Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Duque de Bragança]

The rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.

Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries! 

The somewhat kind of cool kind of conversion therapy.

Emphasis mine. 

[Josquius]

I like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas."  It's a pile of shit.  People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me.  People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.

Thats quite the strawman.
I never said that Israel created Hamas.
I've no idea what the people giving you money and taking busses have to do with anything.

"If they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened."  That's a more interesting proposition than the first. 

Arafat launched the second intifada in response to the Israeli proposal at the Nye River meeting.  Now I'm familiar with the Palestinian objections to the Israeli proposal, which I think we should keep in mind were not an end state but another interim step in the spirit of the Oslo Accords.  Was the second intifada the act of a people who were committed to peaceful coexistence in a separate state of their own?  Ambiguous at best IMO.

Then Mahmoud Abbas takes over the WB after Arafat steps down.  I view him favorably because of my Bretton Woods bias.  He seems to fulfill his end of the bargain.  He's not committing violence against Israelis.  That is when my support for Israel starts to erode.

Hamas wins a majority of parliamentary seat in Gaza, fights a brief civil war with the Palestinian Authority, and starts launching rockets at Israel.  So they're just a radical fringe, right?  Shouldn't derail the peace process, right?  Various talking heads propose the narrative that in voting for Hamas the Gazans weren't endorsing violence but were just tired of corruption.  Most people nod their heads in agreement.  Then we essentially go into a news blackout on the opinions of everyday Palestinians.  There are no elections, either in the West Bank or in Gaza, for people to voice their preferences for peace or war.

Then October 7 comes, Hamas murders 1,200, rapes however many, and abducts 250.  And by an absolute historical miracle the same day a poll is conducted which shows a majority of Palestinians support Hamas.  So it's impossible anymore to sustain the narrative that Palestinians are just peaceful people yearning for a two state solution.

Now you can claim Hamas felt compelled to commit violence in response to the stalled peace process.  Is that a logical inference or is that a statement based on ideology, in other words a statement of faith?  I'm a little murky on the timeline but I believe their charter predates the failure of the peace process.  Do their attacks?  I think so, not sure.

Again this is a strawman.
Saying Israel have to be interested in peace and make the big moves towards this doesn't at all equate to saying Palestinians are all sunshine and rainbows.
Its not a question of morality or goals or anything like that. Its purely a question of agency; Israel has a lot of it, the Palestinians do not.

Though it is definitely worth considering quite why support for violence is high amongst Palestinians-  peace getting them nothing but a steady whittling away of their rights and their territory no doubt contributes.

[Admiral Yi]

Thats quite the strawman.
I never said that Israel created Hamas.
I've no idea what the people giving you money and taking busses have to do with anything.

Letting Qatari money in and letting Palestinians work in Israel were some of the things that the writer of that link mentioned as abetting the rise of Hamas.  If by "breeding extremism" you meant other acts by Israel I apologize.  Please tell me what you mean.

Again this is a strawman.
Saying Israel have to be interested in peace and make the big moves towards this doesn't at all equate to saying Palestinians are all sunshine and rainbows.
Its not a question of morality or goals or anything like that. Its purely a question of agency; Israel has a lot of it, the Palestinians do not.

Though it is definitely worth considering quite why support for violence is high amongst Palestinians-  peace getting them nothing but a steady whittling away of their rights and their territory no doubt contributes.

You said if Israel had been committed to peace this attack would not have happened.  I gave you reasons why I think this, or similar attacks would have happened regardless of Israel's commitment to the two state solution.  That is not a strawman.  I am directly attacking your own assertion.

[grumbler]

A couple of things to keep in mind re: Gaza and Hamas, though they might not be weighty enough to change anyone's conclusions:
1. Palestinians in Gaza did not elect Hamas.  They elected the "Reform Slate" that included (but was not entirely comprised of) Hamas political leaders.
2.  The Hamas coup in Gaza was tacitly supported by Israel, which refused to allow PA security forces to enter Gaza.  It was clear at the time that the Israeli security officials were delighted by the resulting weakening of PA power.

Israel did not create Hamas, but neither did the Gazan people elect them as their government.  Both groups, however, were willing to allow Hamas to rule Gaza.

[Razgovory]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.

The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This  was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.

The Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action.  October 7th demonstrated that.

[viper37]

I like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas."  It's a pile of shit.  People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me.  People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.

If I give you money to take the bus and you take the bus, I am encouraging you to take the bus.

If I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing?  Promoting alternative transportation?

[viper37]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

Ah sure.

If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.

If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.

If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.

Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.

There's a word for it.  It escapes me.

I'm guessing you didn't read the post I was responding to.  Go ahead and read it and apply you standard to that person.

I'm just reading a pattern of your posts.  Whatever happens to the Palestinians, they always deserve it.
Whenever the IDF or the colonists get attack, it's always terrorism.

[Admiral Yi]

If I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing?  Promoting alternative transportation?

Are you saying this is what happened with the Quatari money?  That Israel made a deal with Hamas that said we will allow this money to come into Gaza, but only if you kill some of our people?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right Yi, the narrative they promote literally makes no sense, largely because it just isn't true.

Yes, Israelis deeply opposed to the two state solution had some short term view that keeping the PA out of power in Gaza was to their benefit, but that doesn't make it "their fault" that Hamas was in power in Gaza.

And when it became obvious back in 2008 there was not a combination of political will + international acceptance of Israel going back into Gaza to stamp Hamas out and reassert control for the PA, what exactly was Israel supposed to do? Block the strip off from all financial assistance, all humanitarian aid, all ability to get Israeli work permits etc til the end of time? The limitations on imports Israel did impose were already incredibly controversial and some people used them to call Gaza an "open air prison", the alternative path would be one where they let even less stuff go into Gaza between 2008 and 2023?

Whatever the motives of Israel's politicians, there was some element where letting things like Qatari aid and other things into the strip was just pragmatic, the situation would not have been better if Israel had sealed Gaza off for the last 16 years.

Like Yi, my views on the Israelis definitely "declined" in the 15 years leading up to October 7th, because I felt like the Israeli right had an extreme reaction to the 2nd Intifada and had become completely opposed to any workable peace.

But the more time that has passed since October 7th I've become more convinced that the broad international community really is just massively pre-disposed against Israel, is borderline pro-Hamas, and is resolved to punish Israel inexplicably for things that we largely ignore from far worse countries all the time. I have also become convinced that not only is a two state solution not possible, at this point I think my own belief in the two state solution and that being the position of the United States may actually not be the morally correct stance, either.

I have come to understand that Palestinian nationalism is very different from say, Kurdish nationalism--Kurdish nationalism is about a distinct group of people in a distinct region, who have lived there for a long time but have always been denied self-rule. Palestinian nationalism is actually a "negative" nationalism. It is a conception that only exists as an argument that Arabs "deserve" the land that Israel is on because Jews don't deserve it, and it is pretty clear they mean the entirety of the province of historical Palestine, which is the full deal from the Jordan river to the sea.

When you have two competing groups, and it is now obvious there can never be two states on the land, I think the international response has to be either:

1. Let them fight it out
2. Pick a side

I lean towards #1 all things being equal, but since Israel is a major non-NATO ally, and we know from actual reality that Israel treats its non-Jewish population far better than the Arabs would treat any Jewish population they control, the greater moral outcome would simply be for Israel to annex the entire West Bank, and simply make it clear that calls for a Palestinian state are not acceptable--no different than Turkiye's view on calls for the creation of Kurdistan, or Spain's views on attempts to create Catalonia.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I guess to me, the question has shifted: if a two state solution is impossible, which state do we want to exist there:

1. An Israel that may give some of the non-Jewish Arabs diminished rights of citizenship
2. A Palestine that will mass murder every Jew that doesn't immediately flee to the United States

This being the real world, there is no guarantee in a set of two options, either option is "good" or without serious problems, but you can still typically say which option is the lesser of two evils.

[Razgovory]

The "Israel promoted Hamas and thus Oct 7th is their fault" argument besides being untrue and morally bankrupt boils down to Israel not keeping its foot on Gaza throat firm enough.  Would it be better if the Israelis let no food into Gaza?  Shot anyone who came too close to the wire as a matter of course?  During this period of promoting Hamas Israel bombed Hamas plenty of times.  That doesn't seem to be much in the way of support.

Today is Purim, the celebration of another failed attempt to destroy the Jews.

[Josquius]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.

The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This  was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.

The Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action.  October 7th demonstrated that.

Letting Qatari money in and letting Palestinians work in Israel were some of the things that the writer of that link mentioned as abetting the rise of Hamas.  If by "breeding extremism" you meant other acts by Israel I apologize.  Please tell me what you mean.

I can't find a post where I said breeding extremism so I really don't know what I could have meant if I said it.

I'm also not sure what link you're referring to. This NYT one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html

It certainly sounds like the money coming in helped keep Hamas in power.

There's also the longer term issue that Israel supported Islamic extremism to keep Palestinians divided and counter left leaning Palestinian nationalism. Sort of like the US elsewhere in the middle east.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

And the whole general situation of keeping an impoverished bantustan walled off right next door, occasionally taking pot shots at its civilians and bit by bit steadily stealing their cousins land... That doesn't exactly breed a friendly neighbour.

You said if Israel had been committed to peace this attack would not have happened.  I gave you reasons why I think this, or similar attacks would have happened regardless of Israel's commitment to the two state solution.  That is not a strawman.  I am directly attacking your own assertion.

You seem to neglect how Palestinians and Israelis aren't operating in a bubble.
Israeli policy impacts Palestinian policy impacts Israeli policy.

The Israeli government overnight magically having a sudden change of heart and declaring no more war, lets all have a proper piece now, wouldn't instantly cause Palestinians to flip position.
But steps in this direction will give the same on the other side.
If Israel is clearly and consistently dismantling settlements, trying to setup Palestine to be a proper state, and opening discussions of compensation for past property seizures then Palestinian opinion would shift with it.
You'd still get nutters who want complete genocide (in this scenario the Israeli equivalent have been magiced away), but support for them would drop off a cliff.

With the pre-October Israeli policy of doing a lot of what the zionist nutters wanted and continuing to brutalise the Palestinians, slowly but surely whittling away their land and freedoms.... well, is it any surprise groups like Hamas would get support and want to try something like the October attacks?- which makes it all the more damning that it apparently was a huge surprise to Israel even with all the short term warnings on top of the obvious fucked up situation.

[Razgovory]

  You are so out of touch.

[Razgovory]

Here's what I don't get:  Take a Christian nationalist, a really vile one.  He believes that laws should be based on the Bible.  He has no tolerance of secularism or other religions.  He constantly is on the look out for even the faintest criticism of his religion.  He believes that his race should rule supreme, other people as far as they are tolerated should defer to his people.  He really, really hates the Jews.  He believes the Holocaust was some sort of scheme by the Jews, if it ever happened, but by God he would like to finish to the job.  It's not just in word, he attacks Jews on site if he can get away with it.  He hates LGBT people and wants them executed.  He praises those who kill LGBT people.  In short, we would call him a fascist.

Now, take off his red cap, make him Muslim, and darken his skin slightly.  Suddenly, leftists will support him.  He's no longer a fascist he's a hero.  He's also a pretty average Palestinian. It really fucking perplexes me.

[Valmy]

Now, take off his red cap, make him Muslim, and darken his skin slightly.  Suddenly, leftists will support him.  He's no longer a fascist he's a hero.  He's also a pretty average Palestinian. It really fucking perplexes me.

Well it is sort of like a protestant soldier in Germany during the 30 years war is defending freedom against a tyrannical emperor. As soon as the same guy goes to fight in Ireland suddenly he is a monstrous force for tyranny, despite the fact he is fighting for the exact same cause for the same reasons. His morality is entirely dependent on what dirt his feet are standing on. So if you are an antisemitic homophobic right wing religious reactionary fighting for Palestine well...

And I am not sure leftists are as universally supportive of right wing reactionary Muslims as you seem to think.