Well, I'll fess up that I don't actually know the details of Gaza's 2000s blockade, and I honestly don't feel invested enough to check.
I'll point out that even if goods like steel and concrete and industrial equipment are technically allowed, having to send them through a pinhole in a West-Berlin-style wall after getting them approved by…
Well, I'll fess up that I don't actually know the details of Gaza's 2000s blockade, and I honestly don't feel invested enough to check.
I'll point out that even if goods like steel and concrete and industrial equipment are technically allowed, having to send them through a pinhole in a West-Berlin-style wall after getting them approved by the Israeli administration isn't logistically convenient or attractive for foreign investors.
Your link mentions a few donors on different timescales, but the main one is the UN. "From 2014-2020, U.N. agencies spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020 alone".
At a glance, $4.5 billion does seem on the right scale for a major infrastructure project, but only if we assume most of that money comes in the form of cash, and not volunteer time or food. Gaza has virtually no farmland, people *literally can't eat* without UN aid. $600 million isn't a lot to sustain a city with 2 million people for a year with little means to provide for themselves.
Again, I'll admit that I don't know the specific numbers. But I'm pretty sure the average person saying that Gaza should have been the new Singapore or whatever doesn't know the numbers any better than me, and has no idea how expensive turning Gaza into a major shipping hub would be. I assume it would be a lot more than $4.5 billion.
That's very fair on your end. I can acknowledge that any blockade, no matter how limited I think it might be, is not going to arouse investors into emptying their pockets. At the same time, the primary limitation here is how much resources are diverted by Hamas towards maintaining Gaza as a paramilitary fortification. We can't really judge how hobbled Gazans have been by the blockade without taking into account that huge factor.
No, I disagree that both sides participated into making Gaza a hellhole. You're implying a moral equivalence that isn't there. Given Hamas's incessant fixation with importing weapons, digging up water pipes to create jury-rigged rockets, diverting building materials to create tunnels, etc, I support a limited blockade. What I've grown to believe since learning about this conflict is that it would've been even better had Israel simply annexed Gaza into its sovereign territory.
I endorse the idea that Gaza *could* have been a sea-side paradise. They have Mediterranean coastline, cheap labor, access to building materials, proximity to major destinations, significant foreign aids, etc. that could all have been directed towards building something constructive. I acknowledge the blockade didn't help, but the best case they could've made for lifting the blockade was spending a decade trying (and possibly failing) to build hotels instead of a rat's nest of jihadi tunnels.
I wasn't implying moral equivalence, but sure, I'll grant you the first part. Hamas put Israel in a bind.
I'm... honestly baffled by the second part. I'm wondering if we have different understanding of how complete the Gaza blockade was.
How? How could Gaza *ever* have become a sea-side paradise? Mediterranean coastline isn't worth much when a hostile navy is threatening to blow up any ships that sail in or out of a small fishing area.
Even if Hamas had turned hyper-competent and benevolent, how do you see them building a sea-side resort?
> According to the "Failing Gaza"[who?], Amnesty International and other organizations reported that cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles were "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings."[199] A 2009 UN report by Kevin M. Cahill called the restrictions "Draconian", and said that reconstruction efforts were being undermined by Israel's refusal to permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials, and its policy of restricted importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice, as well as batteries for hearing aids for deaf children.
And even if they *had* had the materials to build hotels... How many popular seaside tourists locations do you know with no airport, no port, virtually no waters for cruise ships to move through, that you can't go to without going through a military checkpoint controlled by a government hostile to the country you're visiting?
I'm absolutely willing to accept the idea that the Israel government believed that any less restrictive measures would have been used by Hamas to murder Israeli civilians. (I disagree, I think you could have less severe restrictions and preserve border security, but I can see why they'd believe that.)
But don't tell me they could have built Ibiza 2.0 within *those* constraints.
I don't see anything like this ever happening as long as Hamas is in power! It's unfortunate they were voted into power in the first place (and they had admirers with how they forced a withdrawal from Gaza), and it's unfortunate they continue to have some support from the population. Basically, it's unfortunate how Gazans have the wrong priorities and preferences.
Thanks to you both for discussing my claim that "Gaza could have been a paradise." There have been many articles outlining how this could have come true written by people who have researched this and followed the fate of the territory for decades, including since the 1990s-era blockade of the region. I remain convinced that had Gazans signaled to Israel at the time (especially with the relatively moderate Israeli leaders back then) they would have gotten Israeli assistance in building infrastructure. Instead, in 2007, the elected Hamas who openly pledged the annihilation of their neighbor and then devoted (as Yassine described) all of its resources in trying to deliver on that promise. The result is the disaster we have today.
You're not imagining a crazy world: you are describing the conditions in the West Bank, where the PA has given up armed resistance and has dedicated itself to Israel's security.
The result: the most right-wing government in Israel's history, settler pogroms, economic strangulation, ongoing theft of land and resources.
Virtually no farm land, yes, but there was a network of greenhouses left behind by the Israelis who were forcibly removed in 2005. That would help to grow food except for one small problem: the Palestinians destroyed them all.
Desperately poor people looted the greenhouses; there was no sort of collective decision to "destroy" them. They also weren't "all" rendered inoperable: this Nov '05 article points out 60% of them were still functional.
If you are disturbed by the "destruction" as a breakdown in civil order, I might point out the Israelis retreated militarily but did not recognize any authority other than their own in Gaza. They deliberately left a power vaccuum and attacked anyone trying to organize and govern.
Well, I'll fess up that I don't actually know the details of Gaza's 2000s blockade, and I honestly don't feel invested enough to check.
I'll point out that even if goods like steel and concrete and industrial equipment are technically allowed, having to send them through a pinhole in a West-Berlin-style wall after getting them approved by the Israeli administration isn't logistically convenient or attractive for foreign investors.
Your link mentions a few donors on different timescales, but the main one is the UN. "From 2014-2020, U.N. agencies spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020 alone".
At a glance, $4.5 billion does seem on the right scale for a major infrastructure project, but only if we assume most of that money comes in the form of cash, and not volunteer time or food. Gaza has virtually no farmland, people *literally can't eat* without UN aid. $600 million isn't a lot to sustain a city with 2 million people for a year with little means to provide for themselves.
Again, I'll admit that I don't know the specific numbers. But I'm pretty sure the average person saying that Gaza should have been the new Singapore or whatever doesn't know the numbers any better than me, and has no idea how expensive turning Gaza into a major shipping hub would be. I assume it would be a lot more than $4.5 billion.
That's very fair on your end. I can acknowledge that any blockade, no matter how limited I think it might be, is not going to arouse investors into emptying their pockets. At the same time, the primary limitation here is how much resources are diverted by Hamas towards maintaining Gaza as a paramilitary fortification. We can't really judge how hobbled Gazans have been by the blockade without taking into account that huge factor.
Sure. This is a conflict that fully needs the "both sides" treatment. Israel and Hamas both participated into making Gaza a hellhole.
But part of acknowledging both sides' problem is catching when one of the sides makes ridiculous claims.
"Palestinian Arabs in Gaza could have built a paradise on the sea beginning in 2005" is *not* a reasonable claim debatable on merits. It's propaganda.
No, I disagree that both sides participated into making Gaza a hellhole. You're implying a moral equivalence that isn't there. Given Hamas's incessant fixation with importing weapons, digging up water pipes to create jury-rigged rockets, diverting building materials to create tunnels, etc, I support a limited blockade. What I've grown to believe since learning about this conflict is that it would've been even better had Israel simply annexed Gaza into its sovereign territory.
I endorse the idea that Gaza *could* have been a sea-side paradise. They have Mediterranean coastline, cheap labor, access to building materials, proximity to major destinations, significant foreign aids, etc. that could all have been directed towards building something constructive. I acknowledge the blockade didn't help, but the best case they could've made for lifting the blockade was spending a decade trying (and possibly failing) to build hotels instead of a rat's nest of jihadi tunnels.
You are correct that there's no moral equivalence between the national liberation movement and the apartheid state.
You are incorrect that fighting for freedom is a waste of time and money.
I wasn't implying moral equivalence, but sure, I'll grant you the first part. Hamas put Israel in a bind.
I'm... honestly baffled by the second part. I'm wondering if we have different understanding of how complete the Gaza blockade was.
How? How could Gaza *ever* have become a sea-side paradise? Mediterranean coastline isn't worth much when a hostile navy is threatening to blow up any ships that sail in or out of a small fishing area.
Even if Hamas had turned hyper-competent and benevolent, how do you see them building a sea-side resort?
> According to the "Failing Gaza"[who?], Amnesty International and other organizations reported that cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles were "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings."[199] A 2009 UN report by Kevin M. Cahill called the restrictions "Draconian", and said that reconstruction efforts were being undermined by Israel's refusal to permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials, and its policy of restricted importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice, as well as batteries for hearing aids for deaf children.
And even if they *had* had the materials to build hotels... How many popular seaside tourists locations do you know with no airport, no port, virtually no waters for cruise ships to move through, that you can't go to without going through a military checkpoint controlled by a government hostile to the country you're visiting?
I'm absolutely willing to accept the idea that the Israel government believed that any less restrictive measures would have been used by Hamas to murder Israeli civilians. (I disagree, I think you could have less severe restrictions and preserve border security, but I can see why they'd believe that.)
But don't tell me they could have built Ibiza 2.0 within *those* constraints.
I don't see anything like this ever happening as long as Hamas is in power! It's unfortunate they were voted into power in the first place (and they had admirers with how they forced a withdrawal from Gaza), and it's unfortunate they continue to have some support from the population. Basically, it's unfortunate how Gazans have the wrong priorities and preferences.
Thanks to you both for discussing my claim that "Gaza could have been a paradise." There have been many articles outlining how this could have come true written by people who have researched this and followed the fate of the territory for decades, including since the 1990s-era blockade of the region. I remain convinced that had Gazans signaled to Israel at the time (especially with the relatively moderate Israeli leaders back then) they would have gotten Israeli assistance in building infrastructure. Instead, in 2007, the elected Hamas who openly pledged the annihilation of their neighbor and then devoted (as Yassine described) all of its resources in trying to deliver on that promise. The result is the disaster we have today.
I realize I'm describing a counterfactual world based on conjecture. But I don't think I'm crazy for imaging it. Here's a Palestinian Human Rights Activist offering the same opinion in 2023: https://www.newsweek.com/gaza-could-have-been-singapore-hamas-turned-it-isis-opinion-1833145
You're not imagining a crazy world: you are describing the conditions in the West Bank, where the PA has given up armed resistance and has dedicated itself to Israel's security.
The result: the most right-wing government in Israel's history, settler pogroms, economic strangulation, ongoing theft of land and resources.
Everybody loves democracy until the brown people vote the wrong way. Then it's time to teach them the error of their ways!
Virtually no farm land, yes, but there was a network of greenhouses left behind by the Israelis who were forcibly removed in 2005. That would help to grow food except for one small problem: the Palestinians destroyed them all.
Desperately poor people looted the greenhouses; there was no sort of collective decision to "destroy" them. They also weren't "all" rendered inoperable: this Nov '05 article points out 60% of them were still functional.
https://www.cjr.org/politics/gazas_greenhouses_get_the_time.php
If you are disturbed by the "destruction" as a breakdown in civil order, I might point out the Israelis retreated militarily but did not recognize any authority other than their own in Gaza. They deliberately left a power vaccuum and attacked anyone trying to organize and govern.
Here's a good comprehensive debunking of the racist myth you're repeating: https://matthewzgindin.medium.com/greenhouses-in-gaza-what-happened-ba22b1ac9fdd