5 ms·

I think Hamas in its curent form is finished. It may appear it is receiving international support but it’s probably a reaction towards Israel’s indiscriminate h

I think Hamas in its curent form is finished. It may appear it is receiving international support but it’s probably a reaction towards Israel’s indiscriminate harm to civilian Gazans. Lots of children dead, lots and lots. An act of terrorism met with a tenfold response in terrorism and violence is needless and cannot be condoned. Not that Israel doesn’t have a right to defent itself, it surely does but the current right wing leadership doesn’t shy away from seizing as much land and kicking out palestinians away from their lands, many times simply in a retaliatory fashion. No amount of excuses justify that. If the Palestinians stop defending themselves with terrorism would Israel play nice? I’d love to see that scenario. If something changes with Palestinians something must also change with Israelis too.

edanm 3y ago
> An act of terrorism met with a tenfold response in terrorism and violence is needless and cannot be condoned. I don't think this is an accurate description. It wasn't "an act of terrorism". It was an invasion and jointly, a rocket attack, by a neighboring semi-state with a military, that has stated it will invade over and over again. And of course, the capture of 250 hostages. This isn't a kind of one-off terror attack that was met with revenge for the sake of it. For the months after the initial invasion, Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israel, essentially shutting down the country for a few weeks, until they were forced to stop. Hamas militants were literally running around inside of Israel for two days. No nation on Earth could afford to effectively cease functioning as rockets rained down on it, and as other parties like Hezbollah were threatening to widen the conflict to a far more serious attack as well. > If the Palestinians stop defending themselves with terrorism would Israel play nice? I can't answer that, but it's worth noting that during the 1990s there was a sizeable Israeli left that was pushing for peace, there were talks, there were accords that gave the Palestinians self-governance in the West Bank, etc. This was met with terrorism, with the express purpose of stopping the peace process. It's also worth noting that Israel completely left Gaza in 2005, removing all its settlements there and the soldiers there. Gaza then elected Hamas, which immediately started shooting rockets at Israel. So while I highly dislike Israel's right-wing government and extremism, and highly dislike the settlements, I don't think it's accurate to say that the terrorism is helping protect against anything. It comes from a worldview in which Israel will eventually be completely destroyed and the Palestinian will take over all the land.
- jakupovic 3y ago
  >>Palestinian will take over all the land. You mean Palestinians will go back home.
  - edanm 3y ago
    No, I don't mean that. Look, it's a complicated issue. There is some validity to it being "their land", but... even if you don't think the historical connection of Jews to the land means anything, my father was born in Israel. I was born here. My kids were born here. Do we not have any connection to the land at this point? If Hamas's goal of "going back home" (as you put it) is met, what should happen to us?
    - jakupovic 3y ago
      Figure out a way to live together and not shoot at each other for 80+ years. Since I have been a baby it has been a conflict and blame throwing around, please don't kill anymore people, any people on any side!
      - edanm 3y ago
        Of course that's what I want. The only way to achieve that is a two-state solution, where each populace has its own state. The root problem is that there has never been a Palestinian leadership willing or capable of agreeing to a deal (despite multiple efforts), or at least not at the same time as an Israeli leadership existed that could make it possible. And given the failures and continued violence (and demographics!), the Israeli left has lost almost all power, and Israel's right-wing has ruled for most of the last 15 years, and is at best, not contributing to peace. (And I'd say much worse - very actively preventing peace!)
        lupire 3y ago
        Why must the Israeli State be in Palestine? Approximately zero Israelis have a connection to Israel that wasn't created by immigration, invasion, and conquer in the last 100 years, vs centuries of continuous inhabitation by Palestinians.
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> If the Palestinians stop defending themselves with terrorism would Israel play nice? I’d love to see that scenario. That's easy -- just take a look at the West Bank. The response to Palestinian "pacifism" (or whatever we can call what is happening in the West Bank) is apartheid, continuous seizure of land and colonization, nightly raids, military law for civilians and children for everything and anything, constant terrorist attacks by extremist settlers protected by IDF, etc.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lupire 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
      > It's quite strange to write off fully half the population of Israel I am not trying to, the decline towards right wing politics has been slow but never ending since the early 2000s. But its important to note that 20% of the Israeli population is arab israeli and their voices also matter. The 50% is usually the 50% of Israeli jews not of all Israelis. > including an assassination coup If you meant the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, I did mention it in my comment > directly funding Hamas asa weapon again Fatah/ the West Bank I would not give intentions to actions taken by political actors in Israel. I was just pointing out that the narrative of "if Palestine does not fight back they get settlements" is the same as "if the IDF is not strong then Palestine will vote for hamas and more oct 7th's". The blockade of money going to gaza was criticised as well before the money was allowed to reach Hamas. Building a narrative against Israel is fairly easy regardless of which actions they take, so I understand why the "they arm hamas to destabilise Fatah" took hold, but the main source for it is an unsourced quote that netanyahu was claimed to have said at a private Likuud meeting. It is entirely possible he did say it, and it would fit with some of the intentions of some of the more aggresive members of his cabinet. But there is no proof this was not just them caving to the international pressure they suffered post 2011 blockade which Obama heavily criticised as well as europe as being excessive etc. > as being not responsible for their own actions. I am pointing out narratives, nothing else. In the same way pointing out West Bank settlements is not justifying oct 7th, pointing out the fact that the removal of them in Gaza was met with the voting in of Hamas does not justify any of the aggresive policies in the west bank and east jerusalem. Since 1947 both countries have created 2 narratives, now both are so divorced from each other that most of the time they talk past each other. In most conflicts there is 1 narrative, in some there is 2 for a bit and then a winner gets to write their side. In this conflict for the past 70 years the two stories have grown in a myriad of complicated ways

edanm 3y ago

> An act of terrorism met with a tenfold response in terrorism and violence is needless and cannot be condoned. I don't think this is an accurate description. It wasn't "an act of terrorism". It was an invasion and jointly, a rocket attack, by a neighboring semi-state with a military, that has stated it will invade over and over again. And of course, the capture of 250 hostages. This isn't a kind of one-off terror attack that was met with revenge for the sake of it. For the months after the initial invasion, Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israel, essentially shutting down the country for a few weeks, until they were forced to stop. Hamas militants were literally running around inside of Israel for two days. No nation on Earth could afford to effectively cease functioning as rockets rained down on it, and as other parties like Hezbollah were threatening to widen the conflict to a far more serious attack as well. > If the Palestinians stop defending themselves with terrorism would Israel play nice? I can't answer that, but it's worth noting that during the 1990s there was a sizeable Israeli left that was pushing for peace, there were talks, there were accords that gave the Palestinians self-governance in the West Bank, etc. This was met with terrorism, with the express purpose of stopping the peace process. It's also worth noting that Israel completely left Gaza in 2005, removing all its settlements there and the soldiers there. Gaza then elected Hamas, which immediately started shooting rockets at Israel. So while I highly dislike Israel's right-wing government and extremism, and highly dislike the settlements, I don't think it's accurate to say that the terrorism is helping protect against anything. It comes from a worldview in which Israel will eventually be completely destroyed and the Palestinian will take over all the land.

jakupovic 3y ago
>>Palestinian will take over all the land. You mean Palestinians will go back home.
- edanm 3y ago
  No, I don't mean that. Look, it's a complicated issue. There is some validity to it being "their land", but... even if you don't think the historical connection of Jews to the land means anything, my father was born in Israel. I was born here. My kids were born here. Do we not have any connection to the land at this point? If Hamas's goal of "going back home" (as you put it) is met, what should happen to us?
  - jakupovic 3y ago
    Figure out a way to live together and not shoot at each other for 80+ years. Since I have been a baby it has been a conflict and blame throwing around, please don't kill anymore people, any people on any side!
    - edanm 3y ago
      Of course that's what I want. The only way to achieve that is a two-state solution, where each populace has its own state. The root problem is that there has never been a Palestinian leadership willing or capable of agreeing to a deal (despite multiple efforts), or at least not at the same time as an Israeli leadership existed that could make it possible. And given the failures and continued violence (and demographics!), the Israeli left has lost almost all power, and Israel's right-wing has ruled for most of the last 15 years, and is at best, not contributing to peace. (And I'd say much worse - very actively preventing peace!)
      - lupire 3y ago
        Why must the Israeli State be in Palestine? Approximately zero Israelis have a connection to Israel that wasn't created by immigration, invasion, and conquer in the last 100 years, vs centuries of continuous inhabitation by Palestinians.

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago

> If the Palestinians stop defending themselves with terrorism would Israel play nice? I’d love to see that scenario. That's easy -- just take a look at the West Bank. The response to Palestinian "pacifism" (or whatever we can call what is happening in the West Bank) is apartheid, continuous seizure of land and colonization, nightly raids, military law for civilians and children for everything and anything, constant terrorist attacks by extremist settlers protected by IDF, etc.

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
[flagged]
- lupire 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
    > It's quite strange to write off fully half the population of Israel I am not trying to, the decline towards right wing politics has been slow but never ending since the early 2000s. But its important to note that 20% of the Israeli population is arab israeli and their voices also matter. The 50% is usually the 50% of Israeli jews not of all Israelis. > including an assassination coup If you meant the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, I did mention it in my comment > directly funding Hamas asa weapon again Fatah/ the West Bank I would not give intentions to actions taken by political actors in Israel. I was just pointing out that the narrative of "if Palestine does not fight back they get settlements" is the same as "if the IDF is not strong then Palestine will vote for hamas and more oct 7th's". The blockade of money going to gaza was criticised as well before the money was allowed to reach Hamas. Building a narrative against Israel is fairly easy regardless of which actions they take, so I understand why the "they arm hamas to destabilise Fatah" took hold, but the main source for it is an unsourced quote that netanyahu was claimed to have said at a private Likuud meeting. It is entirely possible he did say it, and it would fit with some of the intentions of some of the more aggresive members of his cabinet. But there is no proof this was not just them caving to the international pressure they suffered post 2011 blockade which Obama heavily criticised as well as europe as being excessive etc. > as being not responsible for their own actions. I am pointing out narratives, nothing else. In the same way pointing out West Bank settlements is not justifying oct 7th, pointing out the fact that the removal of them in Gaza was met with the voting in of Hamas does not justify any of the aggresive policies in the west bank and east jerusalem. Since 1947 both countries have created 2 narratives, now both are so divorced from each other that most of the time they talk past each other. In most conflicts there is 1 narrative, in some there is 2 for a bit and then a winner gets to write their side. In this conflict for the past 70 years the two stories have grown in a myriad of complicated ways