Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

The fact that there is an active misinformation campaign going on which denies HAMAS carried out the attacks is a serious but different issue. 

I'm not sure misinformation is the right framing for this.

As to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government?  How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?

Illegal to whom? But I'd lean more to the state as an authority that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given space. Hamas won an election, in a subsequent civil war they ousted their political rivals and since then (with some brief exceptions when there were attempts at Palestine-wide rapprochement), they have formed the government.

There's no moral character or judgement in whether someone is a government or not.

They are terrorists.  By definition they maintain power through terrorism.  Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?

You don't need elections to be a legitimate governments and legitimate governments can maintain power through terror. Legitimate governments exist outside the west and they existed before universal suffrage. Legitimate governance is not an innovation that we've only achieved in the last century (and arguably the vast majority of the human experience has been government maintained by terror, or at least threat).

Additionally in the context of what Hamas would argue which is that it is a war of national liberation there are many examples of states that are terrorists to what they perceive as their oppressor (and collaborators), but that also set up state organisations (including the coercive power of the state) on the people they claim to represent. This was true in post-1916 Ireland or in FLN Algeria, for example - which are both planting bombs, engaging in guerilla warfare and establishing shadow courts and tax collection systems. It is part of both claiming their legitimacy and denying it to their occupying power..

1) If not misinformation, what is it?

2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way.  None of that is true of HAMAS now.  The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate.  But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now.  I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked.  And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.

3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate".  You have lost me.

edit:  I also note that some of those who insist on characterizing HAMAS as being a "government" are also justifying the punishment of all in Gaza on that basis.

[Threviel]

On 2 you can go back and see the discussion on Hamas support. A large plurality or a small majority of all Palestinians supported Hamas before the attack. The triumph they had over the spoils of the attack also implies large support.

You can argue uncertainty all the way to Descartes if you want, but that only makes it seem like you are cherry-picking data.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Showing that decapitating babies and parading the naked corpses of recently killed women through the streets lower supports for their cause is absolutely worthwhile, IMO.

problem is that it clearly doesn't seem to matter looking at the hordes coming out to not protest against Hamas

I had a social event this weekend with a lot of leftists from, amongst other places, Malmö. The capital of Jew-hatred and a very muslim-heavy city.

The inability, or unwillingness, of western european politicians of the last 50 years to not keep better track of who entered our countries and with how many is going to end up as nothing less than a massive disaster.

[grumbler]

As to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government?  How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?

They are terrorists.  By definition they maintain power through terrorism.  Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?

There is no definition of terrorism that requires terrorists "by definition" to use force to maintain power.  Hamas is not illegal in Gaza, so the argument that they cannot be a government because they are somehow "illegal" fails on the face of it.

Hamas politicians collect the taxes, write the laws, hire and pay all of the government employees, provide police, fire, etc services, run the government-controlled public services like gas, electricity, etc, decide the educational policies, have their own foreign policy and diplomats, etc.  That you can claim that not only is it not a government, but that "Those who suggest that it is in any way a representative government misunderstand the situation" pretty clearly demonstrates that it is you who "misunderstands the situation."

I would, in fact, argue that, had there been a fair election in Gaza on or before Oct 6, Hamas would have won it handily.  Hamas is popular in Gaza not only because it has controlled the education in Gaza for 16 years (indoctrinating the youth of a very youth-majority region) but also because it has delivered as a government.  Gazans didn't necessarily like Hamas's provocations of Israel, but they very much liked the effectiveness and relative honesty of their government.

Hamas is not the first, last, or only government to rule without international recognition.

[Sheilbh]

1) If not misinformation, what is it?

Honestly I think the denial that it happened or opinions like that are basically largely driven by anti-semitism. That's why I think it is important to acknowledge what happened and that doesn't preclude any opinion from anti-Zionism to simply thinking Israel's current approach is wrong.

2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way.  None of that is true of HAMAS now.  The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate.  But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now.  I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked.  And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.

But again - a terrorist organisation to whom? I think this is a very Western perspective. Hamas is not identified as a terrorist organisation by, for example, the UN (or countries that follow the UN list) or, say, India (or indeed any of the BRICS). Many countries (and I think this was the case with the EU and UK until the 2010s) may view the military wing of Hamas as terrorists, but not the political wing.

I think it's simply the facts of how Hamas came to hold power in Gaza. I don't think anything about that implies that the population are responsible - as I noted earlier half the population of Gaza are under 18.

3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate".  You have lost me.

So if government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory, I think legitimacy is the justification of that use of force or coercive power and its ability to be enforced and/or followed voluntarily. Personally I'd argue Hamas' legitimacy in Gaza derives far more from its role - on its own terms - as a revolutionary/national liberation force than from an election 20 years ago.

[Jacob]

I still don't buy it, Josq. Attending demonstrations are not solely about influencing your democratically elected government's course of action.

[crazy canuck]

1) If not misinformation, what is it?

Honestly I think the denial that it happened or opinions like that are basically largely driven by anti-semitism. That's why I think it is important to acknowledge what happened and that doesn't preclude any opinion from anti-Zionism to simply thinking Israel's current approach is wrong.

2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way.  None of that is true of HAMAS now.  The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate.  But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now.  I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked.  And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.

But again - a terrorist organisation to whom? I think this is a very Western perspective. Hamas is not identified as a terrorist organisation by, for example, the UN (or countries that follow the UN list) or, say, India (or indeed any of the BRICS). Many countries (and I think this was the case with the EU and UK until the 2010s) may view the military wing of Hamas as terrorists, but not the political wing.

I think it's simply the facts of how Hamas came to hold power in Gaza. I don't think anything about that implies that the population are responsible - as I noted earlier half the population of Gaza are under 18.

3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate".  You have lost me.

So if government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory, I think legitimacy is the justification of that use of force or coercive power and its ability to be enforced and/or followed voluntarily. Personally I'd argue Hamas' legitimacy in Gaza derives far more from its role - on its own terms - as a revolutionary/national liberation force than from an election 20 years ago.

1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign.  It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?

2) I don't understand your question.  The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation.   I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority.  I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority.  But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point.  For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government.  For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS.  That is why the UN is in Gaza.

But those two things are mutually exclusive.  If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza.  But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government.  Pick a lane. 

3) I agree.  Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily.  That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.

[Razgovory]

You are moving the goal posts.

Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.

I am out CC.

They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.

I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.

Right, that is the very point.

Obviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza.  The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.

Do you think that every Palestinian man, women and child in Gaza is a member or supporter of HAMAS?

No.  It's probably closer to the support that the Nazi party had in Germany.

[Sheilbh]

1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign.  It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?

That's fair on motivation - but I think the impact on the Jewish community and how they are experiencing denial of atrocities against Jews in Israel, or claims that it wasn't Hamas but actually, say, a botched IDF operation is that it's making them feel vulnerable, unsafe and again (as happened after the pogroms and after the Holocaust) that Jewish suffering is not believed. As Hugo Rifkind, who is not in any sense a practicing Jew, put it: "But even from whwre I'm sitting, something has dramatically changed for British Jews in the past fortnight and I'm not sure how we even begin to fix it." Hate crimes against Jews are up over 1,000% in the UK (and Islamophobic hate crimes are up over 100%).

That's why I think it costs very little but can have an impact to affirm that the atrocity happened even if you go on to absolutely support a one state solution, or liberation or whatever else position. I mentioned it before and didn't post it as I think 90% of the forum will passionately dislike this piece - as he is an anti-Zionist (he is a problematic writer in other ways) but I think there is a lot to this:
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this

2) I don't understand your question.  The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation.   I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority.  I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority.  But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point.  For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government.  For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS.  That is why the UN is in Gaza.

But those two things are mutually exclusive.  If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza.  But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government.  Pick a lane. 

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The UN is in lots of places where there's humanitarian need it's not because they've usurped the government - in none of those places does the UN have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I think Hamas is a terrorist organisation and on that I agree with western powers. I think they're also the government of Gaza. Again I don't attach any moral weight or judgement to a government.

3) I agree.  Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily.  That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.

I don't know where you're getting that from what I've said. I don't think it has any bearing on whether Hamas is the government or not. But for what it's worth I think it's obvious the majority of Gazans are not voluntarily doing anything, I think they've got very little agency in this situation and the vast majority are victims.

[The Minsky Moment]

3) I agree.  Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily.  That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.

So Hamas is holding 200+ Israeli hostages and 2,000,000+ Palestinian hostages.

In both cases, the only effective solution is the total defeat of Hamas as an organization.  In both cases, the implementation of that solution poses great risk to the hostages.  In fact, the Israeli hostages would benefit more from a "cease fire" because there is some probability many if not most would be released; they are even in more danger than the Palestinian hostages if hostilities deepen.  Whereas the only hope for the Palestinian hostages is if Israel follows through on more definitive military action.

If seems to me if we accept your premise, then the best scenario for Gaza Palestinians would be quick and decisive military victory by Israel over Hamas.

[crazy canuck]

1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign.  It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?

That's fair on motivation - but I think the impact on the Jewish community and how they are experiencing denial of atrocities against Jews in Israel, or claims that it wasn't Hamas but actually, say, a botched IDF operation is that it's making them feel vulnerable, unsafe and again (as happened after the pogroms and after the Holocaust) that Jewish suffering is not believed. As Hugo Rifkind, who is not in any sense a practicing Jew, put it: "But even from whwre I'm sitting, something has dramatically changed for British Jews in the past fortnight and I'm not sure how we even begin to fix it." Hate crimes against Jews are up over 1,000% in the UK (and Islamophobic hate crimes are up over 100%).

That's why I think it costs very little but can have an impact to affirm that the atrocity happened even if you go on to absolutely support a one state solution, or liberation or whatever else position. I mentioned it before and didn't post it as I think 90% of the forum will passionately dislike this piece - as he is an anti-Zionist (he is a problematic writer in other ways) but I think there is a lot to this:
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this

2) I don't understand your question.  The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation.   I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority.  I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority.  But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point.  For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government.  For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS.  That is why the UN is in Gaza.

But those two things are mutually exclusive.  If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza.  But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government.  Pick a lane. 

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The UN is in lots of places where there's humanitarian need it's not because they've usurped the government - in none of those places does the UN have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I think Hamas is a terrorist organisation and on that I agree with western powers. I think they're also the government of Gaza. Again I don't attach any moral weight or judgement to a government.

3) I agree.  Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily.  That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.

I don't know where you're getting that from what I've said. I don't think it has any bearing on whether Hamas is the government or not. But for what it's worth I think it's obvious the majority of Gazans are not voluntarily doing anything, I think they've got very little agency in this situation and the vast majority are victims.

On the second point, I don't think you've addressed what I said.

On the third point, if you look back at what you said, you use the word voluntary, which is what I addressed.  In any event, for those who advocate for the collective punishment of Palestinians, with in Gaza, there sure seems to be an undercurrent of justification, based on an assertion that Hamas is simply curing out the will of all of the people of Gaza.

[crazy canuck]

3) I agree.  Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily.  That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.

So Hamas is holding 200+ Israeli hostages and 2,000,000+ Palestinian hostages.

In both cases, the only effective solution is the total defeat of Hamas as an organization.  In both cases, the implementation of that solution poses great risk to the hostages.  In fact, the Israeli hostages would benefit more from a "cease fire" because there is some probability many if not most would be released; they are even in more danger than the Palestinian hostages if hostilities deepen.  Whereas the only hope for the Palestinian hostages is if Israel follows through on more definitive military action.

If seems to me if we accept your premise, then the best scenario for Gaza Palestinians would be quick and decisive military victory by Israel over Hamas.

I agree entirely. None of that is inconsistent with the positions I have taken.  But that is not what is happening. Instead, what is happening is a collective punishment and siege of Gaza.

[Jacob]

What are the key elements that make (or could make) Israeli actions a collective punishment of Palestinians as opposed to a legitimate military actions?

There are obvious reasons for Hamas - and potentially anyone supportive of Palestinian nationalism - to cast any action Israel takes at this point as "collective punishment".

Conversely, there are obvious reasons for people supportive of the Israeli state to cast their actions as not being collective punishment, while there are also elements within Israel (and their supporters) calling explicitly for what is basically just that.

But where is the line drawn, more or less? My impression is that Israel is now allowing some emergency aid in, and that the water has been turned back on. Nonetheless, the charges of "collective punishment" have not abated. If what Israel is doing is "collective punishment", what would it have to stop doing and what could it continue doing - in the current situation - for its reaction to Hamas to be not "collective punishment"?

[crazy canuck]

The NYT has published a mea culpa over its coverage of the hospital incident

[crazy canuck]

You are moving the goal posts.

Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.

I am out CC.

They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.

I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.

Right, that is the very point.

Obviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza.  The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.

Do you think that every Palestinian man, women and child in Gaza is a member or supporter of HAMAS?

No.  It's probably closer to the support that the Nazi party had in Germany.

I have no way of judging what either of those are. Do you have any data which should suggest the answer for either?