5 ms·

> neighbor states actively blocking solutions that would therefore allow the UNRWA to disband UNRWA though is what enables them to do so. If a state has 1m ref

by smsm42 3y ago

> neighbor states actively blocking solutions that would therefore allow the UNRWA to disband UNRWA though is what enables them to do so. If a state has 1m refugees on your soil that don't have any support mechanisms, it's this state's big problem and they'd be soon forced to find some solutions, as it routinely happened with other refugees. To be clear, not all of these solutions are very good, but at least there would be a pressure on the host country to find one. With UNRWA, it is taking care of the "refugees" - who aren't actual refugees for 2 generations already, btw - so no pressure on somebody else to do anything. In fact, it's an established policy - when one of the prominent Hamas leaders was asked, why don't you work to take care of Gaza population, he answered - it's not my business, my business is to fight Israel (he didn't use the word, of course), and UNRWA business is to take care and feed people. Without UNRWA, this wouldn't be possible - no people would tolerate a government that doesn't bother to provide even minimal care to them. But UNRWA provides this safety net that enables the perpetuation of that situation. Hamas can be 100% full time terrorists, because they know the population wouldn't revolt - they have UNRWA to supply their basic needs. > It's not the UNRWA that is trying to perpetuate itself. It is the actions of several countries that force the continued status of refugee on the Palestinians UNRWA certainly isn't doing anything to stop it or voice any objection at all to it, as far as I know. They never asked or acted in any way to make anybody except them to step up. > Israel not providing humanitarian services in Gaza Israel provided a ton of humanitarian services to Gaza. Of course that was before people from Gaza murdered over 1300 of people from Israel and kidnapped over another 200. Then the idea kinda lost its attraction for a bit. One of the most cruel parts here that many of those who were murdered were of the most active participants in providing those services, and in fact for many of them that was exactly the reason they went to live so close to Gaza - because they wanted to help.

intended 3y ago
Hey - let’s call out Hamas as opposed to the people of Gaza. I get the inclination to do so, but missing a chance to call out perpetrators and organizations in favor of a broad population benefits the perpetrators. Actually - Hamas and Netanyahu are apparently an example of the Shirky effect aren’t they? I havent followed this that deeply, so maybe there is some nuance lost here - but Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive, so that their position would be strengthened.
- rendall 3y ago
  > Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive Sounds suss, like a "Jews created the Holocaust, actually" narrative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but whenever someone presents their "evidence" of things like this it's invariably something like a badly shot 4 hour lecture from a "Bible scholar".
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    It's not suss, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza. Here's a Times of Israel article about it: 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...
- smsm42 3y ago
  > Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive That's some bullshit right here. Nothing like that happened.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    No, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza (which is seen by most in the West as the only way for a Palestinian state to occur, since Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization). Basically, keep the terrorists running Gaza, and no one will make a serious effort to pressure Israel into recognizing or allowing Palestinian statehood. Here's a Times of Israel article about it: 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...
    - smsm42 3y ago
      What this article describes is that Netanyahu treated Hamas as de-facto government of Gaza - and cooperated with them in certain things. This is, btw, exactly what Israel has been accused of not doing - e.g. not letting Gazans work, not letting them receive goods and money, etc. But in reality, Netanyahu has been doing all that - under the mistaken impression that Hamas can be, eventually, converted from purely military genocidal terrorist group to kind of hostile, but manageable government of Gaza. This wasn't done because he liked Hamas, but because there's no other option in Gaza, and the alternatives would be very costly and politically untenable - you can't blockade million-sized territory for long before "international community" cries out, and you can't re-occupy it. All that changed on Oct 7, of course, where this policy has proven to be a colossal failure - and that's what Netanyahu and others who pushed this policy will have to answer for, after the war has ended. But none of this makes the claim that Netanyahu actually preferred Hamas as a partner any of a fact - he had a choice, either cooperate with Hamas, ignore them or destroy them. All the world screamed at him "cooperate immediately!". He cooperated. This turned to be a catastrophically mistaken choice. But ironically, now everybody screams at him "how dared you to cooperate! It's all your fault now!". Not that he had much choice - if he chose anything else before Oct 7, what occurred would also probably be listed as his fault, because how dared he not to cooperate? If only he cooperated, nothing like that would happen!

by smsm42 3y ago

intended 3y ago

Hey - let’s call out Hamas as opposed to the people of Gaza. I get the inclination to do so, but missing a chance to call out perpetrators and organizations in favor of a broad population benefits the perpetrators. Actually - Hamas and Netanyahu are apparently an example of the Shirky effect aren’t they? I havent followed this that deeply, so maybe there is some nuance lost here - but Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive, so that their position would be strengthened.

rendall 3y ago
> Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive Sounds suss, like a "Jews created the Holocaust, actually" narrative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but whenever someone presents their "evidence" of things like this it's invariably something like a badly shot 4 hour lecture from a "Bible scholar".
- ang_cire 3y ago
  It's not suss, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza. Here's a Times of Israel article about it: 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...
smsm42 3y ago
> Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive That's some bullshit right here. Nothing like that happened.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  No, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza (which is seen by most in the West as the only way for a Palestinian state to occur, since Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization). Basically, keep the terrorists running Gaza, and no one will make a serious effort to pressure Israel into recognizing or allowing Palestinian statehood. Here's a Times of Israel article about it: 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...
  - smsm42 3y ago
    What this article describes is that Netanyahu treated Hamas as de-facto government of Gaza - and cooperated with them in certain things. This is, btw, exactly what Israel has been accused of not doing - e.g. not letting Gazans work, not letting them receive goods and money, etc. But in reality, Netanyahu has been doing all that - under the mistaken impression that Hamas can be, eventually, converted from purely military genocidal terrorist group to kind of hostile, but manageable government of Gaza. This wasn't done because he liked Hamas, but because there's no other option in Gaza, and the alternatives would be very costly and politically untenable - you can't blockade million-sized territory for long before "international community" cries out, and you can't re-occupy it. All that changed on Oct 7, of course, where this policy has proven to be a colossal failure - and that's what Netanyahu and others who pushed this policy will have to answer for, after the war has ended. But none of this makes the claim that Netanyahu actually preferred Hamas as a partner any of a fact - he had a choice, either cooperate with Hamas, ignore them or destroy them. All the world screamed at him "cooperate immediately!". He cooperated. This turned to be a catastrophically mistaken choice. But ironically, now everybody screams at him "how dared you to cooperate! It's all your fault now!". Not that he had much choice - if he chose anything else before Oct 7, what occurred would also probably be listed as his fault, because how dared he not to cooperate? If only he cooperated, nothing like that would happen!