Should Israel build and defend hospitals and schools for occupied Palestinians?

[Aimless]

Hamas uses vital civilian structures such as hospitals and schools to hide, store weapons and launch attacks. In response, Israeli forces attack and destroy these structures, with dire consequences for innocent civilians. Would building and defending hospitals and schools help Israel mitigate some of the problems that have featured so prominently in the latest escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

Discuss in good faith

[Aimless]

Bearing in mind that you can't meet all the need for hospitals and schools in this way because that would probably involve Israeli military presence right smack in the middle of eg. Gaza.

[Veldan Rath]

Well, all the money wasted on tunnels could have built more hospitals and schools.

[Aimless]

That is beside the point. We know Hamas isn't going to do anything good for anyone and there's no point crying over spilled malik so to speak

[Veldan Rath]

Yet Hamas is soundly supported by the citizens, so why should Israel bother?

[Loki]

Given that Israel can't run those hospitals and schools, how exactly would it prevent a re-occurrence of the same situation?

[LittleFuzzy]

Hamas uses vital civilian structures such as hospitals and schools to hide, store weapons and launch attacks. In response, Israeli forces attack and destroy these structures, with dire consequences for innocent civilians. Would building and defending hospitals and schools help Israel mitigate some of the problems that have featured so prominently in the latest escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

Discuss in good faith

Building and defending such facilities would entail at least a partial occupation by the Israelis. I don't see the various interests or international opinion really going for that.

[Hazir]

And probably Hamas would enforce a boycott of those facilities.

[wiggin]

Hamas uses vital civilian structures such as hospitals and schools to hide, store weapons and launch attacks. In response, Israeli forces attack and destroy these structures, with dire consequences for innocent civilians. Would building and defending hospitals and schools help Israel mitigate some of the problems that have featured so prominently in the latest escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

Discuss in good faith

I'm not sure what you mean by 'defending' in this context. If you mean run and screen people coming in so, e.g. you don't get them turned into sniper nests, anti-tank emplacements, weapons depots, and digging facilities, then that's going to entail a military presence. I doubt a permanent Israeli military presence in the Gaza Strip (or Area A of the West Bank, for that matter) is likely to scan with anyone - Israelis, Palestinians, the Arab world, or the 'international community'. If you mean some less intrusive monitoring regime, it's almost certain to be subverted by Hamas - most public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) in the Palestinian territories is paid for and theoretically administered by various bits of foreign aid - notably UNRWA, the US, and EU, but also Qatar, private charities, and some other odds and ends. Most of these have some sort of safeguards in place, but they are laughably incapable of keeping Hamas from doing what they want. Although this conflict is the first time UNRWA has admitted to rockets being stored in their schools, it's hardly the first time UNRWA facilities and vehicles have been coopted for military purposes (let alone when Red Crescent ambulances were used for weapons smuggling and the like).

Absent troops on the ground, it isn't going to happen.

That being said, Israel does provide some medical services for Palestinians in the territories. Pursuant to a long-standing tradition, Israel allows entry of very ill Palestinians who are given (often subsidized or free) medical care in their hospitals. This commonly happens with children born with congenital defects, or other serious medical conditions that the hospitals in Gaza and the West Bank are not equipped or qualified to handle. In fact, the program has been expanded to other parts of the Middle East in recent years, where Syrian and Iraqi refugees have been treated in Israeli hospitals, generally at cost (and said cost is normally picked up by an NGO).

Furthermore, Israel generally sets up a field hospital on the Gaza border during any incursion and provides treatment to civilians who make it to the hospital (though I'll be the first to admit this can be difficult in a war zone). These tend to provide basic care - obstetrics, pediatrics, etc. - and serious cases are referred to a major area hospital. Ironically, Palestinian fighters who are wounded but captured alive are immediately moved to an Israeli hospital and given standard care as well.

In terms of education, I doubt any Palestinian would appreciate Israeli propaganda (as they would see it), but Israel does provide free schooling for a few hundred thousand 'occupied' Palestinians - i.e. those in the Jerusalem municipality which Israel annexed in 1982.


Regardless, while it might make people feel better about things, I'm not sure how this would mitigate any of the issues in the current conflict. I'm curious how you think it might.

[RandBlade]

Building and defending such facilities would entail at least a partial occupation by the Israelis. I don't see the various interests or international opinion really going for that.

This is what I don't get, Gaza is occupied by Israel regardless of whether troops are on the ground or not. If Israel isn't going to occupy it then why not wholly withdraw and unilaterally say those are the boundaries for a Palestinian state and any further rockets will be an act of war?

[wiggin]

Uhm Israel fully withdrew in 2005. There hasn't been an occupation of Gaza since then. Other actions - sealing the border, a naval blockade, et c. - are not actions of an occupier but legal actions against a violent and aggressive neighbor. If Israel is occupying Gaza, then so is Egypt.

Of course saying the rockets are an act of war doesn't help Israel one bit - that's what they did in Lebanon and they still face an identical dilemma with Hezbollah.

[Loki]

Because Palestine would still commit those same acts of war.

[Hazir]

Because Palestine would still commit those same acts of war.

It's afwully hard to predict how a state would act, even more so if that state is non-existent.

Hamas is a problem, that much is clear, but what's a lot less clear is how much of the problem we call Hamas is of the result of policies intended to eliminate them.

[LittleFuzzy]

This is what I don't get, Gaza is occupied by Israel regardless of whether troops are on the ground or not. If Israel isn't going to occupy it then why not wholly withdraw and unilaterally say those are the boundaries for a Palestinian state and any further rockets will be an act of war?

"Act of war" isn't some magical term. They have done the above. Attacks were launched and the Israelis moved in. This has happened quite a few times. It being an "act of war" doesn't help the situation because the response to "acts of war" are measures Israel has already tried and which did nothing to resolve things and which aren't likely to do so if tried again.

[wiggin]

It's afwully hard to predict how a state would act, even more so if that state is non-existent.

Hamas is a problem, that much is clear, but what's a lot less clear is how much of the problem we call Hamas is of the result of policies intended to eliminate them.

Israel had a stated policy of eliminating the PLO and Fatah for decades, but now they are a reasonable interlocutor for peace (albeit a relatively powerless and corrupt one). That changed largely because of risks taken by Israeli PMs, the death of Arafat, and concerted US involvement in creating a professionally trained security force in the West Bank (and pressure to put mildly clean technocrats in charge of PA ministries). The problem isn't really Israel trying to get rid of Hamas; the problem is that Hamas is not interested in a negotiated settlement. They represent a rejection of the PA and the peace process as their raison d'etre. In Hamas' absence (or reform, unlikely at that may seem), you'd get some other group representing the violent aspirations of a large chunk of the Palestinian populace. That's not a promising foundation for a peaceful solution.

Regardless, Hamas has been de facto running Gaza as their own state for 8 years. I think it's pretty straightforward to see how they would act if given de jure status as a state as well.

[RandBlade]

Uhm Israel fully withdrew in 2005. There hasn't been an occupation of Gaza since then. Other actions - sealing the border, a naval blockade, et c. - are not actions of an occupier but legal actions against a violent and aggressive neighbor. If Israel is occupying Gaza, then so is Egypt.

Of course saying the rockets are an act of war doesn't help Israel one bit - that's what they did in Lebanon and they still face an identical dilemma with Hezbollah.

Actually I think the contrast with Hezbollah is a good one. Nobody says the Syrians are under Israeli occupation in the same way Israel faces criticism (fair or not) for Palestinians. From 2005 I thought Israel had no troops on the ground but was not permitting Palestinians from having a full state either? The existence of the state of Syria has not prevented Israel from taking actions against Hezbollah (which draw a lot less criticism than against against Gaza).

Regardless, Hamas has been de facto running Gaza as their own state for 8 years. I think it's pretty straightforward to see how they would act if given de jure status as a state as well.

But it is the lack of de jure status that leads to so much (often I think unfair) criticism of Israel. I don't see what Israel has to lose in giving it de jure status?

Ironically its the West Bank I'd imagine that has the toughest de jure issues because of the question of where the border is, Israel doesn't want to relinquish all the land. As far as I'm aware that isn't an issue in Gaza.

[wiggin]

Actually I think the contrast with Hezbollah is a good one. Nobody says the Syrians are under Israeli occupation in the same way Israel faces criticism (fair or not) for Palestinians. From 2005 I thought Israel had no troops on the ground but was not permitting Palestinians from having a full state either? The existence of the state of Syria has not prevented Israel from taking actions against Hezbollah (which draw a lot less criticism than against against Gaza).

How can Israel 'not let' Gaza declare statehood? Certainly they can work against other people recognizing it (on the reasonable argument that Palestinian statehood is one of the few levers Israel can use to extract an actual peace), but there's nothing to keep them from declaring it. Hamas is de facto running a fiefdom in Gaza anyways, and the PA in the West Bank has much of the trappings of the state.

Regardless, you've got your facts twisted on Hezbollah. Hezbollah, while funded by Syria and current helping the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war, is based in Lebanon and is a Lebanese Shiite organization. Israel does in fact occupy parts of Syria (the Golan Heights, though Israel claims they won them fair and square and have annexed the land), but that is not Hezbollah's beef - rather, they argue that Israel is occupying Lebanon, even after the 2000 withdrawal that was verified by the UN-established border. Hezbollah has manufactured a claim to still being under 'occupation' by arguing very similarly to Hamas - Israel routinely violates Lebanese airspace for surveillance of weapons shipments, and they claim that the Har Dov/Shebaa Farms region (determined by the UN to be part of the Syrian Golan) is Zionist-occupied Lebanon. That is their casus belli for all sorts of attacks since 2000. When Israel responds - as they memorably did in 2006 - they face just as much opprobrium as they do in Gaza - accusations of war crimes, international condemnation, etc. In fact, I'd say the current international response to Israel's operation in Gaza has been more muted than the response to either their previous operation in Gaza (Cast Lead in 2008/2009) or the second Lebanon war in 2006.

I don't think that Gaza being a state (recognized or not) has any bearing on how Israel can handle the situation. It's largely irrelevant to the logic of violence that Hamas and Hezbollah both use. Israel's reactions, in turn, are largely independent of the status of Gaza.

But it is the lack of de jure status that leads to so much (often I think unfair) criticism of Israel. I don't see what Israel has to lose in giving it de jure status?

Ironically its the West Bank I'd imagine that has the toughest de jure issues because of the question of where the border is, Israel doesn't want to relinquish all the land. As far as I'm aware that isn't an issue in Gaza.

You're dreaming if giving Gaza de jure status as a state means Israel will have one whit less of criticism for responding to rocket fire. I have no idea why you think that would be the case - time and time again we've seen evidence point in the opposite direction.

There are several potential reasons why Israel isn't particularly interested in it: one, I mentioned before that recognition of a Palestinian state is throwing away a very valuable negotiating tool. Two, if Hamas in Gaza achieves a state through violence that Fatah in the West Bank can't achieve through negotiation, we're likely to see a lot more violence and a lot less negotiation. Three, neither of the main Palestinian factions are likely to accept a 'partial' state proposal excluding the West Bank - they'll be suspicious of Israeli attempts to marginalize Palestinian claims to the West Bank and want a holistic solution. Fourth, the issue of borders is very much an issue - while Israel accepts that any future Palestinian state(s) will include the entirety of the Gaza Strip as defined by the 1949 armistice lines and the Sinai border, Hamas most certainly does not - it still envisions Palestine stretching from the river to the sea. Israel won't accept a vaguely defined state with nebulous borders for good reason, and Hamas certainly won't agree to a state merely containing the Gaza Strip.

For this and many other practical reasons, it's highly unlikely that Gaza will become its own state any time soon outside of a comprehensive solution that includes the West Bank and makes a single Palestinian state that renounces violence against Israel and allows for mutual recognition. I also don't see why declaring or recognizing Gaza as a state will help managing this conflict in the slightest.

I want to be clear here: I firmly support the two state solution and believe that Israel should strive very hard for a peaceful Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank, with agreed land swaps to handle major settlement blocs. I just also think that marginalizing the only reasonable interlocutor for peace in the Palestinian polis to achieve at most a cosmetic change in a conflict is wrong-headed and counterproductive.

[Hazir]

Of course denying statehood by denying control of its external borders doesn't really serve and purpose any longer. Just as little as Israel depends on Hamas recognition for its further existence does Gaza being a state or part of an idependent state make it more or less dangerous to Israel.

It's not too far fetched an idea that by creating a state in Gaza, even under Hamas, we are left with less of a problem than we have today. The whole circus of not talking to them would stop, they would be held more fully accountable for their acts and the ridiculous infighting with the PA also no longer could serve as an excuse for being an incompetent administration.

P.S. as you have pointed out, none of the actions of Israel would be less legal if Gaza were a fully independent state.

[Flixy]

P.S. as you have pointed out, none of the actions of Israel would be less legal if Gaza were a fully independent state.

Wouldn't captured Palestinians then be entitled to POW status?

[Loki]

It's afwully hard to predict how a state would act, even more so if that state is non-existent.

Hamas is a problem, that much is clear, but what's a lot less clear is how much of the problem we call Hamas is of the result of policies intended to eliminate them.

Hamas has de facto statehood in Gaza. There's no reason to think they'd act very differently with de jure statehood.

[wiggin]

Of course denying statehood by denying control of its external borders doesn't really serve and purpose any longer. Just as little as Israel depends on Hamas recognition for its further existence does Gaza being a state or part of an idependent state make it more or less dangerous to Israel.

Plenty of states don't have control of their borders - landlocked nations are subject to the whims of their neighbors, and plenty of very sovereign nations have undergone blockades, legal or otherwise. Israel can't keep Gaza from becoming a state; they can just refuse to recognize it, for the aforementioned reasons. Not that I think it would change anything either way.

It's not too far fetched an idea that by creating a state in Gaza, even under Hamas, we are left with less of a problem than we have today. The whole circus of not talking to them would stop, they would be held more fully accountable for their acts and the ridiculous infighting with the PA also no longer could serve as an excuse for being an incompetent administration.

I fail to see how any of this solves any problems. Israel currently does talk to Hamas - oh, they maintain a fiction of not doing so, but they negotiate through intermediaries all the time. I don't see how making them a state would make bilateral negotiations with Hamas any more likely - certainly the US refuses to negotiate with plenty of sovereign states, and only works through intermediaries. I also don't think Hamas is any less accountable today than they would be in a recognized state, and I certainly don't see the world holding them to account in this hypothetical - was Egypt held to account for cross-border raids during the first 20 years of Israel's existence? What about Syrian shelling of Israeli communities? Jordanian-backed raids into central Israel? As far as I can tell, the only one 'holding them to account' is the Israeli military, and that won't change either way.

There's all sorts of logistical issues as well - currently the US/EU/etc. give money to the PA, which is then disbursed to their government employees to keep the territories running more or less. Yet the PA was evicted from Gaza in a coup 8 years ago, so I don't see how they're going to magically be able to iron out the funding and development issues.

I think you and RB have a fantasy that by being named a state, Hamas will suddenly start following international norms. I see no reason for them to do so, and all sorts of reasons to suspect they'd continue to behave as they have - except with increased support for violence from the Palestinian 'street', decreased leverage for peace at the negotiating table, a fatal blow to Fatah's standing, and ongoing violence. Do you honestly think the ICC will bring charges against Khaled Meshaal any time soon? Do you think it would matter if they did?

Wouldn't captured Palestinians then be entitled to POW status?

If they were uniformed members of a duly constituted military, sure. To be honest, though, Israel generally treats captured Hamas fighters following such protocols. Oh, they will charge them with crimes and jail them (which you wouldn't do to a POW) but they are by and large treated as POWs - though some would argue that the interrogation tactics and pressure used by Shabak border on illegal treatment of prisoners.

Of course, to achieve POW status you need to be a lawful combatant, and given that most Hamas members are merrily trying to kill Israeli civilians, their protected status goes out the window. To be honest, though, if Hamas started treating captured Israeli soldiers as POWs rather than as hostages, I suspect Israel would be happy to reciprocate.

[Aimless]

Would the relationship between non-terrorist Palestinians and Hamas be influenced by Palestinians getting some sort of recognition of statehood?

Is this leverage a meaningful tool if it looks like it'll never actually be used in any way that works for all sides?

[wiggin]

Yes Hamas would probably get more support for violence as a policy.

I think Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state is the main reason Abbas comes to the table, though also they'd like removal of settlements.

Regardless - what material advantage can you see from de jure recognition of a gazan state given all of the risks?

[Hazir]

Plenty of states don't have control of their borders - landlocked nations are subject to the whims of their neighbors, and plenty of very sovereign nations have undergone blockades, legal or otherwise. Israel can't keep Gaza from becoming a state; they can just refuse to recognize it, for the aforementioned reasons. Not that I think it would change anything either way.


I fail to see how any of this solves any problems. Israel currently does talk to Hamas - oh, they maintain a fiction of not doing so, but they negotiate through intermediaries all the time. I don't see how making them a state would make bilateral negotiations with Hamas any more likely - certainly the US refuses to negotiate with plenty of sovereign states, and only works through intermediaries. I also don't think Hamas is any less accountable today than they would be in a recognized state, and I certainly don't see the world holding them to account in this hypothetical - was Egypt held to account for cross-border raids during the first 20 years of Israel's existence? What about Syrian shelling of Israeli communities? Jordanian-backed raids into central Israel? As far as I can tell, the only one 'holding them to account' is the Israeli military, and that won't change either way.

There's all sorts of logistical issues as well - currently the US/EU/etc. give money to the PA, which is then disbursed to their government employees to keep the territories running more or less. Yet the PA was evicted from Gaza in a coup 8 years ago, so I don't see how they're going to magically be able to iron out the funding and development issues.

I think you and RB have a fantasy that by being named a state, Hamas will suddenly start following international norms. I see no reason for them to do so, and all sorts of reasons to suspect they'd continue to behave as they have - except with increased support for violence from the Palestinian 'street', decreased leverage for peace at the negotiating table, a fatal blow to Fatah's standing, and ongoing violence. Do you honestly think the ICC will bring charges against Khaled Meshaal any time soon? Do you think it would matter if they did?


If they were uniformed members of a duly constituted military, sure. To be honest, though, Israel generally treats captured Hamas fighters following such protocols. Oh, they will charge them with crimes and jail them (which you wouldn't do to a POW) but they are by and large treated as POWs - though some would argue that the interrogation tactics and pressure used by Shabak border on illegal treatment of prisoners.

Of course, to achieve POW status you need to be a lawful combatant, and given that most Hamas members are merrily trying to kill Israeli civilians, their protected status goes out the window. To be honest, though, if Hamas started treating captured Israeli soldiers as POWs rather than as hostages, I suspect Israel would be happy to reciprocate.

I have no fantasies about the future of the Middle East. At least none that includes a situation in my lifetime with Israel or any of its neighbours living in peace under the rule of democracy. (Yes, I think Israel itself is also seriously endangering its democratic future.)

I do know that at least part of the problem with Hamas being cut out of the loop is that the PA (another enemy) is very well positioned to keep a stranglehold on Gaza finances.

[GGT]

Palestinian civilians are caught in a world of hurt. They're not considered a nation state, so any Palestinian "authority" has no international recognition or legitimacy.

There's ~ 2 million people in Gaza whose very existence depends on other entities. Mostly wealthier and more powerful actors, including "terrorists", are deciding their fate.

Personally, I hate it that the US gives billions of dollars to Israel under the auspice of "international aid"....when it means killing innocent children and civilians who don't have a voice or any real choice in the process.

Philosophically, I don't understand why Israel doesn't recognize that Palestinians in Gaza feel they're being "persecuted" as ethnic or religious monority groups. Shouldn't Israel be more attuned to that phenomenon than anyone else?

[Loki]

Right. The reason Israel is bombing Gaza is because it dislikes the religion or ethnicity of its inhabitants.

[GGT]

Right. The reason Israel is bombing Gaza is because it dislikes the religion or ethnicity of its inhabitants.

That's not what I said.

[GGT]

Back to the OP --- who IS going to help re-build all the hospitals and schools bombed in the Gaza strip? Palestinians can't do it on their own. Too many blockades and sanctions from Israel (and its US allies) relegate them to "victim" status.

I'm not saying it's right or good...but is it any wonder that factions like Hamas found a foothold in that kind of desperate environment?

[Hazir]

Back to the OP --- who IS going to help re-build all the hospitals and schools bombed in the Gaza strip? Palestinians can't do it on their own. Too many blockades and sanctions from Israel (and its US allies) relegate them to "victim" status.

I'm not saying it's right or good...but is it any wonder that factions like Hamas found a foothold in that kind of desperate environment?

My guess is that the EU will be footing the bill in a complicated deal that includes the UN and avoids public negotiations with Hamas.

[Loki]

And my guess is a good chunk of that money/resources ends up being used to build new tunnels.