President Bush’s embrace of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for unilateral Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip is going to turn out to be more than a mere gesture. Sharon’s radical initiative would evacuate all Israeli settlements and military positions, unilaterally, within the next 18 months…de facto responsibility for what happens in Gaza once Israel withdraws will fall to the United States. That’s the hidden meaning in the president’s letter of assurance to Sharon saying that the United States will lead an international effort to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism and prevent the areas from which Israel withdraws from posing a threat.
One wonders whether Bush really appreciates what he is getting himself and the United States into. Having trumpeted his support for an independent Palestinian state, he is now taking on responsibility for ensuring that the Gaza mini-state created by Israel’s withdrawal does not turn into a failed terrorist state.
I don’t agree with this guy’s hot take on things. He’s arguing that because Bush supported the Israeli Prime Minister’s idea of pulling out of Gaza, Bush is somehow taking full responsibility for Palestine and has all the blame for Hamas winning the majority vote in Gaza in 2007.
Sharon was going to let the Palestinian Authority (who rules the west bank) run Gaza. Bush is the guy who pushed for democratic elections. That’s why he’s the one who is most responsible. Of course the Gaza residents over 40 who voted for Hamas (perhaps around 20% of the current population) also share the blame. This is also something the news media doesn’t talk about. The Gaza civilians voted Hamas into power.
Still civilians though. And, not all of them did. All in all it’s madness to equate the entire Gaza population with the perpetrators the way that Israel is currently doing.
What was the voting age at the time of that election in Gaza? I’ve heard that the average age of Palestinians is 18, although that might only be a recent statistic. If the voting age of that population is so young, you might imagine the ignorance that population would have towards issues, or the potential that population might have for manipulation.
Did that 2007 election take place like US ones, where only like 2/3rds of people even vote at all?
Questions like this really make you wonder if it was even possible for the election results that put Hamas into power to be representative of the general population.
I wrote this on Reddit to argue against someone who suggested that Israel’s response is justified, given that Hamas won an election. Here’s what I responded:
There are several significant issues with your reasoning:
Voting has never implied being responsible for the crimes of your government.
There have not been elections since 2006. The Gaza Strip does not have a democratic system. This further challenges the argument that the population should pay some kind of price.
Hamas won the elections by taking 74 of the 132 seats in parliament. This means that 60 seats were for non-hamas participants of these elections. Consequently, many people who are trapped in Gaza and want nothing to do with Hamas are being punished/killed.
About 50% of the Gaza population is under 15 years of age. Attacking Gaza in this way should never have been on the table given these demographics.
Sorry maybe I sounded a bit harsh. I think we’re on line here, but to be sure. I mean that the average voting age in 2006 could be an interesting detail when doing an analysis of the origins the current situation. So would other themes that played a role in the campaign before the election. I remember reading about this that the corruption of the alternative parties was an issue for voters too.
But when it comes to justifying huge numbers of civilian casualties, it’s a pretty well established principle that civilians can never directly be held accountable with violence for the actions of their government. So that means that we don’t need to engage with arguments about whether voters knew what they were getting into or any specifics about the election. Because doing so would be giving in to your opponent (in a hypothetical debate) and you’d be undermining your own position.
Maybe my points have the same problem. But since people who support the bombings don’t seem to care about international law, I felt like these were a good second line of defence.
It’s not a stretch. It was Bush’s idea to hold democratic elections in Gaza, instead of turning Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority. Yes it was a noble idea, but it showed how Bush was incompetent on foreign matters. Bush also let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora when he refused to order the thousands of nearby US soldiers to go get him.
This all goes to show how incredibly important it is to have a US president who is competent. Bush would probably argue that he was just trying to do the right thing in pushing for democracy. And I’m not saying Bush is the only person responsible. But every time another building in Gaza is destroyed by bombing, that happened because Bush made the wrong call while he was in charge.
How come nobody is mentioning how President George Bush is the guy who fucked up Gaza?
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-day-that-bush-took-gaza/
The Day That Bush Took Gaza
April 25, 2004
President Bush’s embrace of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for unilateral Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip is going to turn out to be more than a mere gesture. Sharon’s radical initiative would evacuate all Israeli settlements and military positions, unilaterally, within the next 18 months…de facto responsibility for what happens in Gaza once Israel withdraws will fall to the United States. That’s the hidden meaning in the president’s letter of assurance to Sharon saying that the United States will lead an international effort to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism and prevent the areas from which Israel withdraws from posing a threat.
One wonders whether Bush really appreciates what he is getting himself and the United States into. Having trumpeted his support for an independent Palestinian state, he is now taking on responsibility for ensuring that the Gaza mini-state created by Israel’s withdrawal does not turn into a failed terrorist state.
I don’t agree with this guy’s hot take on things. He’s arguing that because Bush supported the Israeli Prime Minister’s idea of pulling out of Gaza, Bush is somehow taking full responsibility for Palestine and has all the blame for Hamas winning the majority vote in Gaza in 2007.
Sharon was going to let the Palestinian Authority (who rules the west bank) run Gaza. Bush is the guy who pushed for democratic elections. That’s why he’s the one who is most responsible. Of course the Gaza residents over 40 who voted for Hamas (perhaps around 20% of the current population) also share the blame. This is also something the news media doesn’t talk about. The Gaza civilians voted Hamas into power.
Still civilians though. And, not all of them did. All in all it’s madness to equate the entire Gaza population with the perpetrators the way that Israel is currently doing.
What was the voting age at the time of that election in Gaza? I’ve heard that the average age of Palestinians is 18, although that might only be a recent statistic. If the voting age of that population is so young, you might imagine the ignorance that population would have towards issues, or the potential that population might have for manipulation.
Did that 2007 election take place like US ones, where only like 2/3rds of people even vote at all?
Questions like this really make you wonder if it was even possible for the election results that put Hamas into power to be representative of the general population.
So, all of this is to say that I agree with you.
I wrote this on Reddit to argue against someone who suggested that Israel’s response is justified, given that Hamas won an election. Here’s what I responded:
Right, because voting doesn’t matter. Got it.
Sorry maybe I sounded a bit harsh. I think we’re on line here, but to be sure. I mean that the average voting age in 2006 could be an interesting detail when doing an analysis of the origins the current situation. So would other themes that played a role in the campaign before the election. I remember reading about this that the corruption of the alternative parties was an issue for voters too.
But when it comes to justifying huge numbers of civilian casualties, it’s a pretty well established principle that civilians can never directly be held accountable with violence for the actions of their government. So that means that we don’t need to engage with arguments about whether voters knew what they were getting into or any specifics about the election. Because doing so would be giving in to your opponent (in a hypothetical debate) and you’d be undermining your own position.
Maybe my points have the same problem. But since people who support the bombings don’t seem to care about international law, I felt like these were a good second line of defence.
Maybe because it’s a bit of a stretch
It’s not a stretch. It was Bush’s idea to hold democratic elections in Gaza, instead of turning Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority. Yes it was a noble idea, but it showed how Bush was incompetent on foreign matters. Bush also let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora when he refused to order the thousands of nearby US soldiers to go get him.
This all goes to show how incredibly important it is to have a US president who is competent. Bush would probably argue that he was just trying to do the right thing in pushing for democracy. And I’m not saying Bush is the only person responsible. But every time another building in Gaza is destroyed by bombing, that happened because Bush made the wrong call while he was in charge.
Do you have visions of Bin Laden legging it from Tora Bora when you see a building in Gaza being leveled?
Gaza was fucked way backed in 1948 by the UN and especially the UK. What follows were 75 years of genocide/terrorism.