Yes. What I’m suggesting is that Israel directly governs Gaza through military and civil administration, at least temporarily, because the West Bank-style model of indirect control and local autonomy is no longer viable under current conditions. I am not suggesting absorption or granting citizenship, and I am not assuming permanent hostility as a fixed state. My point is that hostility is continually reinforced by ongoing violence and territorial conflict, which makes stable autonomy without effective governance unlikely to hold. The idea of a locally run Gaza with Israeli control over borders, resources, and security is therefore unstable in practice. Mutual coexistence requires conditions that are currently not being met, and the present trajectory is reinforcing the risk of further cycles of conflict rather than resolving them.
That was the situation before 2005.
Until 2005, Israel controlled Gaza and the world screamed for apartheid and said it’s the biggest prison on earth.
Than Israel withdrew from Gaza thinking the world will congratulate the new situation which clearly lead to our current situation. And btw before Oct 7 the world kept screaming for apartheid and open air prison.
Ergo, the world doesn’t know how Israel should or should not act nor does he care. Let me fix that , he knows what not to do as killing Palestinians is wrong and govern over them is wrong.
What you basically are saying is that you agree with the assessment that the Palestinians are not yet ready to take the lead because the population is to hostile and extreme towards Israel.
You just believe that Israel should go back to before 2005 while I suggest more freedom to the Gazans to conduct their business. In either case Israel must supervise the de escalation of the Gazans.