8 ms·

Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want peace and a free Palestinian state according to the '67 borders. These would be the equivalents on the other side.

by ido 3y ago

wahnfrieden 3y ago
I posted this perspective previously ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 ) but it was immediately flagged out: https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupation-interview-palestinian-anarchists https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupat... >I want you to know something else, which is that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas do not represent us, the Palestinian people, at all. We reject authority and we reject Abbas and all his ministers. I do not know whether you have heard of the security coordination agreement between the Zionist occupation and the Palestinian Authority. Years ago, the Palestinian Authority concluded an agreement under which it would serve the occupying entity in terms of security. That is, all the young Palestinian activists who fight the Zionist occupation in one way or another and the occupation cannot arrest them, the Palestinian Authority pursues them, arrests them, and hands them over to the occupation, and then no one knows the fate of that young man or that girl. These do not represent us, nor any other Palestinian. These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.
- ZunarJ5 3y ago
  Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
  - hersko 3y ago
    Don't treat the Palestinians like they have no agency...
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Based on what I know about Palestinians, they appear to be close to having no agency. They don't control what crosses their border, the Israeli government may well be trying to destroy them and their politics are the plaything of regional and non-regional powers. For example, Israel played a role in incubating Hamas [0, 1]. Now if I were in Gaza my opinion is that what they are doing is stupid. They don't really have a choice but to like it and make the best of their situation with charity, tolerance and love. All the other plays lead to worse results. But there aren't many political bodies with less agency. [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30...
    - ZunarJ5 3y ago
      Never said that they were saints. It's important to know what you're actually dealing with though. From the article: "In other words, Hamas’ absolute rule of Gaza is not what the Palestinians voted for back in 2006. In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place." I cannot help but see most of the arguments that people make equating Hamas with Palestinians as bad faith. Explanations are not excuses and knowing why things are happening is the first real step towards fixing anything.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place. And, for the same reason, the ones that were born largely couldn't vote.
        ZunarJ5 3y ago
        Yes, it's inferrable with some caution. There's also the obvious elephant in the room that Israel is executing a disproportional response to the terror attacks and the conditions they're creating will only extend this conflict and create more terror. As the article states, it's pretty well understood that citizens need stable material conditions before voting really works well, otherwise they tend to trend towards the reactionary.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas. Israeli policy during the occupation is responsible for Hamas, and it existed before W had any foreign policy influence. Blaming Bush for Hamas because he was somehow responsible for the elections happening is stupid. The elections happening was a good thing. Fatah stupidly rejecting the idea of a national unity government was a bad thing. Israel deliberately seeking to assure a Hamas victory by interfering with campaigning, and voter registration, conducting a targeted campaign of arrests of Palestinian politicians, and doing everything possible to make the Fatah-led PA look weak, complicit, and corrupt in Israel's favor in the immediate runup to the elections was horrible -- but predictable given the entire history of Israel actively promoting Hamas, from its founding, as a tool to divide Palestinians and assure that there was a public face of opposition less sympathetic to, particularly, the population of Israel's Western Allies (particularly the US) than the more secular nationalists of the PLO during the height of occupation, and Fatah as a political party once there was an entity to have political parties.
    - ZunarJ5 3y ago
      Sorry, it was an oversimplification, but the article here is pretty decent. The major takeaway is that conditions were not right and the whole election cycle was a bit ham fisted. Your break down is appreciated as it's got a lot of moving parts!
- __blockcipher__ 3y ago
  > These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America. To me a smoking gun here is that Biden's administration wants the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza "after Hamas" (as an aside, I sincerely doubt Israel will be successful in destroying Hamas, but ofc even if they do there will just be a more radical group taking its place anyway); history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they know they will be a vassal/puppet of US interests. There's many examples but the most recent one is when we (I'm American) propped up the bogus Afghanistan "Government" only for it to instantly collapse and be replaced again by the Taliban the moment we withdrew. Really hope there's a path forward that gives the Palestinians real autonomy and an end to the bloodshed. In reality, I expect this conflict to continue indefinitely and us to just continue supporting the occupation, which I find heartbreaking but my rational mind is convinced is the most likely outcome.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA. Egypt certainly doesen't want anything to do with the region or Palestinians anymore. So US can only chose between supporting a direct Israeli occupation or a semi-indirect one (through the Palestinian Authority). I don't think the US government wants to install a puppet regime in Gaza, they'd rather have absolutely nothing to do with at all. Tangential but when it comes to Afghanistan I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster. > Palestinians real autonomy Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
    - __blockcipher__ 3y ago
      > Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA. I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened? It certainly wasn't organic (at least not entirely so). Anyway, regarding the options, there's technically a few more like Jordan or other arab states, or a new organization arising (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power). But beyond those quibbles I don't disagree with you that there's no good options, I'm just stating my belief that if we support organization X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own. > Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades. Agreed fully, and that's one of the problems. > I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster. Why not both? Imperialism is a pretty stupid ideology, at least if one's goal is to keep one's country safe and powerful. If one's goal is to extract resources from one's own country at the cost of lots of bloodshed of your citizens and others', then it achieves the goal fine.
- starik36 3y ago
  [flagged]
whycome 3y ago
And some support the war Hamas rages despite the effect on the Palestinian people/civilians. Is that an other other side? This is complex, and we really can't describe this conflict as just having two sides.
- ido 3y ago
  Just like some Israelis support expelling all Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and settling these territories with Israelis. The only "side" that's not wrong (IMO) is the one that condemns violence against civilians and is for peace and the two state solution, this "side" exists among both Israelis and Palestinians (but is the minority for both).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- xg15 3y ago
  Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict? I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side). Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third parties with their own allegiances and motivation. However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. You can see this rather easily by observing which groups view each other as mortal enemies and which merely as a nuisance. There are - thankfully - lots of people trying to bridge the divide and not aligning themselves only with one side. This is where we all should be headed, but it doesn't change the fact that currently there are sides.
  - whycome 3y ago
    > However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. We're talking here about the conflict that has happened as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7. Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN). And you've described it as "Israeli people-Palestine people". https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-12-13-23/index.html https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga... https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/ https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/ https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt
monocasa 3y ago
I mean, even Hamas currently calls for the '67 borders in their charter: > 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/e... Adding to show that the '67 borders are pretty generally supported. There's even support for them among some of the "from the river to the sea" crowd since the '67 borders touch both the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea". River = the Jordan River Sea = the Mediterranean sea => calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas Heck, even at the time of the 2006 elections, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians including Hamas supporters also supported a peace agreement with Israel, and moderation of what was then Hamas's platform. (The latter occurred, the former not so much -- in large part because Israel stopped negotiating when the executive of the PA wanted Hamas -- the party that won a majority in the legislative elections -- involved in the negotiations.)
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
rayiner 3y ago
What exactly is their conception of the Jewish state that exists within those borders? Something that exists until the next time the Arabs try to wipe Israel off the map? How do you think the 1967 borders became the current borders? Egypt shut down Israel’s access to the Red Sea and massed troops on Israel’s border. Then Jordan and Iraq sent troops. And then Israel kicked everybody’s ass and occupied the Sinai, the Gaza Strip (which had been occupied by Egypt) and the West Bank (which had been annexed by Jordan).
ignoramous 3y ago
> Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want. Plenty Palestinians oppose the war and want peace. This is the equivalent. In their eyes, to rid of kahanists like Netanyahu and his cronies, who have subjugated them for decades, subjected them to a death by a thousand paper-cuts, they don't demand Jordan and Turkey besiege and bomb Tel Aviv. Given the population density in the Strip and lack of trust in Israel by Egypt on refugees, smaller-scale military solution followed by a political solution must have been pursued but instead the majority sentiment in Israel was all-out revenge (and collective punishment very much okay: https://archive.is/t9pmT https://archive.is/t9pmT). It has been downhill from there.
amluto 3y ago
How is that the other side? Israeli- and Palestinian-Americans, for example, don’t have any real reason to be on opposite sides here. (Not to mention all the American Jews who aren’t actually Israeli.) I’m reminded of an excellent Middle Eastern restaurant in California that I went to on occasion during the Second Intifada. The had Hebrew- and Arabic language newspapers. The patrons (I assume) mostly had some form of Middle Eastern or Jewish heritage, but I don’t really know which. The falafel sandwiches were fantastic. The only sides were things like tahini and harissa. As far as I know, basically everyone who ate there wanted peace and didn’t really want any particular group to “win” the ongoing conflict. I think the owners were Lebanese-American, but it didn’t matter.
settrans 3y ago
In fact, public opposition to Hamas[0][1] is frequently cited[2] as a primary motivation for the 10/7 attack. Gazans widely viewed Hamas as corrupt and the main reason for their destitution, and overwhelmingly preferred Fatah leaders over Hamas (despite having installed Hamas primarily due to Fatah's perceived corruption). The theory goes: if Hamas were to embarrass Israel on the public stage with a humiliating attack, this might provoke an overwhelmingly disproportionate response by Israel against Gaza, cementing the public perception of Gazans as the victims in the conflict even in light of the 10/7 aggression - and Hamas as their freedom fighters. This in turn would attract public sympathy for Hamas, bolstering their political prospects in Palestine, meanwhile derailing Saudi peace talks that might have resulted in formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate sovereigns. (Neutralizing peace talks between the two greatest enemies of one of Hamas's greatest benefactors, Iran, could only be viewed as a nice "plus"). [0] https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/survey-sheds-light-on-palestinian-views-ahead-of-hamas-attack-on-israel/ https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/survey-sheds-light-... [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY
- balex 3y ago
  Alternatively, it could be viewed as the whole purpose behind the attack.
dang 3y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618262. (There was nothing wrong with your comment; I'm just trying to prune the top-heavy subthread.)

Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want peace and a free Palestinian state according to the '67 borders. These would be the equivalents on the other side.

by ido 3y ago

Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want peace and a free Palestinian state according to the '67 borders. These would be the equivalents on the other side.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

I posted this perspective previously ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 ) but it was immediately flagged out: https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupation-interview-palestinian-anarchists https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupat... >I want you to know something else, which is that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas do not represent us, the Palestinian people, at all. We reject authority and we reject Abbas and all his ministers. I do not know whether you have heard of the security coordination agreement between the Zionist occupation and the Palestinian Authority. Years ago, the Palestinian Authority concluded an agreement under which it would serve the occupying entity in terms of security. That is, all the young Palestinian activists who fight the Zionist occupation in one way or another and the occupation cannot arrest them, the Palestinian Authority pursues them, arrests them, and hands them over to the occupation, and then no one knows the fate of that young man or that girl. These do not represent us, nor any other Palestinian. These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.

ZunarJ5 3y ago
Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
- hersko 3y ago
  Don't treat the Palestinians like they have no agency...
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Based on what I know about Palestinians, they appear to be close to having no agency. They don't control what crosses their border, the Israeli government may well be trying to destroy them and their politics are the plaything of regional and non-regional powers. For example, Israel played a role in incubating Hamas [0, 1]. Now if I were in Gaza my opinion is that what they are doing is stupid. They don't really have a choice but to like it and make the best of their situation with charity, tolerance and love. All the other plays lead to worse results. But there aren't many political bodies with less agency. [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30...
  - ZunarJ5 3y ago
    Never said that they were saints. It's important to know what you're actually dealing with though. From the article: "In other words, Hamas’ absolute rule of Gaza is not what the Palestinians voted for back in 2006. In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place." I cannot help but see most of the arguments that people make equating Hamas with Palestinians as bad faith. Explanations are not excuses and knowing why things are happening is the first real step towards fixing anything.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place. And, for the same reason, the ones that were born largely couldn't vote.
      - ZunarJ5 3y ago
        Yes, it's inferrable with some caution. There's also the obvious elephant in the room that Israel is executing a disproportional response to the terror attacks and the conditions they're creating will only extend this conflict and create more terror. As the article states, it's pretty well understood that citizens need stable material conditions before voting really works well, otherwise they tend to trend towards the reactionary.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas. Israeli policy during the occupation is responsible for Hamas, and it existed before W had any foreign policy influence. Blaming Bush for Hamas because he was somehow responsible for the elections happening is stupid. The elections happening was a good thing. Fatah stupidly rejecting the idea of a national unity government was a bad thing. Israel deliberately seeking to assure a Hamas victory by interfering with campaigning, and voter registration, conducting a targeted campaign of arrests of Palestinian politicians, and doing everything possible to make the Fatah-led PA look weak, complicit, and corrupt in Israel's favor in the immediate runup to the elections was horrible -- but predictable given the entire history of Israel actively promoting Hamas, from its founding, as a tool to divide Palestinians and assure that there was a public face of opposition less sympathetic to, particularly, the population of Israel's Western Allies (particularly the US) than the more secular nationalists of the PLO during the height of occupation, and Fatah as a political party once there was an entity to have political parties.
  - ZunarJ5 3y ago
    Sorry, it was an oversimplification, but the article here is pretty decent. The major takeaway is that conditions were not right and the whole election cycle was a bit ham fisted. Your break down is appreciated as it's got a lot of moving parts!
__blockcipher__ 3y ago
> These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America. To me a smoking gun here is that Biden's administration wants the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza "after Hamas" (as an aside, I sincerely doubt Israel will be successful in destroying Hamas, but ofc even if they do there will just be a more radical group taking its place anyway); history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they know they will be a vassal/puppet of US interests. There's many examples but the most recent one is when we (I'm American) propped up the bogus Afghanistan "Government" only for it to instantly collapse and be replaced again by the Taliban the moment we withdrew. Really hope there's a path forward that gives the Palestinians real autonomy and an end to the bloodshed. In reality, I expect this conflict to continue indefinitely and us to just continue supporting the occupation, which I find heartbreaking but my rational mind is convinced is the most likely outcome.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA. Egypt certainly doesen't want anything to do with the region or Palestinians anymore. So US can only chose between supporting a direct Israeli occupation or a semi-indirect one (through the Palestinian Authority). I don't think the US government wants to install a puppet regime in Gaza, they'd rather have absolutely nothing to do with at all. Tangential but when it comes to Afghanistan I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster. > Palestinians real autonomy Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
  - __blockcipher__ 3y ago
    > Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA. I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened? It certainly wasn't organic (at least not entirely so). Anyway, regarding the options, there's technically a few more like Jordan or other arab states, or a new organization arising (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power). But beyond those quibbles I don't disagree with you that there's no good options, I'm just stating my belief that if we support organization X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own. > Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades. Agreed fully, and that's one of the problems. > I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster. Why not both? Imperialism is a pretty stupid ideology, at least if one's goal is to keep one's country safe and powerful. If one's goal is to extract resources from one's own country at the cost of lots of bloodshed of your citizens and others', then it achieves the goal fine.
starik36 3y ago
[flagged]

whycome 3y ago

And some support the war Hamas rages despite the effect on the Palestinian people/civilians. Is that an other other side? This is complex, and we really can't describe this conflict as just having two sides.

ido 3y ago
Just like some Israelis support expelling all Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and settling these territories with Israelis. The only "side" that's not wrong (IMO) is the one that condemns violence against civilians and is for peace and the two state solution, this "side" exists among both Israelis and Palestinians (but is the minority for both).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
xg15 3y ago
Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict? I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side). Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third parties with their own allegiances and motivation. However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. You can see this rather easily by observing which groups view each other as mortal enemies and which merely as a nuisance. There are - thankfully - lots of people trying to bridge the divide and not aligning themselves only with one side. This is where we all should be headed, but it doesn't change the fact that currently there are sides.
- whycome 3y ago
  > However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. We're talking here about the conflict that has happened as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7. Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN). And you've described it as "Israeli people-Palestine people". https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-12-13-23/index.html https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga... https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/ https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/ https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt

monocasa 3y ago

I mean, even Hamas currently calls for the '67 borders in their charter: > 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/e... Adding to show that the '67 borders are pretty generally supported. There's even support for them among some of the "from the river to the sea" crowd since the '67 borders touch both the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

nahumfarchi 3y ago
That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea". River = the Jordan River Sea = the Mediterranean sea => calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.
- monocasa 3y ago
  > Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas Heck, even at the time of the 2006 elections, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians including Hamas supporters also supported a peace agreement with Israel, and moderation of what was then Hamas's platform. (The latter occurred, the former not so much -- in large part because Israel stopped negotiating when the executive of the PA wanted Hamas -- the party that won a majority in the legislative elections -- involved in the negotiations.)

rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]

rayiner 3y ago

What exactly is their conception of the Jewish state that exists within those borders? Something that exists until the next time the Arabs try to wipe Israel off the map? How do you think the 1967 borders became the current borders? Egypt shut down Israel’s access to the Red Sea and massed troops on Israel’s border. Then Jordan and Iraq sent troops. And then Israel kicked everybody’s ass and occupied the Sinai, the Gaza Strip (which had been occupied by Egypt) and the West Bank (which had been annexed by Jordan).

ignoramous 3y ago

> Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want. Plenty Palestinians oppose the war and want peace. This is the equivalent. In their eyes, to rid of kahanists like Netanyahu and his cronies, who have subjugated them for decades, subjected them to a death by a thousand paper-cuts, they don't demand Jordan and Turkey besiege and bomb Tel Aviv. Given the population density in the Strip and lack of trust in Israel by Egypt on refugees, smaller-scale military solution followed by a political solution must have been pursued but instead the majority sentiment in Israel was all-out revenge (and collective punishment very much okay: https://archive.is/t9pmT https://archive.is/t9pmT). It has been downhill from there.

amluto 3y ago

How is that the other side? Israeli- and Palestinian-Americans, for example, don’t have any real reason to be on opposite sides here. (Not to mention all the American Jews who aren’t actually Israeli.) I’m reminded of an excellent Middle Eastern restaurant in California that I went to on occasion during the Second Intifada. The had Hebrew- and Arabic language newspapers. The patrons (I assume) mostly had some form of Middle Eastern or Jewish heritage, but I don’t really know which. The falafel sandwiches were fantastic. The only sides were things like tahini and harissa. As far as I know, basically everyone who ate there wanted peace and didn’t really want any particular group to “win” the ongoing conflict. I think the owners were Lebanese-American, but it didn’t matter.

settrans 3y ago

In fact, public opposition to Hamas[0][1] is frequently cited[2] as a primary motivation for the 10/7 attack. Gazans widely viewed Hamas as corrupt and the main reason for their destitution, and overwhelmingly preferred Fatah leaders over Hamas (despite having installed Hamas primarily due to Fatah's perceived corruption). The theory goes: if Hamas were to embarrass Israel on the public stage with a humiliating attack, this might provoke an overwhelmingly disproportionate response by Israel against Gaza, cementing the public perception of Gazans as the victims in the conflict even in light of the 10/7 aggression - and Hamas as their freedom fighters. This in turn would attract public sympathy for Hamas, bolstering their political prospects in Palestine, meanwhile derailing Saudi peace talks that might have resulted in formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate sovereigns. (Neutralizing peace talks between the two greatest enemies of one of Hamas's greatest benefactors, Iran, could only be viewed as a nice "plus"). [0] https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/survey-sheds-light-on-palestinian-views-ahead-of-hamas-attack-on-israel/ https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/survey-sheds-light-... [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY

balex 3y ago
Alternatively, it could be viewed as the whole purpose behind the attack.

dang 3y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618262. (There was nothing wrong with your comment; I'm just trying to prune the top-heavy subthread.)