|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 09 2024 16:17 mahrgell wrote:
The main pit fall seems to be that Israel is doing absolutely everything in their power to make every single Palestinian absolutely hate their guts...
I seriously dont understand this hyper fixation on Hamas...
In the greater picture they are entirely irrelevant. They are just a vehicle for those hating Israel. If you magically remove Hamas entirely, and a new vehicle would be found/formed as long as there is a demand for it.
And every action taken by Israel in this conflict seems to aim at increasing this demand. Basically another 1-2 generations of Palestinians will hate Israel with fiery passion... so Hamas or whoever will replace them has enough fuel for another 2 decades of attacks on Israel. True, but what if you get rid of the Palestinians? Then they won't be around to hate Israel.
|
I want people to explain to me why they believe deradicalization is going to accomplish anything while Jewish settlers illegaly occupy half of the West bank and even more space is going to be occupied in the future? Do these people live in a fantasy land where Palestinians must behave like perfect angels and Israelis don't?
|
On May 09 2024 20:05 Magic Powers wrote:
I want people to explain to me why they believe deradicalization is going to accomplish anything while Jewish settlers illegaly occupy half of the West bank and even more space is going to be occupied in the future? Do these people live in a fantasy land where Palestinians must behave like perfect angels and Israelis don't? I imagine the people who are in favour of deradicalization are also against illegal settlements.
|
On May 09 2024 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2024 20:05 Magic Powers wrote:
I want people to explain to me why they believe deradicalization is going to accomplish anything while Jewish settlers illegaly occupy half of the West bank and even more space is going to be occupied in the future? Do these people live in a fantasy land where Palestinians must behave like perfect angels and Israelis don't? I imagine the people who are in favour of deradicalization are also against illegal settlements.
That's definitely not my impression.
|
Indeed, Hamas didn't create the IP conflict. The IP conflict created Hamas.
What Hamas did on October 7th is absolutely gruesome. But the current Israeli government is using this as an excuse to be violent. Their goal is to prevent a viable Palestinian state. And the only tool they have is a hammer. So they need nails. Hamas is their nail. For sure they love it when their hammer hits a nail, and not something else ( civilians). But the hammer needs to come down.
The people currently in charge of Israel want the Palestinians to hate them. They want the Palestinians to be radicalized. They want the Palestinians to be violent. Because that means they can prevent a Palestinian state. They are ok with having a permanent war against all those around them. As long as they just win all those wars. Which they believe they can and will.
You'd think that they want their children and grand-children to not be surrounded by 6 million Palestinians who hate them. Yes, Palestinians right now have insane levels of anti-semitism. But they learned to be that way during the last 70 years.
|
Also, the idea that Palestinians need deradicalization while Jewish settlers are just normal people with moderate views is absurd to me. The idea of Palestinian deradicalization would have to come with a reform of the entire West bank. I'm not just talking about settler violence, the entire settlement situation is crazy and it keeps getting worse. All of these settlers should be fully aware that they're full-blown occupiers. They can't justify their transgression.
As long as Israel isn't willing to make major concessions in the West bank, the deradicalization of Palestinians is strictly out of the question. It's a completely unacceptable proposal.
|
A lot of Hamas' rise had to do with the fact that the PA was super corrupt and Hamas originally put a lot of emphasis on building hospitals and things for the actual people. Once they violently took over they prevented elections to remove them, for when they themselves became corrupt bad leaders.
The problem with radicalisation in Gaza is that it is top down. Yes there are radicals in Israel, but at least they came to those opinions on their own. In Gaza it is taught in schools and expressing non-radical ideas can get you executed by the government. There is no option to not be radical.
All of which is besides for the fact that I'm not sure why anyone here would be against deradicalizing anyone. I understand that Hamas wants it's people to be willing to give up their lives in a perpetual land war, but wouldn't it be better if there was not a war like this every few years? If Palestinians were finally willing to accept one of the many deals for a state that have been proposed over the years?
|
If you're thinking that maybe there could be a parallel with Putin deradicalizing Ukraine, you're right! There aren't that many pages in the far right playbook.
|
On May 10 2024 07:18 Cerebrate1 wrote:
A lot of Hamas' rise had to do with the fact that the PA was super corrupt and Hamas originally put a lot of emphasis on building hospitals and things for the actual people. Once they violently took over they prevented elections to remove them, for when they themselves became corrupt bad leaders.
The problem with radicalisation in Gaza is that it is top down. Yes there are radicals in Israel, but at least they came to those opinions on their own. In Gaza it is taught in schools and expressing non-radical ideas can get you executed by the government. There is no option to not be radical.
All of which is besides for the fact that I'm not sure why anyone here would be against deradicalizing anyone. I understand that Hamas wants it's people to be willing to give up their lives in a perpetual land war, but wouldn't it be better if there was not a war like this every few years? If Palestinians were finally willing to accept one of the many deals for a state that have been proposed over the years?
The settlements are financed and protected by the State of Israel. They are just as "top down" as Hamas.
Israel can't get away with this. It's extremely important to the Israel-Palestine relations that the funding of these illegal settlements is discontinued and that a solution is being presented to the Palestinian people.
|
On May 10 2024 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 07:18 Cerebrate1 wrote:
A lot of Hamas' rise had to do with the fact that the PA was super corrupt and Hamas originally put a lot of emphasis on building hospitals and things for the actual people. Once they violently took over they prevented elections to remove them, for when they themselves became corrupt bad leaders.
The problem with radicalisation in Gaza is that it is top down. Yes there are radicals in Israel, but at least they came to those opinions on their own. In Gaza it is taught in schools and expressing non-radical ideas can get you executed by the government. There is no option to not be radical.
All of which is besides for the fact that I'm not sure why anyone here would be against deradicalizing anyone. I understand that Hamas wants it's people to be willing to give up their lives in a perpetual land war, but wouldn't it be better if there was not a war like this every few years? If Palestinians were finally willing to accept one of the many deals for a state that have been proposed over the years? The settlements are financed and protected by the State of Israel. They are just as "top down" as Hamas. Israel can't get away with this. It's extremely important to the Israel-Palestine relations that the funding of these illegal settlements is discontinued and that a solution is being presented to the Palestinian people.
Defending your citizens is not the same indoctrinating them.
Israel is still always one election away from a peace deal (besides all the times it already made offers). Hamas will never make true peace with Israel. Ever. They can't even agree to a ceasefire without like a 50 to 1 trade of terrorists for a corpse or two.
And even if the settlements are a barrier to peace, does that mean we shouldn't remove any other barriers in the meantime? Aren't baby steps a good thing?
You can't really be suggesting that you prefer Hamas to stay in power instead of a more moderate government set up by an international coalition?
Surely anyone who truly advocated for Palestinians would realize that Hamas being in power is to the detriment of Gazans?
|
Northern Ireland26057 Posts
Sure but it’s a somewhat untenable proposition so long as settlements continue.
If there’s a combination of a full halt to that process, and a peace process involving other regional parties, with the proviso that there’s both deradicalisarion and investment, yeah that seems a good rough blueprint to move forwards with.
Proof is in the pudding as they say
|
On May 10 2024 08:54 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:On May 10 2024 07:18 Cerebrate1 wrote:
A lot of Hamas' rise had to do with the fact that the PA was super corrupt and Hamas originally put a lot of emphasis on building hospitals and things for the actual people. Once they violently took over they prevented elections to remove them, for when they themselves became corrupt bad leaders.
The problem with radicalisation in Gaza is that it is top down. Yes there are radicals in Israel, but at least they came to those opinions on their own. In Gaza it is taught in schools and expressing non-radical ideas can get you executed by the government. There is no option to not be radical.
All of which is besides for the fact that I'm not sure why anyone here would be against deradicalizing anyone. I understand that Hamas wants it's people to be willing to give up their lives in a perpetual land war, but wouldn't it be better if there was not a war like this every few years? If Palestinians were finally willing to accept one of the many deals for a state that have been proposed over the years? The settlements are financed and protected by the State of Israel. They are just as "top down" as Hamas. Israel can't get away with this. It's extremely important to the Israel-Palestine relations that the funding of these illegal settlements is discontinued and that a solution is being presented to the Palestinian people. Defending your citizens is not the same indoctrinating them. Israel is still always one election away from a peace deal (besides all the times it already made offers). Hamas will never make true peace with Israel. Ever. They can't even agree to a ceasefire without like a 50 to 1 trade of terrorists for a corpse or two. And even if the settlements are a barrier to peace, does that mean we shouldn't remove any other barriers in the meantime? Aren't baby steps a good thing? You can't really be suggesting that you prefer Hamas to stay in power instead of a more moderate government set up by an international coalition? Surely anyone who truly advocated for Palestinians would realize that Hamas being in power is to the detriment of Gazans?
Israel is doing a lot more than "defending its citizens" in the West bank, and this has been discussed plenty in this thread. You're completely misrepresenting the situation. Israel is actively funding them and actively blocking Palestinian communities.
|
On May 10 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:
Sure but it’s a somewhat untenable proposition so long as settlements continue.
If there’s a combination of a full halt to that process, and a peace process involving other regional parties, with the proviso that there’s both deradicalisarion and investment, yeah that seems a good rough blueprint to move forwards with.
Proof is in the pudding as they say
I just don't understand the all-or-nothing approach.
Hear me out: I think all the reasonable people in this thread agree that there are many confounding factors to this conflict that make it particularly intractable. I would suggest that solving all of them at once is actually impossible. But removing some of them is a step in the right direction. We can be one step closer so that a few years later further steps can be taken more easily.
For example: I think most people in this thread believe that Netanyahu as Prime Minister is an obstacle to a sustainable solution. If he were removed from power, and literally nothing else in Israel and Palestine changed right away, we would be one step closer. You would agree that that would be a good thing even if it was totally in a vacuum, would you not?
So too Settlements. They are one contributing factor to the conflict. If the Israeli government called to a freeze to all settlement building tomorrow, and nobody took any other steps to create a lasting peace yet, would you not think that was a good thing? That alone certainly won't make peace in the Middle East, but, baby steps. Right?
So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. And it seems pretty obvious that they are also a serious barrier to a real lasting peace. Wouldn't removing them as the governing power with control over 2 million Gazans be a good thing? Even if nothing else in the conflict changed, wouldn't we still be a step ahead from where we were before?
If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing.
|
On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:
Sure but it’s a somewhat untenable proposition so long as settlements continue.
If there’s a combination of a full halt to that process, and a peace process involving other regional parties, with the proviso that there’s both deradicalisarion and investment, yeah that seems a good rough blueprint to move forwards with.
Proof is in the pudding as they say I just don't understand the all-or-nothing approach. Hear me out: I think all the reasonable people in this thread agree that there are many confounding factors to this conflict that make it particularly intractable. I would suggest that solving all of them at once is actually impossible. But removing some of them is a step in the right direction. We can be one step closer so that a few years later further steps can be taken more easily. For example: I think most people in this thread believe that Netanyahu as Prime Minister is an obstacle to a sustainable solution. If he were removed from power, and literally nothing else in Israel and Palestine changed right away, we would be one step closer. You would agree that that would be a good thing even if it was totally in a vacuum, would you not? So too Settlements. They are one contributing factor to the conflict. If the Israeli government called to a freeze to all settlement building tomorrow, and nobody took any other steps to create a lasting peace yet, would you not think that was a good thing? That alone certainly won't make peace in the Middle East, but, baby steps. Right? So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. And it seems pretty obvious that they are also a serious barrier to a real lasting peace. Wouldn't removing them as the governing power with control over 2 million Gazans be a good thing? Even if nothing else in the conflict changed, wouldn't we still be a step ahead from where we were before? If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing.
Hamas are bad guys and if I could snap my fingers and Hamas would be gone with no other effects, I'd do it in a heartbeat. However, that isn't what Israel has been doing nor wants to do in Rafah. Israel has been murdering thousands of Palestinian civilians, multiple for each actual Hamas fighter by most credible accounts. They have also demolished absolutely all infrastructure they came across and turned Gaza into a living hell for anyone still there. Eradicating Hamas under those circumstances is completely pointless. In the short term it'll no doubt look like a victory, but in the long term you've set the stage for another two generations of Gazans growing up remembering the genocidal intent of Israel in Gaza. Even if Israel now succeeds entirely in obliterating Hamas, something equally, or more radical will take its place soon after.
|
On May 10 2024 08:54 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:On May 10 2024 07:18 Cerebrate1 wrote:
A lot of Hamas' rise had to do with the fact that the PA was super corrupt and Hamas originally put a lot of emphasis on building hospitals and things for the actual people. Once they violently took over they prevented elections to remove them, for when they themselves became corrupt bad leaders.
The problem with radicalisation in Gaza is that it is top down. Yes there are radicals in Israel, but at least they came to those opinions on their own. In Gaza it is taught in schools and expressing non-radical ideas can get you executed by the government. There is no option to not be radical.
All of which is besides for the fact that I'm not sure why anyone here would be against deradicalizing anyone. I understand that Hamas wants it's people to be willing to give up their lives in a perpetual land war, but wouldn't it be better if there was not a war like this every few years? If Palestinians were finally willing to accept one of the many deals for a state that have been proposed over the years? The settlements are financed and protected by the State of Israel. They are just as "top down" as Hamas. Israel can't get away with this. It's extremely important to the Israel-Palestine relations that the funding of these illegal settlements is discontinued and that a solution is being presented to the Palestinian people. Defending your citizens is not the same indoctrinating them. Israel is still always one election away from a peace deal (besides all the times it already made offers). Hamas will never make true peace with Israel. Ever. They can't even agree to a ceasefire without like a 50 to 1 trade of terrorists for a corpse or two. And even if the settlements are a barrier to peace, does that mean we shouldn't remove any other barriers in the meantime? Aren't baby steps a good thing? You can't really be suggesting that you prefer Hamas to stay in power instead of a more moderate government set up by an international coalition? Surely anyone who truly advocated for Palestinians would realize that Hamas being in power is to the detriment of Gazans?
All your doing is deflecting. People talk about Israels actions radicalizing Palestinian, with or without Hamas, and you immediately jump to "omg why are you defending Hamas" because you are pathologically unable to be critical of Israels actions.
|
On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote:
So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. And it seems pretty obvious that they are also a serious barrier to a real lasting peace. Wouldn't removing them as the governing power with control over 2 million Gazans be a good thing? Even if nothing else in the conflict changed, wouldn't we still be a step ahead from where we were before?
If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing.
Besides echoing what those two other people above me have said, let me engage with what you just said.
Has Israel in the last 7 months been funneling arms into Gaza, arming ordinary Palestinians? So that they can rise up against Hamas? Because if not, how is Hamas not staying in power?
You know how crazy this sounds? Imagine if Ben Gvir had been handing out assault rifles to rando Palestinians in a border community inside Gaza, like he did with the Jewish colonists. Because if you don't do that, how the fuck are starved Palestinians who lost arms or legs and have their bodies filled with shrapnel supposed to rise up against Hamas? Who are armed by Iran. WTF are you even saying?
And say they magically do. Say Palestinians get some magical superpower. And they use some dragon punch ki power and they defeat Hamas. Is Israel then going to give them a Palestinian state? With East Jerusalem, most of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a corridor between them that they, not Israel, controls? With seaport and a airport that they fully control? Without any Israeli intervention? And I mean within a year, under the current government, not 50 years from now.
No one in Gaza right now is worrying right now about how they are going to overthrow Hamas tomorrow. No one.
The Netanyahu government has only been making Hamas stronger. So much so that Ben Gvir has tweeted that Joe Biden loves Hamas.
And this completely ignores how Hamas got into power. Namely through an election deemed to be as free as is reasonably to be expected in the middle east. And as a result, Israel and the US boycotted the Hamas-run Palestinian government. Basically forcing Fatah to launch a violent undemocratic coup against Hamas. Which Fatah won inside the West Bank but lost inside Gaza. And which caused Fatah to prevent all elections in the West Bank, fearing Hamas would win the vote there as well. Btw, the West Bank is getting annexed by Israel, so what did this Palestinian civil war gotten the Palestinians? You think there's Palestinians in the West Bank who think they are just 1 more civil war against their fellow Palestinians removed from permanent peace?
|
Snap a finger and Hamas is removed. 20 minutes later Hamas 2.0 rises because Hamas is not the cause but a symptom. So long as Palestinians do not have a future a form of Hamas will always exist.
|
On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:
Sure but it’s a somewhat untenable proposition so long as settlements continue.
If there’s a combination of a full halt to that process, and a peace process involving other regional parties, with the proviso that there’s both deradicalisarion and investment, yeah that seems a good rough blueprint to move forwards with.
Proof is in the pudding as they say I just don't understand the all-or-nothing approach. Hear me out: I think all the reasonable people in this thread agree that there are many confounding factors to this conflict that make it particularly intractable. I would suggest that solving all of them at once is actually impossible. But removing some of them is a step in the right direction. We can be one step closer so that a few years later further steps can be taken more easily. For example: I think most people in this thread believe that Netanyahu as Prime Minister is an obstacle to a sustainable solution. If he were removed from power, and literally nothing else in Israel and Palestine changed right away, we would be one step closer. You would agree that that would be a good thing even if it was totally in a vacuum, would you not? So too Settlements. They are one contributing factor to the conflict. If the Israeli government called to a freeze to all settlement building tomorrow, and nobody took any other steps to create a lasting peace yet, would you not think that was a good thing? That alone certainly won't make peace in the Middle East, but, baby steps. Right? So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. And it seems pretty obvious that they are also a serious barrier to a real lasting peace. Wouldn't removing them as the governing power with control over 2 million Gazans be a good thing? Even if nothing else in the conflict changed, wouldn't we still be a step ahead from where we were before? If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing.
You're completely misrepresenting people's argument. Nobody's saying it's a good thing if Hamas stays in power. We're all in opposition of that. This is why there's so much animosity in this thread all the time, because people like you keep misrepresenting the argument of the other side.
We're all against Hamas here. Everyone here would want to see them gone for good, and hopefully no other equally terrifying group ever comes to power.
And you should be fully aware that this is what people here think if you read the comments with a sincere mind. Opposing Israel's crimes does not equate to supporting Hamas. You know this.
|
On May 10 2024 16:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote:On May 10 2024 09:10 WombaT wrote:
Sure but it’s a somewhat untenable proposition so long as settlements continue.
If there’s a combination of a full halt to that process, and a peace process involving other regional parties, with the proviso that there’s both deradicalisarion and investment, yeah that seems a good rough blueprint to move forwards with.
Proof is in the pudding as they say I just don't understand the all-or-nothing approach. Hear me out: I think all the reasonable people in this thread agree that there are many confounding factors to this conflict that make it particularly intractable. I would suggest that solving all of them at once is actually impossible. But removing some of them is a step in the right direction. We can be one step closer so that a few years later further steps can be taken more easily. For example: I think most people in this thread believe that Netanyahu as Prime Minister is an obstacle to a sustainable solution. If he were removed from power, and literally nothing else in Israel and Palestine changed right away, we would be one step closer. You would agree that that would be a good thing even if it was totally in a vacuum, would you not? So too Settlements. They are one contributing factor to the conflict. If the Israeli government called to a freeze to all settlement building tomorrow, and nobody took any other steps to create a lasting peace yet, would you not think that was a good thing? That alone certainly won't make peace in the Middle East, but, baby steps. Right? So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. And it seems pretty obvious that they are also a serious barrier to a real lasting peace. Wouldn't removing them as the governing power with control over 2 million Gazans be a good thing? Even if nothing else in the conflict changed, wouldn't we still be a step ahead from where we were before? If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing. Hamas are bad guys and if I could snap my fingers and Hamas would be gone with no other effects, I'd do it in a heartbeat. However, that isn't what Israel has been doing nor wants to do in Rafah. Israel has been murdering thousands of Palestinian civilians, multiple for each actual Hamas fighter by most credible accounts. They have also demolished absolutely all infrastructure they came across and turned Gaza into a living hell for anyone still there. Eradicating Hamas under those circumstances is completely pointless. In the short term it'll no doubt look like a victory, but in the long term you've set the stage for another two generations of Gazans growing up remembering the genocidal intent of Israel in Gaza. Even if Israel now succeeds entirely in obliterating Hamas, something equally, or more radical will take its place soon after.
Good to hear. So you agree that removing Hamas would be good, you just think that Israel's method for doing so is bad. And additionally that it will be ineffective. This is really what I was hoping/expecting people to say.
So would you agree that Hamas surrendering would be a good thing? Since it basically would just magically remove Hamas without needing all the war and whatnot to make it happen?
On May 10 2024 16:51 Gorsameth wrote:
All your doing is deflecting. People talk about Israels actions radicalizing Palestinian, with or without Hamas, and you immediately jump to "omg why are you defending Hamas" because you are pathologically unable to be critical of Israels actions.
This started with my posting Israel's plan for a post war Gaza. (Here if you missed that piece.) I got the general impression from posters that it was bad, or that it shouldn't be attempted unless Israel also made multiple reforms. I was just wondering why people felt removing Hamas would be bad in isolation, while removing settlements would be good in isolation. It is a reasonable point that destroying Gaza isn't going to make the average Palestinian love Israel, but I'd hardly call it "deflecting" to address other points that were also mentioned.
On May 10 2024 17:19 Menkent wrote:
Besides echoing what those two other people above me have said, let me engage with what you just said.
Has Israel in the last 7 months been funneling arms into Gaza, arming ordinary Palestinians? So that they can rise up against Hamas? Because if not, how is Hamas not staying in power?
You know how crazy this sounds? Imagine if Ben Gvir had been handing out assault rifles to rando Palestinians in a border community inside Gaza, like he did with the Jewish colonists. Because if you don't do that, how the fuck are starved Palestinians who lost arms or legs and have their bodies filled with shrapnel supposed to rise up against Hamas? Who are armed by Iran. WTF are you even saying?
And say they magically do. Say Palestinians get some magical superpower. And they use some dragon punch ki power and they defeat Hamas. Is Israel then going to give them a Palestinian state? With East Jerusalem, most of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a corridor between them that they, not Israel, controls? With seaport and a airport that they fully control? Without any Israeli intervention? And I mean within a year, under the current government, not 50 years from now.
No one in Gaza right now is worrying right now about how they are going to overthrow Hamas tomorrow. No one.
The Netanyahu government has only been making Hamas stronger. So much so that Ben Gvir has tweeted that Joe Biden loves Hamas.
And this completely ignores how Hamas got into power. Namely through an election deemed to be as free as is reasonably to be expected in the middle east. And as a result, Israel and the US boycotted the Hamas-run Palestinian government. Basically forcing Fatah to launch a violent undemocratic coup against Hamas. Which Fatah won inside the West Bank but lost inside Gaza. And which caused Fatah to prevent all elections in the West Bank, fearing Hamas would win the vote there as well. Btw, the West Bank is getting annexed by Israel, so what did this Palestinian civil war gotten the Palestinians? You think there's Palestinians in the West Bank who think they are just 1 more civil war against their fellow Palestinians removed from permanent peace?
You make a lot of tangential points here, and I don't have time to address all of them, but you primary concern seems to be that it is not feasible to eliminate Hamas. While I agree with you that internal revolution would be preferable to external regime change, it is not the only way to remove Hamas. Israel doesn't have to arm Gazan rebels if the IDF just moves in and defeats Hamas battalions themselves. They've effectively destroyed ~20 Hamas battalions, with 4 remaining Hamas battalions left in Rafah.
Obviously, someone will have to be given guns in Gaza to maintain whatever new government replaces Hamas after the war. That's partially what the article I posted deals with in bringing in forces from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc as an interim force. But you should know that Israel is also in contact with certain family clans within Gaza (who happen to have some of their own guns) to help transition things. There has been a lot of Gazan on Gazan killing recently as Hamas kills people they suspect of participating in said transition and the various clans defend themselves.
On May 10 2024 17:25 Gorsameth wrote:
Snap a finger and Hamas is removed. 20 minutes later Hamas 2.0 rises because Hamas is not the cause but a symptom. So long as Palestinians do not have a future a form of Hamas will always exist.
Did you read the article I posted about the plans to rebuild Gaza? Do you think that it (if successfully implemented) could solve many of the issues that the average Gazan faces? Economic prosperity, self rule, open borders...
If you think that Gazans would still have Hamas' ideology despite getting all of those things, don't you think that radicalism itself is part of the problem that should be tackled?
On May 10 2024 18:48 Magic Powers wrote:
You're completely misrepresenting people's argument. Nobody's saying it's a good thing if Hamas stays in power. We're all in opposition of that. This is why there's so much animosity in this thread all the time, because people like you keep misrepresenting the argument of the other side.
We're all against Hamas here. Everyone here would want to see them gone for good, and hopefully no other equally terrifying group ever comes to power.
And you should be fully aware that this is what people here think if you read the comments with a sincere mind. Opposing Israel's crimes does not equate to supporting Hamas. You know this.
I never claimed anyone wanted Hamas in power (I was really hoping everyone would agree with me that they should be removed even in isolation and just list other reasons why they oppose Israel's actions like Acrofales did, and we'd be have established some common ground).
I asked why people thought removing them was only good if it included Israeli concessions. In hindsight, you only said this about removing Hamas' ideology, not Hamas themselves when you said:
On May 10 2024 03:27 Magic Powers wrote:As long as Israel isn't willing to make major concessions in the West bank, the deradicalization of Palestinians is strictly out of the question. It's a completely unacceptable proposal.
But the logic of my question applies there too. Do you feel that removing settlements in isolation would be a good thing? If so, why don't you think that reducing radicalism in Gaza (like antisemitism taught in schools and the like) would be good in isolation?
Or perhaps you do agree that deradicalization would be good in Gaza and I misunderstood your point above. Feel free to clarify either way.
|
Just killing Hamas militants does not eliminate Hamas. You can say that Israel has killed 8000 Hamas militants, or 12000 or whatever number that IDF spokesperson gave on Piers Morgan yesterday. But Hamas is still 100% in control of Gaza. Just like they were on October 6th. So wtf has Israel been doing? Israel is losing this war.
You speculate about Saudi or Egypt taking control of Gaza. But this is 100% NOT the Israeli plan.
If there's 3 militants and a single assault rifle left in Gaza when Israel is done, then Hamas is still in control of Gaza. Not Israel. Not the US. Not Egypt, Not the UN, Not Saudi. Not the Emirates. Not NATO or the EU. Not the PLO. But Hamas.
The alternative that Israel has to accept is that Israel annexes Gaza. And they give every Palestinian in Gaza full Israeli citizenship, with full voting rights.
The US has said that Israel has no plan for Gaza or for Rafah. Israel is simply trying to move in to kill Hamas. The US has said they are now withholding bombs because Israel is not trying to get someone else to govern Gaza. Saudi or Egypt or the Emirates or the UN, they won't send in peace keepers after Israel is done with wtf they are trying to do. Suggesting this is the case is utter bullshit. Israel needs a deal with those countries first before they bomb the shit out of Gaza.
So you are simply wrong.
It was YOUR argument that others here want Hamas to stay in power in Gaza. But you are the one supporting a policy that keeps Hamas in power in Gaza. While others are actually arguing against that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
