4 ms·

> You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme o

> You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme organization using another name. The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation. > The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work. The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.

vidarh 3y ago
> The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation. The west have had plenty of organizations that did regularly hurt people despite being extensively policed until the conditions that created them were addressed, despite those conditions being far less extreme than full-on apartheid. E.g. take the IRA. The situation in the West Bank shows it can be contained for some time, and while doing so you'll see the moderate groups' lose support as the situation drags on in favour of more extreme movements unless you actually address the underlying issue. E.g. consider how the support for Fatah has steadily declined on the West Bank, while support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad has massively increased, along with Lion's Den - a group that is only a year old, yet outpolled Fatah in Washington Institute polls earlier this year, and that was formed largely out of disaffection by Fatah's lack of action. Any belief you'll be able to maintain a state of relative calm without addressing the oppression is a belief that a population of millions will just give up and resign themselves to living under an apartheid regime forever, and that's boundlessly naive. > The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false. The populations under their control were not subjected to decades of occupation by an apartheid state, and they imposed themselves from the outside and were the ones to oppress the populations that lived under them. The notion they are comparable is bizarre, and I've never heard anyone say that about them.
- candiodari 3y ago
  I love what you're doing here: you're assuming your argument to be correct, then discussing that assumption. It's ridiculous of course, but pretty hidden. What is currently in place is effectively a 2 country system. That's what "apartheid" means in your post. By that measure, people living on ANY country border, say the Polish-Russian border, or the US-Canada border, are living in "apartheid". I think you'll find that's absurd. And what you're trying to hide is that you're suggesting as an alternative: a single -muslim- state. In other words, you're trying to hide that you're pushing repression of everyone. Including muslims btw, just ask Iranians or let a Saudi pour you a few (excellent, but WTF strong) coffees, then talk to them about how happy they are with their state. And I think you'll find Saudi are a lot less extreme than Hamas (for one thing they'd never do something as "low" as picking up a gun. That's for peasants) In other words: the only alternative you're giving for oppressing 2 million people is oppressing 15 million people (15 because Palestinians would also be oppressed under such a system). And then there's the trap: you perpetuate the leftist "vision" that people start acting more extreme when they don't get 100% what they want. Of course, this only ever applies to leftists and whoever leftists consider victims. It doesn't apply to Israeli, for example. Giving THEM 100% what they want (Palestinians stay on their land, 2 state solution, no more rockets or attacks, cooperation) is not under consideration. They're not victims. It's also trivial to give unending examples of this not being true. But that's not the trap. This is just the one-sidedness of the argument. Of course if you get your one-state solution you don't want to admit you're calling for, it will immediately make 10 million people a LOT more extremist (never mind what will happen when the inevitable happens and Palestinians massacre in Israel again, and I don't mean since Oct 7, I mean like they've always done. Most Israeli ALSO can't leave, so they will do the one thing they can: fight) But the trap is: Hamas are racial supremacists. They believe they are better, they will win, because they are extremist muslims. That's how their value system works. If they get what they want, your argument is that they will immediately stop extremism. Does this actually happen? Talk to an Iranian, a Sudanese, an Indonesian, a Kashmiri ... did this actually happen? No. When they got what they wanted, they immediately became 10x MORE extremist and attacked. The one state solution that you hide you're calling for is not a solution to end apartheid. It will make a population of 10 million start an open civil war with a population of 5 million people. It will be a bloodbath, for entirely obvious reasons. This is the trap: you say the one-state "solution" will solve the problem. Reality is that that solution will make things 100x worse, for everyone, since it will do what it did everywhere else this was tried: unending civil war with incredible amounts of casualties. You're suggestion is putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. So: no thanks. Go fuck yourself.

vidarh 3y ago

> The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation. The west have had plenty of organizations that did regularly hurt people despite being extensively policed until the conditions that created them were addressed, despite those conditions being far less extreme than full-on apartheid. E.g. take the IRA. The situation in the West Bank shows it can be contained for some time, and while doing so you'll see the moderate groups' lose support as the situation drags on in favour of more extreme movements unless you actually address the underlying issue. E.g. consider how the support for Fatah has steadily declined on the West Bank, while support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad has massively increased, along with Lion's Den - a group that is only a year old, yet outpolled Fatah in Washington Institute polls earlier this year, and that was formed largely out of disaffection by Fatah's lack of action. Any belief you'll be able to maintain a state of relative calm without addressing the oppression is a belief that a population of millions will just give up and resign themselves to living under an apartheid regime forever, and that's boundlessly naive. > The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false. The populations under their control were not subjected to decades of occupation by an apartheid state, and they imposed themselves from the outside and were the ones to oppress the populations that lived under them. The notion they are comparable is bizarre, and I've never heard anyone say that about them.

candiodari 3y ago
I love what you're doing here: you're assuming your argument to be correct, then discussing that assumption. It's ridiculous of course, but pretty hidden. What is currently in place is effectively a 2 country system. That's what "apartheid" means in your post. By that measure, people living on ANY country border, say the Polish-Russian border, or the US-Canada border, are living in "apartheid". I think you'll find that's absurd. And what you're trying to hide is that you're suggesting as an alternative: a single -muslim- state. In other words, you're trying to hide that you're pushing repression of everyone. Including muslims btw, just ask Iranians or let a Saudi pour you a few (excellent, but WTF strong) coffees, then talk to them about how happy they are with their state. And I think you'll find Saudi are a lot less extreme than Hamas (for one thing they'd never do something as "low" as picking up a gun. That's for peasants) In other words: the only alternative you're giving for oppressing 2 million people is oppressing 15 million people (15 because Palestinians would also be oppressed under such a system). And then there's the trap: you perpetuate the leftist "vision" that people start acting more extreme when they don't get 100% what they want. Of course, this only ever applies to leftists and whoever leftists consider victims. It doesn't apply to Israeli, for example. Giving THEM 100% what they want (Palestinians stay on their land, 2 state solution, no more rockets or attacks, cooperation) is not under consideration. They're not victims. It's also trivial to give unending examples of this not being true. But that's not the trap. This is just the one-sidedness of the argument. Of course if you get your one-state solution you don't want to admit you're calling for, it will immediately make 10 million people a LOT more extremist (never mind what will happen when the inevitable happens and Palestinians massacre in Israel again, and I don't mean since Oct 7, I mean like they've always done. Most Israeli ALSO can't leave, so they will do the one thing they can: fight) But the trap is: Hamas are racial supremacists. They believe they are better, they will win, because they are extremist muslims. That's how their value system works. If they get what they want, your argument is that they will immediately stop extremism. Does this actually happen? Talk to an Iranian, a Sudanese, an Indonesian, a Kashmiri ... did this actually happen? No. When they got what they wanted, they immediately became 10x MORE extremist and attacked. The one state solution that you hide you're calling for is not a solution to end apartheid. It will make a population of 10 million start an open civil war with a population of 5 million people. It will be a bloodbath, for entirely obvious reasons. This is the trap: you say the one-state "solution" will solve the problem. Reality is that that solution will make things 100x worse, for everyone, since it will do what it did everywhere else this was tried: unending civil war with incredible amounts of casualties. You're suggestion is putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. So: no thanks. Go fuck yourself.