I’ve always been a sucker for a good analogy. But they’re tricky. One false move, and you could drag in some social or historical context that makes the issue harder to talk about. So in my article, The Painfully Obvious Reason Why Palestinians Don’t Condemn Hamas, I decided to play it safe…and compared Hamas’ attack on October 7th to Nat Turner’s slave rebellion.
While you make some good points, can we nuance a piece of this?
> "Egypt completely ceded control of Gaza when they withdrew. All that was left was a border, which is perfectly reasonable for any country. But when Israel left, they retained total control of access to Gaza by land, air and sea. They also took control of Gaza's access to water and power. "
There are two main border crossings from Gaza, one controlled by Egypt and one controlled by Israel. Israel also controls access via the sea. But I don't see how that makes Egypt perfectly reasonable in controlling access via their crossing, but places Israel in total control because they control their crossing. This seems like a double standard; either nation can let in or out as much as they wish through the crossing they control, neither has control of the other's border crossing, and thus neither has total control. But we pretend that Israel alone has total control, which appears completely false to me, a fiction spread by activists. Is that accurate? Do you have information I'm not aware of?
Now water.
"Before October 7, Israel supplied the Gaza Strip with 18 million cubic meters (18 billion liters) of potable water a year through three water pipelines, some **nine percent of the enclave’s annual use**. Gaza itself produced the remainder, some 200 million cubic meters of water per year, with the water pumped from the Coastal Aquifer lying underneath the Strip and Israel’s coastal plain, or desalinated."
On Oct 9th, Energy Minister Yisrael Katz cut off the portion of Gaza's water they were supplying. On Oct 15th, Katz said that water supplies would be restored. On Oct 25th, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that the southern pipeline had returned to the pre-war rates of 600,000 liters/hr. (Northern Gaza had other problems as we may all recall).
Gaza is in trouble regarding water, because the war has disrupted or destroyed many the desalination plants which provided the bulk of the water supply, mostly purifying the brackish water in the mismanaged aquifers. Not because Israel continues to refuse to supply the fraction of Gaza water which they previously supplied.
I don't see how that comprises "taking control" of Gaza water. They only delivered (and thus "controlled") 9% of the water before Oct 7th. I do see how destruction of (or lack of fuel for) desalination plants has caused a huge crisis - which is similarly serious, but not quite accurately described as "taking control".
Electricity is more complicated, and over half the supply did come from Israel (the rest from a power plant in Gaza and from Egypt). I am uncertain of the current status (no pun intended). By providing a large portion of the power to Gaza cheaper than they could produce it themselves, Israel has benefitted Gaza for decades, and that gives them some control in a case like this war, but that's not "taking control". Before the war, Israel cooperated with Gaza building their own 60 MW power station, and more would have been built in the future, had this war not erupted.
My basic message is: NEVER, EVER take the activist talking point at face value and repeat them in one's online arguments. If one is going to assert that Israel controls access, water and electricity for Gaza, ALWAYS without exception do some research first. Maybe you did that, but if so I suspect you would have phrased your assertions more accurately, because I know you value honest reporting.
And I get caught in the same thing repeatedly. I will cite something I've read from liberal or mainstream sources because I unconsciously figure that if it's being repeated a lot, it's probably true - then if I research it, sometimes the picture is not so simple. And I know that you can deal with nuance, Steve.
When people have nothing to lose, they often (usually) lose it (at some point) be they slaves, Palestinians or any other oppressed group. Close to 100% of the human population reacts in the same way when put in or finding themselves in roughly analogous situations.
It's good to see actual reasoned debate on this subject, rather than the screaming and name-calling so common on other platforms.
Thanks for such reasoned debate and civil discourse. The picture is so much clearer when I can appreciate the shades and not just the contrast.
While you make some good points, can we nuance a piece of this?
> "Egypt completely ceded control of Gaza when they withdrew. All that was left was a border, which is perfectly reasonable for any country. But when Israel left, they retained total control of access to Gaza by land, air and sea. They also took control of Gaza's access to water and power. "
There are two main border crossings from Gaza, one controlled by Egypt and one controlled by Israel. Israel also controls access via the sea. But I don't see how that makes Egypt perfectly reasonable in controlling access via their crossing, but places Israel in total control because they control their crossing. This seems like a double standard; either nation can let in or out as much as they wish through the crossing they control, neither has control of the other's border crossing, and thus neither has total control. But we pretend that Israel alone has total control, which appears completely false to me, a fiction spread by activists. Is that accurate? Do you have information I'm not aware of?
Now water.
"Before October 7, Israel supplied the Gaza Strip with 18 million cubic meters (18 billion liters) of potable water a year through three water pipelines, some **nine percent of the enclave’s annual use**. Gaza itself produced the remainder, some 200 million cubic meters of water per year, with the water pumped from the Coastal Aquifer lying underneath the Strip and Israel’s coastal plain, or desalinated."
On Oct 9th, Energy Minister Yisrael Katz cut off the portion of Gaza's water they were supplying. On Oct 15th, Katz said that water supplies would be restored. On Oct 25th, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that the southern pipeline had returned to the pre-war rates of 600,000 liters/hr. (Northern Gaza had other problems as we may all recall).
Gaza is in trouble regarding water, because the war has disrupted or destroyed many the desalination plants which provided the bulk of the water supply, mostly purifying the brackish water in the mismanaged aquifers. Not because Israel continues to refuse to supply the fraction of Gaza water which they previously supplied.
I don't see how that comprises "taking control" of Gaza water. They only delivered (and thus "controlled") 9% of the water before Oct 7th. I do see how destruction of (or lack of fuel for) desalination plants has caused a huge crisis - which is similarly serious, but not quite accurately described as "taking control".
Electricity is more complicated, and over half the supply did come from Israel (the rest from a power plant in Gaza and from Egypt). I am uncertain of the current status (no pun intended). By providing a large portion of the power to Gaza cheaper than they could produce it themselves, Israel has benefitted Gaza for decades, and that gives them some control in a case like this war, but that's not "taking control". Before the war, Israel cooperated with Gaza building their own 60 MW power station, and more would have been built in the future, had this war not erupted.
My basic message is: NEVER, EVER take the activist talking point at face value and repeat them in one's online arguments. If one is going to assert that Israel controls access, water and electricity for Gaza, ALWAYS without exception do some research first. Maybe you did that, but if so I suspect you would have phrased your assertions more accurately, because I know you value honest reporting.
And I get caught in the same thing repeatedly. I will cite something I've read from liberal or mainstream sources because I unconsciously figure that if it's being repeated a lot, it's probably true - then if I research it, sometimes the picture is not so simple. And I know that you can deal with nuance, Steve.
When people have nothing to lose, they often (usually) lose it (at some point) be they slaves, Palestinians or any other oppressed group. Close to 100% of the human population reacts in the same way when put in or finding themselves in roughly analogous situations.
Refreshing.