3 ms·

I don't know. I do know when I've worked in Gaza I've had to deal with Hamas because they are the defacto civil service. It's the same story we're seeing in th

by ta1243 2y ago

I don't know. I do know when I've worked in Gaza I've had to deal with Hamas because they are the defacto civil service. It's the same story we're seeing in the west though, from Hungary to America to Turkey to the UK. Strongman comes along and correctly says "your life sucks", then says "it sucks because of this group of people" Run with that message for generations, throw in members of "this group of people" actually killing your friends and family, and it's easy to see how that message works.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> Run with that message for generations, throw in members of "this group of people" actually killing your friends and family, and it's easy to see how that message works. Oh, absolutely. But the way to solve that is to realize that it was authoritarianism that started the problem. If the Arab states had been willing to talk about the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East immediately after WWII, this probably doesn't happen. Instead a bunch of authoritarian rulers (most of them monarchs) decided to send troops to try to snuff out the founding of the new state. "I was put here by God; what I say goes" was their entire experience, and they tried applying it to the geopolitical disagreement in their region. A bunch of countries who more-or-less sat out WWII were up against the survivors of industrialized state-backed efforts to wipe out their people during the bloodiest war in human history. As we know, the former lost, and with it, any real chance of establishing a meaningful state for the Palestinian people on their terms. There's two ways to handle a loss: you can accept it on reasonable terms, or you can keep digging a hole. Egypt and Jordan eventually came around to reasonable terms. So far, those terms have held over multiple governments and decades on both sides. If the continued method taken by Hamas (and by extension, Iran) is going to be that of violence, particularly against a state they have to know, deep down, that they can't beat, then there's not too much else to be done other than keep the region from falling further into chaos. That, whether it is right or wrong in the minds of American voters, means blunting the impact of enemy action against Israel. It's one of the bloodiest examples of realpolitik.

by ta1243 2y ago

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Run with that message for generations, throw in members of "this group of people" actually killing your friends and family, and it's easy to see how that message works. Oh, absolutely. But the way to solve that is to realize that it was authoritarianism that started the problem. If the Arab states had been willing to talk about the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East immediately after WWII, this probably doesn't happen. Instead a bunch of authoritarian rulers (most of them monarchs) decided to send troops to try to snuff out the founding of the new state. "I was put here by God; what I say goes" was their entire experience, and they tried applying it to the geopolitical disagreement in their region. A bunch of countries who more-or-less sat out WWII were up against the survivors of industrialized state-backed efforts to wipe out their people during the bloodiest war in human history. As we know, the former lost, and with it, any real chance of establishing a meaningful state for the Palestinian people on their terms. There's two ways to handle a loss: you can accept it on reasonable terms, or you can keep digging a hole. Egypt and Jordan eventually came around to reasonable terms. So far, those terms have held over multiple governments and decades on both sides. If the continued method taken by Hamas (and by extension, Iran) is going to be that of violence, particularly against a state they have to know, deep down, that they can't beat, then there's not too much else to be done other than keep the region from falling further into chaos. That, whether it is right or wrong in the minds of American voters, means blunting the impact of enemy action against Israel. It's one of the bloodiest examples of realpolitik.