5 ms·

> What should Israel do? Live with Hamas and the 80% of Palestinians who support them? Giving concessions to the population and offering them an equitable stak

> What should Israel do? Live with Hamas and the 80% of Palestinians who support them? Giving concessions to the population and offering them an equitable stake in society would go a long way to dissipating support for armed resistance. It's not a conflict on the same scale but you can look to the resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland for parallels. Denying people their basic chances in life and doing so with the threat of violence it's never going to win people to your side. At some point you either have to talk to them or kill them all. The situation now is only creating martyrs and enough trauma to fuel the next generation of the cycle.

myth_drannon 3y ago
That's what Oslo peace agreement was about. Palestinians rejected it and went back to intifada. They received the land and independence. Gaza had an international airport that Clinton landed in. They overwhelmingly rejected it. They elected Hamas and strive to erase Israel. There is no such thing as land concessions, they see it as a weakness and demand more. The national Palestinian idea is the genocide of Jews and the establishment of an Islamic state on all of Israel's borders. That's Hamas's stated goal and it is supported by 80% of the Gaza population. Judea & Samaria are the same, despite PLO geriatrics being in control most of the population supports genocide of Jews. It can't be compared to Ireland since the Irish never sought the destruction of Britain and the genocide of the English. The same with Japan. You can't compare. You see it with Western eyes and can't really understand or willfully ignore the Palestinian aspirations.
- racional 3y ago
  Many distortions above; let's just pick one: They elected Hamas Hamas won a narrow plurality in the 2006 legislative elections. That government dissolved entirely in 2007 after a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah. So since 2007, Hamas has not been "elected". In any case it's main function since then has been as an instrument of Israeli policy. In Bibi's own words, just a few years ago: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas." So if you are unhappy with Hamas still being around, you know who to direct your concerns at.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That is certainly not Hamas's main function. Netanyahu is obviously in some sense culpable for funneling resources to Hamas, but Hamas is, obviously, an independent actor; if it's an instrument of anyone's policy, it's Iran's --- though, since October 7, the aQB wing of Hamas appears to be completely on its own.
    - racional 3y ago
      Of course it's an independent actor, but I'm talking about the bigger picture and the strategic rational behind its continued existence. The Leitmotif if you will.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        The IRGC was going to make sure Hamas continued to exist, to the extent it needed external support at all. Hamas isn't a creation of Israel; Israeli support is not the rationale for its continued existence.
        racional 3y ago
        I don't agree, but more to the point I didn't say or even suggest this: Hamas is a creation of Israel So I think we can wrap up here.
        tptacek 3y ago
        I'm not saying you did, I'm just emphatically pushing back on the idea that Netanyahu's support for Hamas is instrumental to its staying power or in some way its reason for existing. It's clear what Netanyahu's purpose for assisting it was --- to divide Palestine between Fatah and Hamas and prevent the emergence of a coherent Palestinian state. Similarly, the US had very particular goals in supporting Afghan Mujahideen, which turned out to be quite different than those groups actual reason to exist. As I'm sure you're aware, this notion that Hamas is (or was, before the IDF demolished it) a puppet for Netanyahu has a lot of currency in online spaces. I don't see you making that argument! But it's worth calling it out. It is fine --- maybe even... dare I say it... good? --- if we say things that we agree on aloud.
- tptacek 3y ago
  A supermajority of Gazans are literally not old enough to have ever voted in an election. Hamas won the 2006 election by force, and immediately replaced open democratic process with a system of internal Shura councils. Palestine did not elect Hamas.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    "Palestine" most certainly elected Hamas. According to international observers the elections in Gaza that Hamas won in 2007 were democratic and fair: The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33] The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34] A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections. ... The conduct of the election was widely considered to be free and fair."[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Independent_Observer_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e... Indeed, the entity that did its best to obstruct the democratic protest was Israel: In the lead-up to the elections, on 26 September 2005 Israel launched a campaign of arrests against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly those involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods.[23] In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as prisoners.[24] During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. The Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were also revoked.[25] The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election".[26] Israeli obstruction during the election resulted in estimated 123,000 voters in East Jerusalem being prevented from registering until ten days before the elections, creating a number of logistical problems shortly before the election day. The checkpoints of Israel also continued to pose serious obstacles to all Palestiniain parties during the electoral campaign as well as on voting day itself. It was also noted that Palestinian refugees in exile and 9,000 prisoners remained ineligible to vote.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Israeli_obstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e... The only problem with the elections was that the Palestinians elected the wrong party. The US, that great champion of liberal democracy around the world, did its utmost best to correct the result: they sponsored, armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup; which backfired and left Hamas in control of Gaza. The report said that instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. Wurmser said that the Bush administration engaged in a "dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] with victory." Wurmser said he was especially galled by the Bush administration's hypocrisy. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president's call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he said. "It directly contradicts it.".[69] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#US_post-election_impediments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
- pas 2y ago
  Tough luck, maybe Bibi et al should check for underground water chi flows or indian graves or something causing this misfortune! But hopefully more bombing will fix this soon! Insallah!?
- pas 2y ago
  > Palestinians rejected it and went back to intifada. Um, not really. Hamas did. And their radical brethren who assassinated Yitzhak. It did end up extremely bad for everyone involved. (I don't want to downplay the anti-Oslo sentiment [0], especially that Oslo I-II got signed despite the attacks previously. Also it's hard to say how well the PLO represented the people, but it's sure that they were more accepted than Hamas. After all Arafat got elected in 1996 despite participating in the peace process. It seems fairly clear that the peace process was a very unfortunate Schelling point for extremists on both sides, and their tireless cooperation successfully pushed the region away from peace and prosperity. And, it's also important to note that it's perfectly possible that Arafat was simply deceitful, and the PLO wanted to get some breathing space to gather an army, blablabla. Sure. And that would/could have lead to ... exactly here anyway. Or maybe it would be even worse! Those are all legitimate concerns that have to be addressed, but very few things can simply make the basic issues irrelevant, and as long as people are there they will inevitably bear the burden of living with those unaddressed issues.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_peace_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_pea...
acdha 3y ago
I completely agree with your comment and would also note that the median age in Gaza is roughly 18 which is coincidentally also roughly the last time they had an election, which means most Palestinians have had no influence on their government. This feels a lot like the American reaction after 9/11 where a great crime was committed but less violent options were rejected by hardliners who wanted to overcompensate for having missed the threat after having made “we will protect you” a major campaign point, and likely also seeing an opportunity for something they could not do following the normal political process. In this case it seems all the more tragic because there’s no natural separation due to distance, and it’s hard to see this not resulting in more tragedies for decades with so much fresh blood to avenge.

myth_drannon 3y ago

That's what Oslo peace agreement was about. Palestinians rejected it and went back to intifada. They received the land and independence. Gaza had an international airport that Clinton landed in. They overwhelmingly rejected it. They elected Hamas and strive to erase Israel. There is no such thing as land concessions, they see it as a weakness and demand more. The national Palestinian idea is the genocide of Jews and the establishment of an Islamic state on all of Israel's borders. That's Hamas's stated goal and it is supported by 80% of the Gaza population. Judea & Samaria are the same, despite PLO geriatrics being in control most of the population supports genocide of Jews. It can't be compared to Ireland since the Irish never sought the destruction of Britain and the genocide of the English. The same with Japan. You can't compare. You see it with Western eyes and can't really understand or willfully ignore the Palestinian aspirations.

racional 3y ago
Many distortions above; let's just pick one: They elected Hamas Hamas won a narrow plurality in the 2006 legislative elections. That government dissolved entirely in 2007 after a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah. So since 2007, Hamas has not been "elected". In any case it's main function since then has been as an instrument of Israeli policy. In Bibi's own words, just a few years ago: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas." So if you are unhappy with Hamas still being around, you know who to direct your concerns at.
- tptacek 3y ago
  That is certainly not Hamas's main function. Netanyahu is obviously in some sense culpable for funneling resources to Hamas, but Hamas is, obviously, an independent actor; if it's an instrument of anyone's policy, it's Iran's --- though, since October 7, the aQB wing of Hamas appears to be completely on its own.
  - racional 3y ago
    Of course it's an independent actor, but I'm talking about the bigger picture and the strategic rational behind its continued existence. The Leitmotif if you will.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      The IRGC was going to make sure Hamas continued to exist, to the extent it needed external support at all. Hamas isn't a creation of Israel; Israeli support is not the rationale for its continued existence.
      - racional 3y ago
        I don't agree, but more to the point I didn't say or even suggest this: Hamas is a creation of Israel So I think we can wrap up here.
        tptacek 3y ago
        I'm not saying you did, I'm just emphatically pushing back on the idea that Netanyahu's support for Hamas is instrumental to its staying power or in some way its reason for existing. It's clear what Netanyahu's purpose for assisting it was --- to divide Palestine between Fatah and Hamas and prevent the emergence of a coherent Palestinian state. Similarly, the US had very particular goals in supporting Afghan Mujahideen, which turned out to be quite different than those groups actual reason to exist. As I'm sure you're aware, this notion that Hamas is (or was, before the IDF demolished it) a puppet for Netanyahu has a lot of currency in online spaces. I don't see you making that argument! But it's worth calling it out. It is fine --- maybe even... dare I say it... good? --- if we say things that we agree on aloud.
tptacek 3y ago
A supermajority of Gazans are literally not old enough to have ever voted in an election. Hamas won the 2006 election by force, and immediately replaced open democratic process with a system of internal Shura councils. Palestine did not elect Hamas.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  "Palestine" most certainly elected Hamas. According to international observers the elections in Gaza that Hamas won in 2007 were democratic and fair: The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33] The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34] A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections. ... The conduct of the election was widely considered to be free and fair."[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Independent_Observer_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e... Indeed, the entity that did its best to obstruct the democratic protest was Israel: In the lead-up to the elections, on 26 September 2005 Israel launched a campaign of arrests against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly those involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods.[23] In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as prisoners.[24] During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. The Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were also revoked.[25] The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election".[26] Israeli obstruction during the election resulted in estimated 123,000 voters in East Jerusalem being prevented from registering until ten days before the elections, creating a number of logistical problems shortly before the election day. The checkpoints of Israel also continued to pose serious obstacles to all Palestiniain parties during the electoral campaign as well as on voting day itself. It was also noted that Palestinian refugees in exile and 9,000 prisoners remained ineligible to vote.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Israeli_obstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e... The only problem with the elections was that the Palestinians elected the wrong party. The US, that great champion of liberal democracy around the world, did its utmost best to correct the result: they sponsored, armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup; which backfired and left Hamas in control of Gaza. The report said that instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. Wurmser said that the Bush administration engaged in a "dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] with victory." Wurmser said he was especially galled by the Bush administration's hypocrisy. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president's call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he said. "It directly contradicts it.".[69] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#US_post-election_impediments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
pas 2y ago
Tough luck, maybe Bibi et al should check for underground water chi flows or indian graves or something causing this misfortune! But hopefully more bombing will fix this soon! Insallah!?
pas 2y ago
> Palestinians rejected it and went back to intifada. Um, not really. Hamas did. And their radical brethren who assassinated Yitzhak. It did end up extremely bad for everyone involved. (I don't want to downplay the anti-Oslo sentiment [0], especially that Oslo I-II got signed despite the attacks previously. Also it's hard to say how well the PLO represented the people, but it's sure that they were more accepted than Hamas. After all Arafat got elected in 1996 despite participating in the peace process. It seems fairly clear that the peace process was a very unfortunate Schelling point for extremists on both sides, and their tireless cooperation successfully pushed the region away from peace and prosperity. And, it's also important to note that it's perfectly possible that Arafat was simply deceitful, and the PLO wanted to get some breathing space to gather an army, blablabla. Sure. And that would/could have lead to ... exactly here anyway. Or maybe it would be even worse! Those are all legitimate concerns that have to be addressed, but very few things can simply make the basic issues irrelevant, and as long as people are there they will inevitably bear the burden of living with those unaddressed issues.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_peace_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_pea...

acdha 3y ago

I completely agree with your comment and would also note that the median age in Gaza is roughly 18 which is coincidentally also roughly the last time they had an election, which means most Palestinians have had no influence on their government. This feels a lot like the American reaction after 9/11 where a great crime was committed but less violent options were rejected by hardliners who wanted to overcompensate for having missed the threat after having made “we will protect you” a major campaign point, and likely also seeing an opportunity for something they could not do following the normal political process. In this case it seems all the more tragic because there’s no natural separation due to distance, and it’s hard to see this not resulting in more tragedies for decades with so much fresh blood to avenge.