGBT+ persecution in this conflict. Also from demographic data I was able to find, Palestine and Israel have ~0 and 8.5% LGBT+ populations respectively, so I don't see this as a conflict with high risks in general. Israel has a very interesting pluralistic approach to these issues predating this which leads to certain centers (e.g. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya) being more LGBT-friendly; these areas aren't too proximate to the conflict either.
I also would caution reading those articles as gospel given that Haaretz is a fun mix of socially liberal but hawkish on Israel's FP.
I think also relevant to this conflict is that it took place right when Saudi-Israel normalization had viability. I'd highly recommend listening to War on the Rocks' recent pair of podcast episodes if you want a tactical deep dive into the context and facts undergirding this conflict.

Thanks, I’ll totally check Haaretz out.
Fog of war is pretty daunting to say the least.