241
Neither Hamas nor Israel should rule Gaza in future, EU says (euobserver.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/europe@feddit.de
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://archive.ph/9pzUe

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (11 children)

It makes sense but it is also not just impossible but begging for a world power to step in and impose themselves. How would an union already incapable of helping Ukraine and dealing with internal turmoil in each of their countries suddenly project itself between two groups that want to kill each other and think they will be successful there. Hell, have you even thought about how Turkey and Hungary would react and try to exploit their own influence over such a protectorate?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    The UK should be the protectorate there. They've got experience in the region. (/s)

    Edit: added /s before someone takes it serious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Why is it impossible? The simplest possible way would be to hold new elections in Gaza for which Hamas do not run.

    It would probably lead to a group identical to Hamas being elected, but it would be neither Israel nor Hamas.

    What may be impossible is a government that's aligned with western governments, but that's not what is being asked for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    project itself between two groups that want to kill each other and think they will be successful there.

    Because Israel wouldn't attack them and the other group won't have many weapons left when the IDF is finished with them. Obviously it won't be the EU alone as it would be seen as too one sided (well Ireland maybe not), but let's not forget that we're talking about a 360kmΒ² area with less than 2 million people here. This isn't a huge landlocked mountain country like Afghanistan, it's a tiny strip of desert with a modern harbor in walking distance. For reference you can look at the manpower KFOR and similar missions have.

    It's not going to be easy to get political approval but a UN mission would almost certainly be able to keep the peace there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's better than just hoping Israel works it out, but it's still unworkable. Israel won't accept it. Hamas won't accept it. The US won't accept it. Iran won't accept it. Russia won't accept it. Whoever would be left doing it would get attacked from all sides, from within, and all while getting accused of imperialism from outside. I don't think a UN peacekeeping mission in territory where conflict is being fueled by the billions from all sides is workable, and if anything, it will attract the attention world powers who say they can only so they can station their bases closer to where their black markets are. It's still just my opinion, but reality will have to convince me on this one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Hamas won’t accept it.

    That's a pro not a con. Obviously any international peacekeeping mission's main objective would be to wipe out Hamas completely. The key is to make it easier for Palestinians to support their liberation from that regime that it would be if the - unfortunately necessary - occupying solders were Israeli.

    All the other main groups might be willing to negotiate a peace deal. Hamas (and a few smaller similar groups) are what needs to purged to make that happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent