8 ms·

The entirety of Hamas leadership is gone, Hamas will most likely not going to have control in Gaza (still being debated which mechanism will govern, this is par

The entirety of Hamas leadership is gone, Hamas will most likely not going to have control in Gaza (still being debated which mechanism will govern, this is part of the deal), the crossing to Egypt will be handled by foreign countries which will prevent weapon smuggling. And in the broader spectrum, hizballah is not more, Assad is no more, all of Iran’s proxies can no longer support Hamas’ ambitions which basically means the “mokawamma” is dead. So in short, the entire Middle East have changed.

pydry 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrJohanson 2y ago
  > As the Hamas leadership pointed out, this objective failed. Israel's objective from day one has not been to expel Hamas from Gaza (that's virtually impossible), but to remove it from power. And if the rumors about the ceasefire are true (and if the ceasefire is going to be respected), that's what's going to happen.
  - culi 2y ago
    Hamas is the casus belli that they spent decades creating
    - breckenedge 2y ago
      You make it sound like Hamas was passive in this. Baiting your enemy into attacking you in order to galvanize your side still requires them taking the bait. It’s a legitimate strategy, just not a very nice one. See also: US/Japan relations ahead of WW2.
      - hmcq6 2y ago
        > It’s a legitimate strategy It's a legitimate strategy for manufacturing consent not for international conflict. Being a belligerent occupier is not a legitimate strategy for international conflict.
- wk_end 2y ago
  The “briefcases full of cash” began flowing into Gaza in the mid-2010s, IIRC. Hamas had been in power in Gaza for around a decade at that point.
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    Israel has been funding anti PLO/PA efforts since the 80's https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...
    - wk_end 2y ago
      Fine, sure, I guess - the article is demanding an email address so I can’t read it, but I buy it. I’m responding to the statement “Netanyahu was the one that helped put them there in the first place. He did this to try and derail the two state solution - famously delivering them thoses briefcases full of cash.” This is a vastly different statement than “Israel has been funding anti PLO/PA efforts since the 80’s”. It’s referring to a specific (“famous”!) instance, and attributing it to a specific person (Netanyahu), and putting it at a specific time frame (before Hamas seized power) so as to have a specific consequence (Hamas’ acquisition of power) for a specific reason (to derail a two state solution). Very little of this is correct: Netanyahu was not the one responsible for putting them into power (he wasn’t prime minister at the time), the Qatari money being referenced was allowed into Gaza many years after Hamas was in power, it was unlikely to do much to prevent a two state solution as one hadn’t really been on the table since Arafat, and so on. That other people in the Israeli government, at a different time, backed Hamas in different instances for different reasons does not warrant conflating the two events. It’s like saying Bush did 9/11 because the CIA funded Bin Laden in the 80s.
    - nl 2y ago
      And Israel sold arms to Iran to use against Iraq in the 1980s. "My enemy's enemy" etc. > Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy." Secret Israeli arms sales and shipments to Iran began in that year, even as, in public, "the Reagan Administration" presented a different face, and "aggressively promoted a public campaign [...] to stop worldwide transfers of military goods to Iran". The New York Times explains: "Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980", while "Israel [a US ally] was interested in keeping the war between Iran and Iraq going to ensure that these two potential enemies remained preoccupied with each other". Major General Avraham Tamir, a high-ranking Israeli Defense Ministry official in 1981, said there was an "oral agreement" to allow the sale of "spare parts" to Iran. This was based on an "understanding" with Secretary Alexander Haig (which a Haig adviser denied). This account was confirmed by a former senior US diplomat with a few modifications. The diplomat claimed that "[Ariel] Sharon violated it, and Haig backed away". A former "high-level" Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who saw reports of arms sales to Iran by Israel in the early 1980s estimated that the total was about $2 billion a year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair The 1980's were a very different era. The PLO was a terrorist organisation backed by the Soviet Union, and Israel was aggressive in trying to support any challenges to it.
- croon 2y ago
  For context: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam... > None of this was a secret. In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226691760/the-long-and-bitter-relationship-between-israels-benjamin-netanyahu-and-hamas https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226691760/the-long-and-bitte... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Use_of_Hamas_to_undermine_the_Palestinian_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Use_...
- culi 2y ago
  There's even a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to documenting Israel's decades long support for Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    As a WP editor, the anti-Israeli editors have become a very strong majority, making it a poor source of objective information. For example the first paragraph of the Zionism article now reads: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." The article you link to essentially boils down to the fact that Qatar funding for some (ostensibly) infrastructure and humanitarian aid projects in Gaza, with Israel facilitating it. It's not really support for Hamas, except in the sense that such Gaza aid projects require the involvement of its government.
    - istjohn 2y ago
      That sentence you are critical of has 17(!) supporting citations listed.
      - klipt 2y ago
        I'm sure you could find 17 citations that Muhammad had sex with underage girls but that's not the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, is it? Point being just because something is cited doesn't mean putting it in the first sentence is unbiased.
        albedoa 2y ago
        ...what?? What should the first sentence of the Zionism article be if not the definition of Zionism and the goals of Zionists? What would an unbiased but complete introductory sentence look like? If the foremost notable thing about Muhammad were that he had sex with underage girls, but instead the actual first sentence is about him being the founder of Islam, then you'd have a devastating point here.
- halflife 2y ago
  Damn if you do damned if you don’t. Israel approved money from Qatar to flow into Gaza as a goodwill, trust establishing gesture, and as part of previous ceasefire agreements. It was supposedly used to pay salaries for the Gaza government. Was it wrong in hindsight? Of course. Was it used to create division? No.
kelthuzad 2y ago
The wall street journal seems to disagree https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinwar-and-hes-rebuilding-0a16031d https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinw...
woooooo 2y ago
You still have millions of people in Gaza and Lebanon who got bombed by Israel. Whether it's the existing groups or new groups going forward, the grievances are still there and bigger than ever. Let's wait a few before we declare anything changed.
- ipnon 2y ago
  All of my Lebanese friends, quite young, have stories about the wars with Israel. The helicopters and bombs over Beirut. Waking up in fear in the night. They have been grieved in regards to Israel their whole life. In this respect not much has changed.
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - senderista 2y ago
      Are you a "justified target"? How about your family?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - lynndotpy 2y ago
        I think that was the above poster's point. None of us would like to become a target because of the foreign policy of the country we live in and our allies.
  - cnlevy 2y ago
    They wouldn't dare speak against Hezbollah. Or they were Shias ?
  - underdeserver 2y ago
    All Israelis have stories about rockets over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Be'er Sheba. Waking up in fear in the night, for over a year now, and before that in previous rounds. At least the Lebanese see that the targets were military, and strikes were, more or less, precise. Peace between Israel and Lebanon is a necessity for both sides, and both sides suffered greatly over the many years of conflict. There is no real reason for there not to be peace between these two countries, except for latent animosity, mostly on the Lebanese side. I hope they can overcome it.
lawrenceyan 2y ago
Soon it will be a different name under a different symbol. You cannot break the cycle of hatred with more hatred and violence.
za3faran 2y ago
They seem quite popular and the population is behind them from what we're seeing in the news. Their leaders wanted and sought Martyrdom. What happened is that the image of Israel has been shattered in the globe.

pydry 2y ago

[flagged]

DrJohanson 2y ago
> As the Hamas leadership pointed out, this objective failed. Israel's objective from day one has not been to expel Hamas from Gaza (that's virtually impossible), but to remove it from power. And if the rumors about the ceasefire are true (and if the ceasefire is going to be respected), that's what's going to happen.
- culi 2y ago
  Hamas is the casus belli that they spent decades creating
  - breckenedge 2y ago
    You make it sound like Hamas was passive in this. Baiting your enemy into attacking you in order to galvanize your side still requires them taking the bait. It’s a legitimate strategy, just not a very nice one. See also: US/Japan relations ahead of WW2.
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      > It’s a legitimate strategy It's a legitimate strategy for manufacturing consent not for international conflict. Being a belligerent occupier is not a legitimate strategy for international conflict.
wk_end 2y ago
The “briefcases full of cash” began flowing into Gaza in the mid-2010s, IIRC. Hamas had been in power in Gaza for around a decade at that point.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  Israel has been funding anti PLO/PA efforts since the 80's https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...
  - wk_end 2y ago
    Fine, sure, I guess - the article is demanding an email address so I can’t read it, but I buy it. I’m responding to the statement “Netanyahu was the one that helped put them there in the first place. He did this to try and derail the two state solution - famously delivering them thoses briefcases full of cash.” This is a vastly different statement than “Israel has been funding anti PLO/PA efforts since the 80’s”. It’s referring to a specific (“famous”!) instance, and attributing it to a specific person (Netanyahu), and putting it at a specific time frame (before Hamas seized power) so as to have a specific consequence (Hamas’ acquisition of power) for a specific reason (to derail a two state solution). Very little of this is correct: Netanyahu was not the one responsible for putting them into power (he wasn’t prime minister at the time), the Qatari money being referenced was allowed into Gaza many years after Hamas was in power, it was unlikely to do much to prevent a two state solution as one hadn’t really been on the table since Arafat, and so on. That other people in the Israeli government, at a different time, backed Hamas in different instances for different reasons does not warrant conflating the two events. It’s like saying Bush did 9/11 because the CIA funded Bin Laden in the 80s.
  - nl 2y ago
    And Israel sold arms to Iran to use against Iraq in the 1980s. "My enemy's enemy" etc. > Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy." Secret Israeli arms sales and shipments to Iran began in that year, even as, in public, "the Reagan Administration" presented a different face, and "aggressively promoted a public campaign [...] to stop worldwide transfers of military goods to Iran". The New York Times explains: "Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980", while "Israel [a US ally] was interested in keeping the war between Iran and Iraq going to ensure that these two potential enemies remained preoccupied with each other". Major General Avraham Tamir, a high-ranking Israeli Defense Ministry official in 1981, said there was an "oral agreement" to allow the sale of "spare parts" to Iran. This was based on an "understanding" with Secretary Alexander Haig (which a Haig adviser denied). This account was confirmed by a former senior US diplomat with a few modifications. The diplomat claimed that "[Ariel] Sharon violated it, and Haig backed away". A former "high-level" Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who saw reports of arms sales to Iran by Israel in the early 1980s estimated that the total was about $2 billion a year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair The 1980's were a very different era. The PLO was a terrorist organisation backed by the Soviet Union, and Israel was aggressive in trying to support any challenges to it.
croon 2y ago
For context: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam... > None of this was a secret. In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226691760/the-long-and-bitter-relationship-between-israels-benjamin-netanyahu-and-hamas https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226691760/the-long-and-bitte... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Use_of_Hamas_to_undermine_the_Palestinian_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Use_...
culi 2y ago
There's even a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to documenting Israel's decades long support for Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
- dlubarov 2y ago
  As a WP editor, the anti-Israeli editors have become a very strong majority, making it a poor source of objective information. For example the first paragraph of the Zionism article now reads: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." The article you link to essentially boils down to the fact that Qatar funding for some (ostensibly) infrastructure and humanitarian aid projects in Gaza, with Israel facilitating it. It's not really support for Hamas, except in the sense that such Gaza aid projects require the involvement of its government.
  - istjohn 2y ago
    That sentence you are critical of has 17(!) supporting citations listed.
    - klipt 2y ago
      I'm sure you could find 17 citations that Muhammad had sex with underage girls but that's not the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, is it? Point being just because something is cited doesn't mean putting it in the first sentence is unbiased.
      - albedoa 2y ago
        ...what?? What should the first sentence of the Zionism article be if not the definition of Zionism and the goals of Zionists? What would an unbiased but complete introductory sentence look like? If the foremost notable thing about Muhammad were that he had sex with underage girls, but instead the actual first sentence is about him being the founder of Islam, then you'd have a devastating point here.
halflife 2y ago
Damn if you do damned if you don’t. Israel approved money from Qatar to flow into Gaza as a goodwill, trust establishing gesture, and as part of previous ceasefire agreements. It was supposedly used to pay salaries for the Gaza government. Was it wrong in hindsight? Of course. Was it used to create division? No.

kelthuzad 2y ago

The wall street journal seems to disagree https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinwar-and-hes-rebuilding-0a16031d https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinw...

woooooo 2y ago

You still have millions of people in Gaza and Lebanon who got bombed by Israel. Whether it's the existing groups or new groups going forward, the grievances are still there and bigger than ever. Let's wait a few before we declare anything changed.

ipnon 2y ago
All of my Lebanese friends, quite young, have stories about the wars with Israel. The helicopters and bombs over Beirut. Waking up in fear in the night. They have been grieved in regards to Israel their whole life. In this respect not much has changed.
- bbqfog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - senderista 2y ago
    Are you a "justified target"? How about your family?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lynndotpy 2y ago
      I think that was the above poster's point. None of us would like to become a target because of the foreign policy of the country we live in and our allies.
- cnlevy 2y ago
  They wouldn't dare speak against Hezbollah. Or they were Shias ?
- underdeserver 2y ago
  All Israelis have stories about rockets over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Be'er Sheba. Waking up in fear in the night, for over a year now, and before that in previous rounds. At least the Lebanese see that the targets were military, and strikes were, more or less, precise. Peace between Israel and Lebanon is a necessity for both sides, and both sides suffered greatly over the many years of conflict. There is no real reason for there not to be peace between these two countries, except for latent animosity, mostly on the Lebanese side. I hope they can overcome it.

lawrenceyan 2y ago

Soon it will be a different name under a different symbol. You cannot break the cycle of hatred with more hatred and violence.

za3faran 2y ago

They seem quite popular and the population is behind them from what we're seeing in the news. Their leaders wanted and sought Martyrdom. What happened is that the image of Israel has been shattered in the globe.