> Gaza could become a sovereign Palestinian state, it doesnt need a military to do so.
A state with entirely benign neighbors could, theoretically, endure without a military (not that such a state really exists... even Monaco has a few soldiers). Not being permitted to have a military does preclude a state from being considered sovereign.
In any case, you said "They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip." That's silly on a few levels, independent of the politics.
> No one is occupying it or attacking it
I know little about the conflict but I'm quite certain the people living there consider the blockade an aggressive act. I certainly would.
> The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it.
Gazans are definitely very badly served by the homicidal lunatics they've voted into office. I'd say the problem is a lot bigger than that. The lunatics are exploiting the situation but the conflict is a lot older than they are.
Yeah the Gazans are very badly served by Hamas as their leaders. Hamas could have taken the opportunity of having the entire area essentially self governed to set a shining example of Palestinian self government and focus on actually helping their people and grow the economy, develop things with thw money they get from the US etc. In fact they could work with Israel and other countries to do it. But they choose the path of violence which makes the US, EU, UN and others label them a terrorist organization, and that hurts the regular people in the Gaza strip.
As for the blockade - it is there to try and prevent arms smuggling into Gaza which has happened before (via tunnels, boats etc) from groups in Iran, Syria, Egypt. Iran as aa state actually delivered arms to Hamas and Hezbollah. It uses the Palestinians as a wedge against Israel being in the region (which it refers to as the Zionist regime). In fact, to many Arab states, Palestinian Arabs are often just a political tool but when it comes to helping them they have a worse record than Israel. Consider the relationship of Kuwait with Palestinians, 500,000 of which they expelled following the Gulf War with NO right of return, for siding with Saddam. Consider the feud of the Hashemite dynastry with the PLO -- look up Black September in Jordan or how 7000 Palestinians in west bank were summarily killed during the 1967 war. Not much outcry was going on when Jordan controlled the West Bank. But when Israel controls it, there is a great outcry about how they live there. I would like to say that the outcry should have been in ALL cases. The Kurds in Turkey and Iraq have been fighting for independence for over 100 years and hardly anyone talks about Turkey's "occupation" of them, or Saddam's gassing of the kurds with Mustard gas after the Gulf war for siding with the USA (short version: we betrayed them and left after we achieved our ends just like we did with muhajideen and others who helped us win wars against our enemies back then).
Anyway -- it's a complex scenario, and history is replete with violent leaders. Arab states originally wanted to see the Jewish state completely gone, and for it to belong to Syria! And earlier than 1948, Arabs would never want to work with any organized Jewish groups, to create one state. That was the conclusion of the Peel commission, which said the only way is to separate into two states. Look up "Al Husseyni" on wikipedia for example.
Today, the way out is to elect moderate leaders who reject violent resistance in west bank and gaza. This should be OBVIOUS. If gaza doesnt attack Israel it will mot be physically attacked. In fact if someone else attacks Gaza, Israel can help defend it. Furthermore, if they provide a great education for their children, increase economic ties with Israel, and actually ENFORCE normal laws like against stop smuggling qassam rockets into Gaza, or firing them, or killing people, etc. then the blockade can be lifted eventually and they can trade freely with other nations.
One thing is obvious: if Gaza lays down their arms Israel would NOT go in there or attack anyone. Gaza leaders can form a state of their own and go work with other countries to build it up for their people. But the current leaders have a stangelehold on Gaza. This often happens when an army leaves as suddenly as Israel. This happened when England left India after Gandhi (a civil war in which by some counts 1,000,000 people died) and it's happening in Iraq with ISIS now. It's unfortunate. But we havent learned how to do nation building properly.
A state with entirely benign neighbors could, theoretically, endure without a military (not that such a state really exists... even Monaco has a few soldiers). Not being permitted to have a military does preclude a state from being considered sovereign.
In any case, you said "They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip." That's silly on a few levels, independent of the politics.
> No one is occupying it or attacking it
I know little about the conflict but I'm quite certain the people living there consider the blockade an aggressive act. I certainly would.
> The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it.
Gazans are definitely very badly served by the homicidal lunatics they've voted into office. I'd say the problem is a lot bigger than that. The lunatics are exploiting the situation but the conflict is a lot older than they are.