5 ms·

They're a fig leaf and asset [1] for those who use them as an excuse for collective punishment and genocide. With predictable and predicted [2] results. [1] Sm

They're a fig leaf and asset [1] for those who use them as an excuse for collective punishment and genocide. With predictable and predicted [2] results. [1] Smotrich: "In the context of delegitimization, Hamas is an asset and the authority is a burden" -- https://twitter.com/pgosh_MTP/status/1741169302051402195 https://twitter.com/pgosh_MTP/status/1741169302051402195 [2] https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1741789748367073335 https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/17417897483670733...

tptacek 3y ago
They are the governing body of Gaza, and have been since 2006.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  That's great. The claim was "the reason why such an attack happened is because the people who did the attack were the ruling government body of 2 million people for almost 2 decades". And that's transparent nonsense in service of the colonialists committing genocide right now. Do you disagree?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    My claim was that Hamas is the ruling body in Gaza, which is a simple fact. It responded to a comment saying that Hamas was not the ruling body in Gaza. That comment was false. Your political advocacy isn't relevant to what I'm saying.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      Got it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
nolongerthere 3y ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 3y ago
  Bazelel Smotrich is a fringe right-wing character, reviled by a significant fraction of Israelis and even more so by Jewish people in the US. Along with Itamar Ben-Gvir, he found his way into Netanyahu's cabinet after Netanyahu lost support from a significant chunk of conservative Israelis in the wake of legal scandals, which included a recently-repudiated attempt to disempower Israeli courts in an effort that was in part designed to keep him out of prison owing to an unusually strong corruption case against him. Netanyahu clung to power by building a coalition of lunatics like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The US State Department just today issued a statement saying that the Israeli government, and Netanyahu himself, have repeatedly reassured the US that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir aren't speaking for Israel. Neither Smotrich nor Ben-Gvir were in power in 2005 (Smotrich might still have been in school), when Sharon disengaged from Gaza, and dispossessed Israeli Gazan settlers. Nor were they in power in years where Netanyahu was recorded saying Hamas was his preferred partner in Palestine. Put simply: Smotrich isn't the reason Hamas rules Gaza. Regardless: Hamas took power in Gaza in 2006, in a combination of coercive force and a public election. It has not allowed elections since then. Until recently, Hamas was the dominant security force in Gaza, and the governing authority.
  - nolongerthere 3y ago
    I appreciate your context but not really sure what it adds. I know who all the players are and I know how many left-leaning Americans and secular Jews feel about religious people, I think you are presenting a very one sided view of things, but that's not really relevant. I was interested in what johnnyworker was really trying to say, as it's not really coherent at the moment.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      My interpretation of their subtext: that you may believe Gaza is/was ruled by Hamas, but it doesn't count, because Netanyahu's governing coalition found Hamas preferable to the PA, to the point where they arranged some amount of funding for Hamas. Thus, in reality, the governing authority of Gaza was Israel. (I do not buy into this narrative). I'm only adding this because you said you didn't know what I was trying to add before. It's totally reasonable to want 'johnnyworker to just tell you in their own words what they're trying to say.
stale2002 3y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - stale2002 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Can you please stop haranguing people like this? If your arguments are as strong as you clearly feel they are (for instance: you have responded to people challenging them by simply repeating them verbatim), you should be able to make them without this kind of incivility. A casual survey of the site suggests that, if one is forced to distill the conflict down to two simple sides, "Israel" and "Palestine", the side you fall in enjoys majority support among commenters on HN. You do that side no favors by writing so shrilly about it.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      If you're going to call out this person multiple times, will you acknowledge that the other commenters are also haranguing them? They were responding here to a comment deliberately twisting their words. They were responding elsewhere to a comment that accused them of supporting murder. You even replied to that one, without identifying it as "uncivil." I agree this conversation has gone off the rails, but you're putting it all on one person quite unfairly. If you're unwilling to call people out in an even handed way, I think it's better to just send the link to dang and let him do it. Otherwise it creates the appearance of abusing civility to silence just one particular party when everyone is throwing mud. (I don't think that's your intention, to be clear. Just that it creates the appearance.)

tptacek 3y ago

They are the governing body of Gaza, and have been since 2006.

johnnyworker 3y ago
That's great. The claim was "the reason why such an attack happened is because the people who did the attack were the ruling government body of 2 million people for almost 2 decades". And that's transparent nonsense in service of the colonialists committing genocide right now. Do you disagree?
- tptacek 3y ago
  My claim was that Hamas is the ruling body in Gaza, which is a simple fact. It responded to a comment saying that Hamas was not the ruling body in Gaza. That comment was false. Your political advocacy isn't relevant to what I'm saying.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    Got it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

nolongerthere 3y ago

[flagged]

tptacek 3y ago
Bazelel Smotrich is a fringe right-wing character, reviled by a significant fraction of Israelis and even more so by Jewish people in the US. Along with Itamar Ben-Gvir, he found his way into Netanyahu's cabinet after Netanyahu lost support from a significant chunk of conservative Israelis in the wake of legal scandals, which included a recently-repudiated attempt to disempower Israeli courts in an effort that was in part designed to keep him out of prison owing to an unusually strong corruption case against him. Netanyahu clung to power by building a coalition of lunatics like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The US State Department just today issued a statement saying that the Israeli government, and Netanyahu himself, have repeatedly reassured the US that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir aren't speaking for Israel. Neither Smotrich nor Ben-Gvir were in power in 2005 (Smotrich might still have been in school), when Sharon disengaged from Gaza, and dispossessed Israeli Gazan settlers. Nor were they in power in years where Netanyahu was recorded saying Hamas was his preferred partner in Palestine. Put simply: Smotrich isn't the reason Hamas rules Gaza. Regardless: Hamas took power in Gaza in 2006, in a combination of coercive force and a public election. It has not allowed elections since then. Until recently, Hamas was the dominant security force in Gaza, and the governing authority.
- nolongerthere 3y ago
  I appreciate your context but not really sure what it adds. I know who all the players are and I know how many left-leaning Americans and secular Jews feel about religious people, I think you are presenting a very one sided view of things, but that's not really relevant. I was interested in what johnnyworker was really trying to say, as it's not really coherent at the moment.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    My interpretation of their subtext: that you may believe Gaza is/was ruled by Hamas, but it doesn't count, because Netanyahu's governing coalition found Hamas preferable to the PA, to the point where they arranged some amount of funding for Hamas. Thus, in reality, the governing authority of Gaza was Israel. (I do not buy into this narrative). I'm only adding this because you said you didn't know what I was trying to add before. It's totally reasonable to want 'johnnyworker to just tell you in their own words what they're trying to say.

stale2002 3y ago

[flagged]

johnnyworker 3y ago
[flagged]
- stale2002 3y ago
  [flagged]
- tptacek 3y ago
  Can you please stop haranguing people like this? If your arguments are as strong as you clearly feel they are (for instance: you have responded to people challenging them by simply repeating them verbatim), you should be able to make them without this kind of incivility. A casual survey of the site suggests that, if one is forced to distill the conflict down to two simple sides, "Israel" and "Palestine", the side you fall in enjoys majority support among commenters on HN. You do that side no favors by writing so shrilly about it.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    If you're going to call out this person multiple times, will you acknowledge that the other commenters are also haranguing them? They were responding here to a comment deliberately twisting their words. They were responding elsewhere to a comment that accused them of supporting murder. You even replied to that one, without identifying it as "uncivil." I agree this conversation has gone off the rails, but you're putting it all on one person quite unfairly. If you're unwilling to call people out in an even handed way, I think it's better to just send the link to dang and let him do it. Otherwise it creates the appearance of abusing civility to silence just one particular party when everyone is throwing mud. (I don't think that's your intention, to be clear. Just that it creates the appearance.)