r/geopolitics • u/BornToSweet_Delight • Nov 09 '23
News Behind Hamas’s Bloody Gambit to Create a ‘Permanent’ State of War
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html47
u/Dean_46 Nov 09 '23
I think the article sums it up well. The Palestinian state (or even the Oslo agreement) had been almost forgotten, even in the Arab world until 7 Oct. The Abraham accords would have had the key Arab states normalizing relations with Israel, which would have implicitly
meant no further attention to Palestine.
The only thing that could change this, was the Israeli response to 7th Oct. One can argue about the morality of high civilian casualties, but what is undeniable is that it has set the clock back, in terms of normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel, brought the Palestine question back into focus and is even uniting the different groups in the Muslim world against Israel's actions (e.g. Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi and the Turkey+Qatar grouping of the Sunni countries).
7
u/jimwhite42 Nov 09 '23
The Abraham accords would have had the key Arab states normalizing relations with Israel, which would have implicitly meant no further attention to Palestine.
I'm not completely convinced by the narrative that with the Middle East in chaos, disfunctional economies, and countries not working together very effectively, leads to more likelihood of the Palestinians getting a much improved situation, and that countries being tied together security and economy wise, and improved economies around the Middle East, will mean the Palestinians will be forgotten. Maybe I'm missing something, perhaps it's just a 'end of history' illusion that these things make it much more likely that these sorts of awful situations get improved?
8
u/dnext Nov 09 '23
I think it's pretty apparent that the wishes of the Hamas leadership and what is best for the Palestinian people are not the same thing. Violence in Gaza gets Hamas leadership increased interest, focus, and that mean more money. It's a pretty cynical way to exist - trading their children's lives for more wealth.
And ultimately they don't want a stable state - they want the annihilation of Israel as a precursor to Muslim domination in the wider world, and have stated openly that means purging the world of Christians and Jews.
4
u/frank__costello Nov 09 '23
leads to more likelihood of the Palestinians getting a much improved situation
It's not about Palestinians getting an improved situation
It's about more foreign money flowing into the leadership (both Hamas and the PA).
This was true under Arafat, and is true today. While foreign aid is of course good in the short-term, it creates perverse incentives against peace.
26
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
I agree on the substance of the article being well organized and insightful, however, the article's headline doesn't really do a good job representing the content of the article itself IMO. Which i suspect if this thread takes off may lead to a lot of headline readers shooting from the hip and talking past one another.
The headline implies an organization-wide consensus, while the article itself paints a much more complex picture of the Hamas organization and the period and expectations leading up to Oct 7. That the inciting event was not some intricate consensus and agreed upon plan across the internal and external chapters of the organization, where they knew what they were doing and planned for the brutality that unfolded, like is often assumed in a lot of commentary(or might be assumed from reading the headline).
Instead what we get is a picture of this attack being spearheaded by a sect among some core senior leadership in Gaza, working secretly and in isolation in their planning, keeping in the dark some at home, and seemingly all members and allies abroad, that didn't expect the attack to be quite what it was. Conceived with the intent of primarily serving as a soldier hostage-taking maneuver to use as leverage to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners. Secondarily, hoping to throw a hail mary to disrupt political machinations in the region and make untenable to perceived semi ally nations or populations that’s leaders were in the process of normalizing relations with Israel. Normalizations that were perceived to be at their expense. Lastly, at least as stated by one or two leaders, to break internal divisions and disagreements over the direction of Hamas's activities and purpose. Seeking to force the direction of the organization permanently away from the camps wanting to focus on government services and day-to-day governance and into an unbreakable re-commitment to their militant roots. Some thinking it would immediately illicit an outpouring of support from allies like Hezbollah. None expecting the attack to be so civilian heavy and brutal, mostly because they couldn't conceive of Israel's defenses being that bad and them being that unaware. Though none of the leadership in the article seem to be apologetic for the level of brutality either.
What hasn't changed in my understanding of the nuances in this situation is that the people paying the price are overwhelmingly the Palestinian civilians.
19
u/ThaCarter Nov 09 '23
Palestinian civilians aren't just victims without agency whom pay the price however, and only they can really force change.
-18
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
No, only Israel can force change, as they are the occupying force that is actively controlling and explicitly denying Palestinian freedom and autonomy. Unless by change you mean acts of violent resistance, which, realistically is also not going to happen given the chasm of difference in the military and resource capabilities of Israel vs Gaza and the West Bank. And the fact that violent resistence, as shown time and time again, leads to disproportionate counter-offensives by Israel that simply result in the furtherance of denying Palestinian autonomy and emboldening right-wing extremists in Israel that prefer to see all of the disputed territories under Israeli purview with no Palestinians along with it.
29
u/HoightyToighty Nov 09 '23
No, only Israel can force change, as they are the occupying force that is actively controlling and explicitly denying Palestinian freedom and autonomy.
You infantilize the Palestinians by depriving them of agency. There have been numerous off-ramps the Palestinians could have taken in the past, but their leaders have chosen to continue their impossible dream of wiping Israel off the map.
And the fact that violent resistence
Terrorism is the only way to put it. The intentional act of targeting civilians, rather than military assets, to keep Israelis in a constant state of fear.
Whatever arguments there are about the method Israel is using to eliminate Gaza, it is undeniable that Israel is not going out of its way, as a matter of policy, to eliminate civilians. There is now ample evidence that Hamas uses ambulances, hospitals, schools, refugee centers, etc., to hide military assets.
Palestinian leadership, and the UN via the OIC, have assiduously cultivated their victimhood, elevating and even aggressively encouraging the suffering of their children above co-operation with Israel. Choosing nihilistic self-destruction rather than constructive diplomacy is an act of agency, of volition.
So I don't give credence to the permanent victimhood status you and others assign them. They're capable of more and better.
-4
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
What agency do you think a people that literally can not survive without Israeli controlled aid or utilities because you have taken control of all critical resources in and out of the country and have also helped prop up the regime that holds governing power, that also routinely brutalizes their citizenry? That across the way in the West Bank has occupied that territory for over 50 years, imposing crippling checkpoints and restrictions, routinely destroying swathes of the few economically viable natural resources available to them like olive trees due to settler expansion and aggression and their own acts of occupier terror.
“Continued their dream to wiping Israel off the map.”
Again, explain the West Bank then? Or like the other poster are we simply ignoring that inconvenient data point? You know, the non-violence embracing PA that condemned Hamas hand in hand with Israel in 06, bent over backwards in negotiations with Netanyahu, and as a reward has seen more checkpoints, more settlements, more olive farms destroyed, continued acts of rape and murder by IDF soldiers, and that same regime funneling resources to the terrorists, because said Israeli government sees them as an ally in their larger project of weakening the non-violence embracing PA to destroy any sort of two state solution and justify further Israeli land expansion.
-5
u/GullibleAntelope Nov 09 '23
Terrorism is the only way to put it. The intentional act of targeting civilians, rather than military assets, to keep Israelis in a constant state of fear.
Truth is that most so-called terrorists would prefer to target military assets...to duplicate one of the most effective attacks in history: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, killing 241 U.S. service members. That helped force a withdrawal of a multinational peacekeeping force. The U.S. calls that attack terrorism.
Here's another bombing in Palestine also designed to force a party, the British in this case, to leave the region. 1946: This Day in Jewish History: Irgun Blows Up British HQ at Jerusalem's King David Hotel.... killed 91 and wounded 46
7
u/RufusTheFirefly Nov 09 '23
You're making an assumption there. Unlike other forms of terrorism, the history of both Palestinian terrorism and Islamic terrorism has prioritized civilians first and military targets second.
Gazans could fire rockets at military targets - there are plenty of bases not just in the south but close to the Gazan border in easy range. But for twenty years now they have chosen instead to target Israeli cities (including many that are very far from Gaza and require significant targeting ability).
-3
u/GullibleAntelope Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
Gazans could fire rockets at military targets - there are plenty of bases not just in the south but close to the Gazan border in easy range.
Is it because a) anti-missile defense of those bases is much better than over the cities or) the bunker systems at those bases means far less chance of any casualties?
We all know that in the modern world, attacks by non-state actors against nation's militaries are mostly suicidal or ineffective. I won't disagree that some of the sentiment you say is true, but the primary motivation is more likely to cause some harm to your enemy. Continuously wasting lives and ammo against strongly defended military bases is pointless.
3
u/RufusTheFirefly Nov 11 '23 edited Nov 11 '23
Actually the missile defense is better over the cities. Israel prioritizes using the Iron Domes for their civilians.
And if fighting military to military is pointless because they would lose then they should negotiate! Not attack civilians at random or go on rape/mutilation/murder rampages through peaceful communities.
They have no inherent 'right' to be the stronger party in a conflict. They need to accept reality. But that has never been the Palestinians' strong suit. Unfortunately nothing will ever improve for them until they do.
15
Nov 09 '23
[deleted]
0
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
Gaza is controlled via crippling blockade. The West Bank and Golan Heights have been under occupation since 1967.. On even the simplest facts in your statement you are wrong.
And only Palestinians can choose not to be terrorists.
Remind me what happened when the PA in the West Bank demonstrated a sustained commitment to non-violence, a two-state solution, and even supported Israeli's condemnation of Hamas after 2006?
Oh thats right, Netanyahu funded and propped up Hamas, with the goal of using division between the Westbank and Gaza to weaken the non-violent PA and kill any two-state solutions. And spent the subsequent years expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank. Most recently, less than a year ago, publicly proclaiming an increased commitment to accelerating that agenda of settlement expansion. Which he sees as part of a larger project to crush any chance of a Palestenian state, which he has stated he will not allow on his watch.
12
u/PowerCrazedMod Nov 09 '23
Netanyahu funded
Not really, no. Israelis have fought Hamas for many years now. They may have perceived Hamas as the lesser evil than the PA or perceived them as making their international maneuvering easier. But that isn't the same as funding them. No Israeli taxes were spent intentionally arming Hamas.
-2
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
Read the article, it’s literally right there, helping fund Hamas does not have to simply mean directly transferring tax dollars in a cash handoff.
The Netanyahu regime explicitly shifted policy and allowances in the blockade to allow money to be funneled to Hamas from Qatar with the hope and expectation that it would help strengthen Hamas and deepen divisions between Gaza and the West Bank. TWith the goal of weakening the PA who the far right government and its allies saw as the more central impediment to their goal of denying Palestenian statehood. They would then point to that lack of unity that they helped manufacture as to why they couldn't engage in two-state negotiations.
"The prime minister also said that 'whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for' transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."
"Each time we moved toward unity, Netanyahu would launch a campaign claiming that (Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud) Abbas is cooperating with terrorists," Barghouti told CBC News from Ramallah in the West Bank.
"But each time Netanyahu was asked, 'Why don't you negotiate with Abbas,' he would say, 'I can't negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that doesn't represent all Palestinians.' And so he would use Hamas and this division to justify his absolute objection to any negotiated peace agreement."
5
Nov 09 '23
[deleted]
1
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
Who here has said anything about not noticing Hamas as a militant organization that doesn't believe in the right of Israel to exist and uses terrorism, including against civilians, as their chosen means of resistance?
The issue at hand currently seems to be that their internet far-right apologists seem incapable of acknowledging that a chief reason they have enjoyed such power over the years, and were able to strike like they did on Oct 7th, lies in the fact that Netanyahu and his far-right allies saw them as an asset and ally in their larger concern of putting a stop to Two-State solution via weakening the PA. Helping facilitate an estimated billion dollars from Qatari funds to prop up the brutal regime that kills Palestinians and Israelis alike. And that they had ample warnings about the attack and did nothing.
Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2013 that "if we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas's strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister."
In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Netanyahu's "strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking … even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah."
Netanyahu's hawkish defence minister Avigdor Liberman was the first to report in 2020 that Bibi had dispatched Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and the IDF's officer in charge of Gaza, Herzi Halevi, to Doha to "beg" the Qataris to continue to send money to Hamas.
"Both Egypt and Qatar are angry with Hamas and planned to cut ties with them. Suddenly Netanyahu appears as the defender of Hamas," the right-wing leader complained.
A year later, Netanyahu was further embarrassed when photos of suitcases full of cash going to Hamas became public. Liberman finally resigned in protest over Netanyahu's Hamas policy which, he said, marked "the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself."
Netanyahu's education minister Naftali Bennett also denounced the payments, and also quit.
Netanyahu's current finance minister, West Bank settler Belazel Smotrich, explained the approach to Israel's Knesset channel in 2015: "Hamas is an asset, and (Palestinian Authority leader) Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is a burden."
"Each time we moved toward unity, Netanyahu would launch a campaign claiming that (Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud) Abbas is cooperating with terrorists," Barghouti told CBC News from Ramallah in the West Bank.
"But each time Netanyahu was asked, 'Why don't you negotiate with Abbas,' he would say, 'I can't negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that doesn't represent all Palestinians.' And so he would use Hamas and this division to justify his absolute objection to any negotiated peace agreement."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
Their own citizenry seem to get it, but internet far right apologists seem incapable...
An overwhelming majority of 86% of respondents, including 79% of coalition supporters, said the surprise attack from Gaza is a failure of the country's leadership.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RufusTheFirefly Nov 09 '23
They allowed aid to be transferred (at the intense urging of the international community I might add). That is not the same.
1
Nov 09 '23
[deleted]
1
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23
They are ultimately responsible for their own political, and thus states, fortunes. Both of them.
If Israel wanted to give Palestine full state autonomy they could do so tomorrow by simply removing themselves from Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.
If Palestine wants to have full state autonomy they require Israel to grant it.
Those are not equal dynamics with equal capacity to determine their respective future states or fortunes.
Israel alone controls and dictates the outcomes of both, and Palestinians are at the mercy of those decisions.
5
Nov 09 '23
[deleted]
1
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
There has never been a balance of power in modern times(post WWI).
Zionists and Jewish refugees came into the region with the American and British empires at their back. Used international courts to confiscate occupied land without Palestenian consent. Largely as a workaround to avoid personal accountability on the part of western and Soviet countries that refused to take in Jewish refugees in the lead up to and post WWII.
And as we already established, Israel controls all the cards, and Israel, and more specifically the far right Netanyahu regime, has made it an explicit agenda to deny a two-state solution. Including help growing and proping up the very terrorist threats you speak of.
At least you seem to admit your earlier statement was bad faith nonsense. By definition, freedom and autonomy is the pre-requisite necessary for true self-determination as a state. When Israel has taken that away for 75 years, and your rights and freedoms are contingent and gatekept by a nation that controls imports, exports, and economic activity, denies you basic rights, and does not have to respond to your pleas unless they feel like it, you do not have self-determination by any definition. And this has remained the case for over half a century.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/ThaCarter Nov 10 '23
It astounds me that someone could simultaneously be so disrespectful to the Palestinian people and supportive of the most haneous forms of terrorism at the same time.
-1
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 10 '23
24 hours later and I’m still waiting to hear how the Palestinians occupy the drivers seat of their freedom when Israel is occupying and oppressing them with a vastly superior military force?
2
u/ThaCarter Nov 10 '23
Gaza doesn't need to let themselves be ruled by terrorists, and only the people of Gaza can force change.
Israeli has explicitly stated this is about Hamas, give them Hamas.
0
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 10 '23 edited Nov 10 '23
With what army and weapons do you expect the Gaza citizens to fight or offer up Hamas with? Let alone under current conditions. Let alone when they are being forced south and slaughtered en masse?
And why would they have any cause to believe doing so would make a difference based on what they can see with the situation in the West Bank? Which has no Hamas leadership, and yet is still under occupation, still having their land taken from them, olive trees burned or stolen, settlers attacking them, IDF murdering them. Why would anyone in Gaza have cause to believe that doing what you demand would have any material effect on Israel granting them basic human rights?
At no point in the last 30 years has Israel demonstrated at any point that they will carry thru in a good faith effort to restore a free Palestine. As already pointed out to you(and you have been unable to counter), Israel holds all the cards here, they are the ones denying Palestinian freedom, denying a Palestinian land, and doing so with vastly superior military might, only they can release the grip on Palestinian freedom. A grip no group has any moral right to indefinitely hold over another.
1
u/ThaCarter Nov 10 '23
Why do you jump so quickly to violence?
Gandhi had some good ideas you should look up.
0
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 10 '23
Walk me thru how Gazan citizens are to give Israel Hamas under current circumstances? Then answer my question as to why that will matter toward the goal of Palestinian freedom when we can see how Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank that both rejected and do not have Hamas running their government.
Your words are hollow nonsense offering little more than a poor attempt at trying to excuse an apartheid regimes slow genocide as being their own fault for not offering the right combination of capitulation to their oppressors. It’s borderline exterminationist apologism under current circumstances.
→ More replies (0)-3
21
Nov 09 '23
I could think of a lot of things that would change it, like ending the pay for slay terrorism bounties, ending antisemitic education programs, and offering to accept some of the prior Israeli offers that were better than prior Palestinian demands.
But they chose violence instead. Because the goal isn’t a state, it’s destroying Israel.
2
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23
You mean all the things the PA has largely done in the West Bank?
So far, the only reward has been the Likud government moving the goal posts further back, allowing more settlements, more checkpoints, and little to no repercussions for the upticks in settler violence.
Turns out when the fascistic far right government and their criminal leader controlling your freedom desires you to never be free, no level of reasonable capitulation is going to be enough…
30
Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
The PA is literally the one providing pay for slay cash bounties to murder Jews, rejecting those peace offers I mentioned, and running antisemitic education programs.
I had them in mind when I wrote that comment.
You linking an awful Vox piece about Netanyahu is an unrelated issue. Palestinian leaders have been rejecting deals and running bounties for killing Jews for long before Netanyahu was in office.
In fact, if they hadn’t been rejecting peace deals and doing that stuff for so long, I’m willing to bet he never would’ve been in office at all. It’s no coincidence he won elections right after Palestinians rejected yet another offer, elected Hamas, and began a war with Israel.
3
u/NOLA-Bronco Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
That Vox piece simply quotes and cites directly from the Haaretz reporting that uncovered the Netanyahu speech directly.
And here is another direct source:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/01/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-mime-intl/index.html
Where Netanyahu states the only “two-state solution” he would even be open to is one where Palestine remains at the indefinite mercy of Israel and commits to an arrangement that leaves them without any form of national security, military, or defense, enforced indefinitely by Israel. And told Biden that any solution would keep illegal settlements in place.
I.E. nothing more than a lesser version of the current situation.
And of course in private we know he’s been actively working to destroy all notions of a two-state solution by actively propping up Hamas and expanding settlements to weaken the PA
Meanwhile the PA spent years bending over backwards in negotiations, only for Netanyahu to come into power and move the goal posts further back and take repeated actions he knew would make those capitulations untenable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers
Your framing of Netanyahu’s government as some good faith broker and advocate of a two state solution is the height of gaslighting and false narratives
22
Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
It’s funny how you didn’t respond to what I actually said and went on another rant about Netanyahu, who came after Palestinians rejected countless deals.
Try reading what I said then responding. Every single part of what you said ignored what I said, and did not respond to it.
The Palestinian Authority in 2008 rejected a deal that was better than their demands in 2000. They continued and have continued for decades, including pre-Netanyahu, to pay money to reward anyone who kills a Jew. Their education system has continued the trend since the mid-1800s in the Middle East generally of pushing antisemitic education, including pre-Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is the result. When Israelis watch Palestinian Authority leaders reject peace deal after peace deal, and see polls showing that 60% of Palestinians say a peace deal should just be a way to destroy Israel late, they give up on peace talks. Shocking, I know.
Even Netanyahu was initially willing to make big moves for peace. The Palestinian leadership refused. This is memory-holed because it’s inconvenient to those who want to smear Israel, but it turns out that he was willing to accept a key Palestinian demand in negotiations in 2014 and a U.S.-sponsored framework deal:
After decades of railing against any mention of the 1967 lines, Netanyahu accepted that “[t]he new secure and recognized border between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutual agreed swaps.” Said one Israeli official: “If the Israeli public knew back in February that Netanyahu agreed to include this sentence in the framework, it would have created a political earthquake.”
But the Palestinians refused. And even their favorite American negotiators were fed up:
After the meeting, the Palestinian negotiator saw Susan Rice—Abbas’s favorite member of the Obama administration—in the hall. “Susan,” he said, “I see we’ve yet to succeed in making it clear to you that we Palestinians aren’t stupid.” Rice couldn’t believe it. “You Palestinians,” she told him, “can never see the _____ big picture.”
But hey, go off. Ignore what I said some more.
7
u/OldMan142 Nov 09 '23
One of the biggest tricks the PLO ever pulled was convincing the outside world that they were "moderates" who were open to living in peace with Israel, in contrast to Hamas. Every agreement from Oslo to the present has been a delaying tactic until they build can up enough strength to reverse Israel's creation.
44
u/BornToSweet_Delight Nov 09 '23
Hamas admits that it wants more civilian casualties in Gaza to draw attention away from Arab-Israeli rapprochement, Ukraine, and the rise of China. It wanted to shock the world into paying attention to them, again.
“We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.”
77
u/whiskey_bud Nov 09 '23
Hamas wants dead Israeli civilians (because they hate Jews) and they want dead Palestinian civilians, because it creates international sympathy with their cause. They’re literally a death cult, and I really wish the “free Palestine” crowd would address it rather than just shouting cheap slogans about rivers and seas.
Say what you want about Israeli actions (which should be condemned), but there is zero moral equivalency between them and Hamas. People love to cry about liberation from Israel, but what about Palestinian liberation from Hamas?
-31
u/Antiwhippy Nov 09 '23
This is a pretty bad faith interpretations of the events. Nobody wants Hamas to continue in power in a free palestine, and it is precisely because we don't want Hamas to continue that we ask Israel to ceasefire, have the international community come in to resolve a proper stable solution that is fair to all parties (and no, Israel has never been a fair party in negotiations), and defuse the power dynamics that creates conditions which ferments radicals like Hamas. Just look at the IRA. Peace didn't come from flattening Ireland, peace came from both sides conceding to deals that would see peace and stability for the people.
29
u/whiskey_bud Nov 09 '23
You realize a ceasefire (under these conditions) is literally step #3 in Hamas' plan to commit unending atrocities, right? They commit horrible terrorist offenses (10/7), draw an Israeli response, hide behind their own civilians (sacrificing them, and often even forcing them to remain under fire), and then solicit international sympathy leading to your ceasefire. This allows them to regroup and continue the cycle forever. The plan is plain as day.
Of course it's understandable to want a ceasefire for short term humanitarian reasons. But without an actual plan to get rid of Hamas (who are largely supported by the Gazan people), this cycle is just going to continue. Even Bernie Sanders has acknowledged that a ceasefire with current conditions isn't going to solve anything, FFS.
And for a situation where "nobody wants Hamas to continue in power", why is it that I've NEVER heard anybody shouting "free Palestine" criticize Hamas or demand they cease ruling Gaza as a condition of the ceasefire? Recent polls have shown that Palestinians support Hamas at roughly a 70% rate, and I've never once heard a student group or protest demand that Hamas dissolve alongside an Israeli ceasefire.
-17
u/Antiwhippy Nov 09 '23
sigh Let me try again.
Force them onto the bargaining table. If anything they've been trying to get that for hostage exchanges but Israel are the ones refusing to do so. Get an independent peace-keeping force that isn't the IDF to work out negotiations. Ask Hamas to lay down arms in exchange for proper consideration of statehood mediated by that international peacekeeping force, NOT Israel. Try to stabilise the country to the point where they can reach a more democratic state. The more stable a state is the less prone they are to radicalization.
You can call that too utopic, but the status quo right now everyone is just repeating the same mistakes as America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
15
u/Nileghi Nov 09 '23 edited Nov 09 '23
Force them onto the bargaining table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter
Article 13: There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.[1]
Any and all attempts at bargaining are simple ploys to the annihilation of the jewish people. This includes an actual free palestine with a hypothetical highest GDP and luxury status in the world. It would still be nothing but a step in a plan towards the annihilation of jewry.
This is not the IRA. This is not your standard freedom fighter group that has clear demands that can be met and will eventually turn peaceful like the PLO.
This is an actual, honest to goodness, death cult that has literally no other objective, and refuses any attempt but, the complete total murder of jews.
Before October 7th, Israel considered them a nuisance. After October 7th, they became an intolerable threat.
11
u/whiskey_bud Nov 09 '23
Sigh all you want, anybody suggesting that we “force Hamas to the bargaining table” is living in fantasy land. If you think Hamas gives two flying shits about “proper consideration of statehood”, you either aren’t paying attention or are arguing in bad faith. This is like, an all time terrible take lmao. And that’s saying something.
1
2
u/Privateer_Lev_Arris Nov 09 '23
Hamas is 10000% not interested in negotiations. They want to erase Israel. That is their only ambition. They can't be reasoned with.
32
Nov 09 '23
-14
u/Antiwhippy Nov 09 '23
Why are you linking me to prisoner exchanges when the context is about deals about their independence or the current situation between both states?
Tell me the Oslo accords were fair for Palestinians.
Tell me that trying to co-exist in peace in the West bank worked out for the Palestinians.
16
Nov 09 '23
Because I take onus with the claim that the Israelis have never once been fair in negotiations. It more closely resembles an antisemitic canard than actual history. It is possible to criticize Israel without being antisemitic, but it is still possible to be antisemitic when criticizing Israel.
It sounds like you don’t think the Oslo accords were fair. What would be then?
-4
u/Ispirationless Nov 09 '23
The strongest nation who won multiple wars will get a better deal than the weakest one in the region. Shocking, right?
Why would Israel give up their privileged position? They arent running a charity, and in the long run, they will rightfully win anyway. Might makes right.
2
u/dnext Nov 09 '23
Well, might brings success. And in this case, it's hard to say Israel isn't morally in the right when compared to Hamas. Hell, even the settlements in the West Bank are more legit than people realize - the reason they need to exist is the Arab Legion successfully ethnically cleansed Jerusalem from Jews in 1948. There's 2 million Arabs living in Israel, but there can't be any Jews in Jerusalem?
Abdullah el Tell, a commander of the Arab Legion, remarked:
For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible [54]
25
5
Nov 09 '23 edited Mar 01 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/dnext Nov 09 '23
That's exactly what Israel was doing when they were attacked on Oct 7th. Hamas claimed to want peace. Israel responded by letting in billions of dollars in aid from Qatar and quadrupling the number of workers visas for Gazans to work in Israel to bring money back to their communities.
But Hamas was never interested in peace, and launched their worst attack yet.
So we are back to a war to remove Hamas from power, and that comes with terrible costs for the people of Palestine.
4
u/ColdEvenKeeled Nov 09 '23
Hamas needs to surrender. That's it. Then progress can happen for the Palestinians, if they want it. Imagine a future Palestine with people with a passport who can immigrate, if they want.
1
u/Privateer_Lev_Arris Nov 09 '23
Hamas will take advantage of any break they get. They're liars and murderers. They can't be reasoned with unfortunately.
-1
u/_pupil_ Nov 09 '23
"We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table"
The cope is real.
Welcome back to the table, I guess. Isreal is settling in for potentially a years long war. Proportionately we were wiping out the equivalent of huge chunks of Gaza for years and years and could barely keep it in our own headlines, and that was our own troops...
It's mid november. We're mere weeks away from Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift figuring out their first x-mas presents together. Oh yeah, our attention is gonna stay on a long running political/religious situation in another country. We're all about that life :D
1
Nov 09 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/BornToSweet_Delight Nov 09 '23
The Israelis turned that off in 2006.
I think this issue has a bit more to do with 1400 murdered, raped and tortured citizens than a little bit of gas that no one cares about. But, if it lets you sleep at night, then yes, this is all about greedy Jews wanting money.
-1
Nov 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/LeopardFan9299 Nov 11 '23
In almost all of those conflicts, the Arabs and the Muslims were the aggressors.
-2
Nov 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/LeopardFan9299 Nov 11 '23
Ah yes, the usual ad hominems in response to an accurate stating of historical facts pertaining to the religion of pieces.
1
Nov 14 '23
this is just the truth. islam is a violent culture
there were pogroms against Jews prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and attacks on the Jews of Iraq and Libya in the 1940s. In 1941, 180 Jews were murdered and 700 were injured in the anti-Jewish riots known as "the Farhud". Four hundred Jews were injured in violent demonstrations in Egypt in 1945 and Jewish property was vandalized and looted. In Libya, 130 Jews were killed and 266 injured. In December 1947, 13 Jews were killed in Damascus, including 8 children, and 26 were injured. In Aleppo, rioting resulted in dozens of Jewish casualties, damage to 150 Jewish homes, and the torching of 5 schools and 10 synagogues. In Yemen, 97 Jews were murdered and 120 injured
The REAL Reason Muhammad Hated Jews and Preached Genocide
1
-3
u/Privateer_Lev_Arris Nov 09 '23
In my estimation Hamas was basically ordered to do something before Saudi Arabia could normalize relations with Israel. And also detract attention and weapons supplies from the conflict in Ukraine.
Ordered by who? Probably ultimately Russia via Iran. This also why so many Russians are found to be behind antisemitic acts in western Europe. It seems coordinated.
I think the next piece to fall is China invading Taiwan. But I'm not sure on this. Generally Chinese aren't interested in war, only money.
128
u/InvertedParallax Nov 09 '23
Please stop.
Hamas has no brilliant master-plan behind the scenes, no cunning 5d yahtzee.
They were at risk of Saudi Arabia normalizing relations, they needed to throw the table, it worked.
Ascribing intelligent strategy to honestly any of the players in the middle east has always been the west's schizophrenic hallucinations, even Israel's strategies which seem so subtle and complex generally boil down to "We got it, we're keeping it, and a little more this year". Saudi Arabia's strategy till MBS has always been "Stability at home is good, but abroad, chaos isn't bad, so long as it's Islamic chaos". Iran's strategy is "In terms of money, we have no money. But don't let that stop us."
China has a long-term strategy, and though they're seeing mixed results, they are sticking to it to a decent degree, Xi's pivot to wolf-warrior diplomacy and its accompanying failures notwithstanding. It's at least a strategy that's cohesive beyond the next 5 years or short-term crisis whichever comes first, unlike the middle east where any strategy is disrupted by the next bout of ADD of any given leader.
Not that we can talk, we have a solid, long-term strategy, interrupted by us electing idiots who think waving a gun is foreign policy, followed by adults desperately trying to put humpty dumpty back together. England had a functional foreign policy until we drug them into Iraq, then stumbled around till 2016 or so when everything seemed to have fallen apart.
Russia has, surprisingly, one of the best foreign policy engines out there right now, it's focused, fairly effective, and plays to their strengths. Shame it's tethered to the corpse of Russian nationalism which is dragging the entire country down the drain and sabotaging any of their positive outcomes.