I’m wondering if the US is dusting off plans for an attack on Iran, presuming they have them back from Trump’s bathroom.
I'm not seeing any appetite over here for that at all. Biden isn't interested in a hot war, and the Republicans have become increasingly isolationist as far as jumping into a new conflict goes. The neo-con hawk types are no longer in vogue and the MAGA loons are wagging the dog; most of them don't want to spend any money on foreign wars, which is one silver lining of their "America first" isolationist policy. Anything is possible, of course, but I don't see the US initiating any direct conflicts any time soon (as things stand). But then I didn't think Trump would win, either, so pinch of salt and all that.
what’s YOUR experience of Israel being an apartheid state. not something from an organisation that is renown to have biased viewpoint https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analysis/
I doubt that as that would escalate the region rapidly. My guess is that they will look to protect any attack into Israel from the north by shelling from the boats or planes whilst Israel totally dismantles Gaza. Whether Israel will then decide to take their chances with air attacks on Iran to obliterate their nuclear bunkers is what I would expect whatever way it plays out the body count for areas the size of Israel and gaza will be huge…
I think it depends on the evidence that emerges of Iranian involvement. If Iran is found to have been complicit in the planning, then Israel won’t hesitate to attack it and the US will support, making a second proxy conflict with Russia. But the US won’t go boots on the ground.
Support I guess would come in The way of planes and other artillery required it will all play out in the next few days but today I just want to mourn the 260 that lost their lives at a pop festival. It’s like the terrorists marching into Glastonbury with automatic assault rifles and shooting anything that moves. Tragic
Are you honestly trying to say that no one is allowed an opinion on something unless they've actually been there? If so, that's one heck of a bad take.
Also, seeing as I have literally never heard of this source before: NGO Monitor - Wikipedia You'll have to excuse me if I find the notion that they are engaging with the topic honestly a bit hard to believe.
im just asking whether you’ve been there. You know from living in the states that anti semitism is at an all time high. and the anti semites hide behind their hatred of Israel with the standard AS tropes of Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing in Gaza (why then is Gaza one of the most densely populated places in the world) and it’s apartheid (I see no Arab only bathrooms or jobs that are for jews only) most non Jews I know who have been to the country come home with a very different viewpoint
Not sure whether or not it's an all-time high, but it's definitely the worst I've seen since I moved here, and those voicing it don't feel the need to keep it quiet anymore. Yes, absolutely true. The likes of the thoroughly odious Nick Fuentes, for example, frequently obfuscate in public using all kinds of dog whistles. Bathrooms etc. are not the sole determinator for apartheid though. If South Africa had universal bathrooms, would that have demonstrated the death of apartheid? Obviously, it would not, assuming that was the only change. There are over a dozen examples on this article alone linking to credible institutions who have arrived at the conclusion that Israel is an apartheid state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid There are UN reports stretching back to 2007. There are NGO reports stretching back to 2009. The Washington Post conducted a survey a couple of years ago that consulted Middle East experts and found that 65% of them agree Israel is a "one-state reality akin to apartheid". A former Attorney General of Israel also agrees with the label: https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/israel-apartheid-5678541-Feb2022/ As do 120 members of the Israeli Law Professors' Forum for Democracy: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230330-israel-practices-apartheid-say-israeli-law-professors/ As do at least two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa: https://www.groundup.org.za/article/israeli-ambassadors-compare-israel-south-africa/ I'll leave the last word to everyone's favourite Israeli PM: This man isn't a fringe politician.
Of course it’s a Jewish state. But non Jews living is Israel have equal access to housing, jobs, healthcare. Many non Jews/Arabs are in the knesset, fight alongside the idf etc As you sit on TA beach you are surrounded by Jews, non Jews, Arabs etc that’s not my version of apartheid having lived in SA for a period of my life
As for UN don’t make me laugh…. The General Assembly approved 15 anti-Israel resolutions last year, versus 13 resolutions criticising other countries in total Russia was the focus of six resolutions condemning its invasion of Ukraine. North Korea, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Syria, Iran and the US were hit with one resolution each. Saudi Arabia, China, Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela and Qatar, which have poor human rights records or were involved in regional conflicts, did not have any resolutions criticising them if you don’t believe there is an anti Israel agenda within the UN then you’re wrong
Some comments I would make in response to your excellent post. To start the discussion with the UN's proposals soon after its inception after WW2 seems to underplay the importance of previous events. It is true the Arab states refused to endorse the UNSCOP formula. It is valid to note that the UN itself was in its infancy & the Arab states questioned the General Assembly's competence to decide upon the separation into 2 of an existing entity, the UK-managed Palestine Mandate. From an Arab perspective, it seemed fundamentally unreasonable to attempt to solve the 'Jewish Question', brought so horrifically into full focus by the evil actions of a group of European monsters, by dispossessing normal Palestinian inhabitants of long-held land. After the 1936-9 Arab Revolt, the UK government placed severe restrictions upon the capability of Jews to immigrate into Palestine and also purchase land. This was despite it previously working with Jewish groups to suppress the Revolt. Obviously, the in situ Jewish residents of the Mandate were deeply uncomfortable with this & pushed the UK Government to relax its limitation upon legal Jewish immigration. When this was refused, underground militant groups launched a terrorist campaign within the Mandate. This was paused whilst the course of WW2 was uncertain, but restarted early 1944 when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose. Let it not be forgotten that Irgun and Lehi were 100% terrorist organisations waging an underground battle against the UK's policy. I do not think there is any mileage in discussing the possibilities of 'good' versus 'bad' terrorism. Upon the Arab rejection of the UN proposals, endemic civil war between Palestinians and Jews broke out. Immediately before the declaration of the creation of the Independent State of Israel, the Minhelet Ha'am (cabinet) considered their options. 10 of the 13 members attended the crucial meetings where the 2 main options boiled down to accepting the UN's proposed truce whilst negotiations were attempted or declaring the foundation of the State of Israel. The vote went 6-4 in favour of the latter; hardly a landslide in favour, especially in the (unaviodable) absence of over 20% of the cabinet's members. It does not seem totally proven that 'Israel wanted peace'; the declaration made no definitive comments on the borders envisaged for the new state. Whilst some members were happy to accept the putative borders included in the UN plan, others wanted a reference to the borders being the full extent of the 'Historical Land of Israel'. Ben Gurion pushed for the border issue to be left vague, commenting that should the new state win in any conflict then any land gained would become part of the State of Israel. Sure enough, after Israel defeated the Arabs in the 1st Arab-Israeli war, Israel's territory had increased by 50%. The Arab states that attacked Israel did not believe it should exist if that existence depended upon dispossessing existing Palestinian inhabitants. UN statisticians at that time claculated approx 700k Palestinians had been expelled from their lands. Perhaps Arab anger could be viewed as not totally unreasonable? (This in no way excuses the parallel expulsion of large number of Jews from their lands in Arab countries). At the very point of drafting the Declaration of the Independent State of Israel, there was a strong element of expansionist sentiment involved; this is even more relevant within the context of the fact that the Knessett has since ruled that the founding tenets of that declaration do not constitute actual law, but should be viewed as guiding principles. Indeed, this expansionist tendency can be seen in Israel's short-lived occupation of Sinai during the Suez crisis. The fact that Jordan did not seem to consider a fully independent Palestinian state is linked to its continued belief that any Palestinian State should include the whole of the Mandate territory; clearly this was an outdated standpoint within the context of world opinion & UN insistence that Israel had a right to exist. This stance has indeed had long-term negative effects on the fate of Palestinians, although that was not the case until the Six Day War as the lot of the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank was one of effective equality. The Six Day War of May 1967 started when Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt even as UN peacekeeping forces were in the process of leaving the area (which was demanded by Egypt). The justification was Egypt's closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. This was an obviously aggressive act and had long been seen by the Israeli authorities as a definite cassus belli. What did not happen was the war starting as an Arab invasion of Israel. The result of the Israeli victory was their occupation of West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. It was an occupation after military successes so to term it as Israel 'coming into possession of' slightly understates the issue. The indicated 'Land For Peace' proposal by Israel could be translated as 'Returning occupied lands to sovereign states in return for peace'. The Israeli stance was totally understandable from the perspective of strategic realpolitik; it should not be viewed as 'disinterested negotiating'. The fact that Israel 'yielded' the Sinai Peninsula in 1977 needs to be viewed as the return of occupied territory to the sovereign state to which it belonged. Whilst this was clearly a positive move, even Israelis such as Barak was of the opinion that not withdrawing from it after the 1967 victory was a significant error. One result of the Arab defeat in 1967 is that it seemed to provide an increased degree of focus on the part of many Palestinians that the acceptance of forming part of existing Arab states should be replaced by a determination to achieve an independent Palestinian state. This was solidified in the face of the policy of aggressive Jewish settlement creation in the occupied West Bank and Gaza under Begin, effectively declared illegal by the UN. There seems little doubt about Arafat's lack of truly good intentions, driven as he seemed to be by the idea of seeing what was offered, no matter what that was, and then asking for more. Do you have a link to his taped confession? However, he was not alone in culpability. In 2000 Barak pulled out of negotiations to run his domestic election campaign, whilst from 2001 under Sharon there developed increased IDF incursions into Palestinian areas alongside increasingly harsh restriction of movement. The dislocation involved resulted in the cancellation of Palestinian elections and the effective house arrest of Arafat. In this context, maybe it should not come as a surprise that Hamas found sufficient oxygen to grow & win control of Gaza. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza Strip has not been a full removal of control; the supply of all utilities, food and border crossing points are totally under Israeli control. Both Sharon & Shimon Peres have stated there is no point from a demographic perspective of retaining Israeli population there. The Olmert-Abbas negotiations were not one-sided in the way you have suggested. Indeed, Olmert stated that Abbas was very co-operative and he felt the 2 sides came very close to agreement. Abbas agreed to a non-militarised Palestinian state with borders controlled by UN forces. He also put forward a proposal that would have seen 60% of the (illegal) Israeli settlers in situ. The irresoluble issue was the settlement of Ariel, a large settlement inhabited by militant fanatics who often termed themselves 'Judaean' rather than Israeli. It had been deliberately positioned between the key Palestinian cities Ramallah & Nablus with the explicit intent of proclaiming that the historic land of Israel would always be Jewish. Its continued existence was claimed to be a threat to security and also to the required contiguity of any Palestinian state. Abbas said no Palestinian leader could accept its continued existence; Olmert said no Israeli PM could ever sanction its removal. The question of Jerusalem also proved impossible to resolve, coming down to, in essence, whether 2 areas (A-Tur & part of Silwan) could be designated part of Palestine & whether another, Har Homa, part of Israel. Abbas was willing to continue trying to find a way through even when Olmert became a 'lame duck' who was forced to resign, and whilst renewed attacks were being launched on Gaza. He had also made it clear that he viewed the involvement of USA in the discussions, and as the final arbiter of any agreement, as fundamental. What he did not expect was for everything to go quiet upon the commencement of the Obama Administration. No doubt he could be viewed as being remiss in not pushing harder, but it does not seem at all justified in placing the blame on the eventual lack of success of these discussions solely on the Palestinians. Can it really be claimed that the agreement to a temporary pause of an illegal policy constitutes a genuinely altruistic attempt at finding a solution? From the Palestinian viewpoint, it is not just a question of saying 'yes', but more 'what are they going to say yes to'? There is clearly no justification for any denial of Jewish links to Jerusalem, and also to the region called 'Palestine'. Nor is there any justification in Netanyahu's implicit denial of the Palestinian right to total equality in the region. There is clearly no justification for the aggressive and fanatical takeover of traditional Palestinian lands by Israeli settlers, seemingly protected and defended by Israeli government agencies. And there can never be any hint of justification for the terrible acts committed by Hamas this weekend; in these dark days it is important to ask how was it that such an organisation was allowed to gain such a foothold? What circumstances created the conditions that allowed them to gain control in Gaza? As your original reply to me stated, it is an extremely complex issue.
@Since63 - many thanks for your detailed response. Will take me a few days to read and respond but I wouldn't want it to become a disagreement on certain details as they are, as you say, open to interpretation. My take on it is simple: The majority of Israelis I know want peace and security. That is not possible when negotiating with Hamas whose charter is to eradicate Israel and will never recognise the country (the recent "softened" charter is lip service) The majority of Israelis have sympathy for moderate Arabs living in the over populated region of Gaza but they are not Israel's responsibility but governed by Hamas who have not had an election since 2007 so difficult to know how popular they are (no Jews live in Gaza, 20% of Israel's population is Arab) Yes Israel and Egypt control the borders, sea and air. If the border was not controlled then you would have repeats of Saturday every week. Again, Hamas terrorists are only intent on wiping out all in Israel (Arab and Jew, army and civilian) I don't agree with settlements as I think it's inflammatory. But Israel has been successful in trading land for peace. Trading Sinai and Golan for peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan To my knowledge Palestinians receive more aid than anywhere else. Unfortunately Hamas, rather then investing that money into things that will prosper their people, its invested in arms, tunnels, their own houses etc I fully understand that fighting back with force will only create more "martyrs" but if Israel doesn't and looks weak then attacks like they've experienced will happen again and again The answer to me is simple....replace Hamas with a moderate leadership that will recognise it's neighbours. Invest the aid into infrastructure and give people in Gaza hope. Ensure Israel's safety can be ensured and allow freedom of movement (as should Egypt though nobody talks about that) The last point is a pipedream
This is obviously horrific and I hope (without too much hope) that there will be a peaceful resolution - and soon. I don't know enough about the situation to be able to comment on the rights and wrongs of either side. It's a very complex situation as the preceding posts have shown. I do know that some of the old boys on the railway who had done national service did not have a good opinion of the Israelis because they used to (for some reason) attack and kill British soldiers at that time. With my limited knowledge, I do think a 'humanitarian corridor' out of Gaza would be a good idea to prevent more slaughter of innocents. I am also not in favour of the UK and USA sending more weapons to Israel. I don't think they're lacking in terrible weapons. As with Ukraine, It seems to be pouring petrol onto the fire. I would be far happier if we were trying to get peace rather than helping along war. I do have one or two general questions for correspondents here. 1. Does anyone agree with Richie Sunak's assertion that "There are not two sides to these events. There is no question of balance." ? In my experience, there are always two sides to every story. We seem to once again be in the territory where one side is declared "evil" whilst the other side is an angelic, whiter-than-white victim. 2. Does anyone agree with Cruella's instructions to the police that "waving a Palestinian flag" or "driving through a Jewish area" ought to be considered a criminal offence? I'd understood that there was free speech in this country. Sunak has also declared, ominously, that anyone supporting Hamas here must be "held to account". I don't support Hamas and have never waved a Palestinian flag but I may have unwittingly driven through a Jewish area.
to try and respond on a few points: personally I have never ever heard of Israeli troops killing the British since Israel was formed. What decade are we talking and where? I totally agree that it would be great to get the innocent out of Gaza. But to where? Israel? Egypt? And, most importantly, how do you tell who is an innocent civilian and who is the terrorist? If Israel didn’t have the weapons then they would be annihilated. There would be no way to defend themselves when surrounded by countries that want nothing more than to wipe it off the map. In addition you can’t get peace if one sides charter is to annihilate the attacks at the weekend where deemed evil. Gunmen walking into a music festival and shooting indiscriminately at the kids, not soldiers, but kids there taking babies and grandmas hostage taking girls, stripping them naked and parading them around Gaza city if you don’t believe the above then I will happily send you photos via DM as for your last point, Google last year when people where driving through areas with a high concentration of Jews waving Palestinian flags and saying death to Jews. Supporting one side is fine, intimidating British Jews is not I hope that helps
40 babies and children murdered (some beheaded) by Hamas, how anyone can support them is beyond me. Some of the videos coming out are reminiscent of the crimes committed by ISIS.
A group of people go and rape women, behead babies and take OAP’s hostage and people here have the cheek to do anything but say how awful it is?
1. I don't know too many details about the attacks on the British but the old boys I mentioned seemed very sure about it. I had a quick Google and would guess it was something associated with tbis:- "The Jewish underground forces now united. The Haganah had resisted attacking the British as long as they were fighting Nazi Germany. Now, their fighters allied themselves with Irgun and carried out several raids against the British. In late 1945, in response to full-scale riots in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and bomb attacks on the railway system, British troops from the 1st Infantry and 6th Airborne Divisions had to be deployed in support of the civil police. When the 3rd Infantry Division arrived in Palestine in 1947, the number of British troops deployed there had risen to about 100,000 - the majority of them National Servicemen. British soldiers were frequently targets for attack and kidnap, often in retaliation for death sentences passed on members of Irgun and LHI. A typical insurgent operation was the bombing of the British Officers Club in Haifa, in which 30 people were killed and injured." 2. Perhaps they could establish concentration camps (ironic for Jewish people I suppose) with guards, dogs, barbed wire and searchlights etc. The Palestinian civilians could be detained there for as long as they want. It would be preferable to being trapped in gaza with no food, water, electricity or other services needed for basic life while trying to shelter from constant shelling and waiting for a coming promised land attack, which the Israelis have made.clear will be a slaughter remembered for "generations". I think if offered, I would choose the concentration camp option over waiting for probable death (either slow starvation or quick and bloody) by staying put. By the way, isn't collective punishment of a civilian population a war crime in itself? 3. But the Israelis do have weapons. Lots and lots of terrible weapons. The very latest and most deadly. Im not suggesting they should be defenceless. The fact they haven't been annihilated in tbe way you describe is proof of the effectiveness of their weapons. They seem much better armed than the Palestinians. Overwhelmingly better armed I would say. Is it really necessary for us or the USA to send more? Is a US battleship really needed for example? Do the Palestinians have any battleships that they may need to fight? 4. Yes, the attacks were barbaric and dreadful, I don't doubt the details you list and I will get along fine without seeing horrific pictures of them thanks all the same. But there is also no doubt some of the things Israel has done against Palestinians (such as killing kids for chucking stones at their tanks or deliberately shooting innocent journalists) have also been pretty awful. Both sides obviously believe passionately in their causes and have committed horrible excesses to pursue it - but 'evil' seems a very simplistic label to attach and is very unhelpful in achieving peace. 5. Yes I did see that case of some people driving through Jewish areas a few years ago shouting insults and waving Palestinian flags. But that is not what Cruella is proposing should be a criminal offence. She says that anyone waving a Palestinian flag should be charged with a criminal offence and seems to be suggesting that anyone driving through a Jewish area should be prosecuted. She said "Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding her mangled English and split infinitives, but she does seem to be saying that it is not acceptable for.anyone to.drive through a Jewish area for any reason. I'd agree that intimidation of anyone is not very nice, but not convinced it is really a criminal offence. A civil one perhaps. If I were to wave a Cuban flag at a USA person here and shout "Yankees out of Guantánamo!" it would be pretty stupid and would achieve nothing. It would possibly be a civil offence of harassment - especially if I kept bothering the same Yankee. Perhaps best dealt with by a restraining order or something against me. But a criminal offence?
A genuine question - have you seen videos of beheaded babies? I know this is a claim by the Israeli military, but truth is often the first casualty of war. A simple yes or no will do. I do not want to see such videos myself if they do exist. I also understand that over 100 Palestinian children have so far been killed by the Israeli bombardment. No doubt several of them torn to pieces by shells and rockets. Presumably those children's deaths would not preclude your support for Israel and it's actions?
What you mean about the attacks on British soldiers? Well the chaps I spoke to who were there at the time doing their national service did seem very adamant about it. And the quotes I gave came from the National Army Museum website https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine But perhaps you're right and it was all a figment of their imagination.
Or if you're referring to the Al Jazeera lady journalist shot and killed last year by the Israelis, I was thinking of this; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-61403320 But again, perhaps the BBC got it wrong.
Within 48 hours of terrorists coming across the border killing children - the age of yours - you write the above…I am at a loss for scum like you in a few hours Hamas are likely to send live videos of them torturing the hostages as part of their psychological warfare. Good news that’s your evenings entertainment sorted
It’s a horrific situation where both sides have done some pretty awful things to each other over the years and I can see fair grievances from both sides. I feel a lot of sympathy for ordinary (non-Hamas) Palestinians. But it shouldn’t really matter where you fall on the contentious and complex debate. There is, and will never be, any justification for what just happened. I’ve seen some of the pictures and videos and it’s evil in its purest form.
It’s not my two way debate. But reading the thread the point was ‘Since the formation of Israel’ there were no attacks on British soldiers. Without googling I believe that there was a small group of British troops killed in 1948 which led to individuals caught, tried and subsequently executed. On the general point of why Hamas and Iran have launched the attack now. Clearly this is designed to realign the politics of the region. With a new generation of Saudi leaders, less inclined to see the “Palestinian Question” as a blocker to establish normal relations with Israel. The region is on a path where the wealthy gulf states and Israel will fully normalise relations and drive a new Middle East. Likely in the near future. Clearly this means for Hamas and Iran (and other states not prepared to accept the Israeli state in any form) a major set back. A provoked war will put that process or regional alignment back a few years, but won’t (IMHO) stop it.
Yup. Plus it probably is not a coincidence that Russia, who have started to work very closely with Iran, are the most likely to benefit significantly from the instability right now.
You said intentional. What would Israel gain from intentionally killing a journalist? I am in too much pain to argue with people on here nor do I blame people for having views I disagree with. But I do take issue with any question to the morality of IDF soldiers, that is a subject I do know better than most on here. I have spent time with the IDF and have many friends and family who still serve today. I cannot even describe the lengths that are gone to, to ensure civilian lives are not lost. I know people who have lost their lives because they failed to follow protocol when approached by youths with explosives, aiming to prolong life. It's also worth pointing out that when you mentions rocks being thrown, these are not little stones, they are boulders from a height, please look up Amit Ben Ygal who died from this recently. Hamas are the problem, they always have been and always will be, please god this will be the end of them. Israelis and Palestinians have no problem with one another, we all want the same thing. Hamas are a terrorist organisation who won power by quite literally massacaring their own people in 2007. They will never rest until every jew is dead, not every Israeli. You complain about the living conditions inside Gaza but forget that 1) Israel does not need to provide food/water/electricity, they are forced to do so because Hamas use majority of aid received to aquire weapons and 2) The Wall is quite literally essential to stop them killing Israelis. Before the wall 1010 Israelis were muredered during the intafada, that wall comes down for 8 hours and another 1200+ are murdered and babies beheaded, so please do tell me why Hamas should be given the option to enter Israel on their own accord?
No, wouldn't even know where to look but it's out there apparently and it's been widely reported. Independent journalists were also in attendance, very easy to find via google - I'll let you decide whether you believe it happened or not. I didn't mention supporting any side and yes, I also oppose the murder of children in Gaza.
I am extremely conflicted about all of this. On the one hand there are the constant provocations of illegal settlements and such, and the hideous Netanyahu regime whose overreach has provoked even the armed forces to down tools. However this is obliterated and rendered almost "so what" by the bestial barbarism of Hamas. Hamas knew exactly what the Israeli response would be, it's what Israel does. I would hold Hamas culpable of not only their own atrocities but also of any disproportionate response by Israel. If the UK launched a surprise attack on Russia with a nuclear weapon, unprovoked and unannounced, would we seriously blame Russia for a disproportionate response? No, you'd blame the **** who launched the first strike for raining down armageddon on their own people.
These are frightening and depressing times and future scenarios under discussion give little cause for optimism, but I'm sure the nation was able to draw comfort and feel reassured by the statesmanlike performance of the Secretary of State for defence, Grant Shapps, who was interviewed by the BBC this morning
The problem with a disproportional response, although understandable, is that it that is also indiscriminate. Those people in Gaza that see their loved ones being blown up by Israeli airstrikes should blame Hamas. You are right. Hamas did want this and the knew Israel would respond in the way they are, especially under Netanyahu. But the reason that Hamas wanted this is because they know that a significant number of previously peaceful Palestinians, and Israelis, will want retaliation and revenge and the whole area will become even more divided and unsolvable....just as Iran and Hamas want. It is all so depressing and inevitable now.
unless Israel’s goal is to eradicate Hamas in its entirety, replace with a moderate regime not linked to Iran and, through investment into Gaza, show the Palestinian people that there is hope but don’t hold your breath
