4 ms·

> Having won the largest block of legislative seats, it was to govern in coalition with other political parties. Hamas instead went to war with its coalition pa

> Having won the largest block of legislative seats, it was to govern in coalition with other political parties. Hamas instead went to war with its coalition partner (Fatah, who remains in control of the West Bank) and took control of Gaza by a program of internal repression and political assassination. As with anything involving Israel/Palestine, the article takes an extremely simplistic view of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. Anyone who followed the events in 2006/2007 after the election knows that both parties were equally to blame. Hamas had good reason to believe Fatah was planning a violent takeover, and there were assassination attempts on Hamas's leader, widely believed to be by Fatah members. At the same time, Hamas committed their own crimes against Fatah. There isn't a clean "They instigated, and we responded" event here by either side. They had been in conflict since prior to the election. (Somewhat unrelated, but supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank). I pretty much stopped reading the article after this statement. It stinks strongly of "I have a thesis and let me bend reality to convince you of it".

energy123 1y ago
> supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank They do not correctly point that out. The Second Intifada ("playing nice"?) obliterated Israel's left and increased support for occupation in the West Bank under the belief it's necessary for security. Look at opinion polling inside Israel before and after it. This is not an attempt at a broader commentary on anything else about this conflict, but the sociological and psychological explanations that only ever get deployed one direction do in fact run both ways.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you would need to give an example of Palestinian quiescence producing actual gains.
  - energy123 1y ago
    It's an argument that violent attacks have worked out significantly less well compared to where things were headed in the early 1990s during the Oslo Accords when there was reduced security paranoia among Israel's populace which allowed the political left to actually exist. Whether it was on the path to "working well" is probably a more subjective and loaded question.
    - worik 1y ago
      I thought that the Oslo Accords floundered when a nutty Israeli shot the Israeli Prime Minister dead in an assassination Is that not correct?
      - HappyPanacea 1y ago
        No, this is often repeated and too simplistic, see for example Taba Summit after Rabin's assassination and Arab Peace Initiative. one of the main problems seems to be that Palestinians insist on full return and the Israeli don't trust them enough (Of course actions like the second intifada and oct7 only make them trust them less)
  - tim333 1y ago
    In the west bank the Palestinians have been able to live reasonable peacefully and Gaza could have been similar. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit stuff could have gone through.
    - sc68cal 1y ago
      > to live reasonable peacefully This is absolutely not true. There is constant Israeli settler violence in the West Bank against Palestinians and frequent raids by the IDF.

energy123 1y ago

> supporters of Hamas do correctly point out that "playing nice" hasn't worked out well for the Palestinians in the West Bank They do not correctly point that out. The Second Intifada ("playing nice"?) obliterated Israel's left and increased support for occupation in the West Bank under the belief it's necessary for security. Look at opinion polling inside Israel before and after it. This is not an attempt at a broader commentary on anything else about this conflict, but the sociological and psychological explanations that only ever get deployed one direction do in fact run both ways.

lazyasciiart 1y ago
That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you would need to give an example of Palestinian quiescence producing actual gains.
- energy123 1y ago
  It's an argument that violent attacks have worked out significantly less well compared to where things were headed in the early 1990s during the Oslo Accords when there was reduced security paranoia among Israel's populace which allowed the political left to actually exist. Whether it was on the path to "working well" is probably a more subjective and loaded question.
  - worik 1y ago
    I thought that the Oslo Accords floundered when a nutty Israeli shot the Israeli Prime Minister dead in an assassination Is that not correct?
    - HappyPanacea 1y ago
      No, this is often repeated and too simplistic, see for example Taba Summit after Rabin's assassination and Arab Peace Initiative. one of the main problems seems to be that Palestinians insist on full return and the Israeli don't trust them enough (Of course actions like the second intifada and oct7 only make them trust them less)
- tim333 1y ago
  In the west bank the Palestinians have been able to live reasonable peacefully and Gaza could have been similar. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit stuff could have gone through.
  - sc68cal 1y ago
    > to live reasonable peacefully This is absolutely not true. There is constant Israeli settler violence in the West Bank against Palestinians and frequent raids by the IDF.