EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 510
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Legan
Finland553 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3381 Posts
Unless future US administration looks for a different solution Gaza will remain as it is today. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1114 Posts
![[image loading]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/INTERACTIVE-Israeli-forces-beyond-the-yellow-line-poster-1761198305.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80) Looks like about 50 % of the territory is gone and the 2.2 million people are now crammed into an even smaller territory, completely unable to take care of their own food and water supply, with no one governing it because no one cares to even pretend to go along with the plan now that the articles have been printed and attention of the world is no longer there. | ||
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1423 Posts
Ceasefire between two groups hellbent on destroying each other no matter the cost is never going to work out. | ||
|
dyhb
United States97 Posts
On December 08 2025 22:51 Jankisa wrote: It was expected for Hamas to break the ceasefire soon after signing. Israel was also expected to retaliate and to deal harshly with violations in the terms of the ceasfire. Hamas additionally rejected terms of the ceasefire (follow-up phases), and most informed observers expected Hamas to refuse to lay down its arms.Well, now that Trump got his headlines it seems like it's back to business as usual over there, the "ceasefire" isn't really ceasing fire since there are incidents almost daily, but now Israel has a new, official line to build up new fences and build new settlements outside of them: Looks like about 50 % of the territory is gone and the 2.2 million people are now crammed into an even smaller territory, completely unable to take care of their own food and water supply, with no one governing it because no one cares to even pretend to go along with the plan now that the articles have been printed and attention of the world is no longer there. Therefore, Hamas is expected to maintain its control through arms in the territory within the yellow line, and Israel is expected to not withdraw from it based on Hamas retaining arms and control. It was only a temporary line if Hamas proceeded to allow an international force to take control. The ultimate issue is that nobody is willing to bear the cost of forcing Hamas to surrender arms and relinquish control. It will kill Palestinian civilians and it will cost deaths in Western militaries. I don't see Netanyahu re-mobilizing the IDF to make war upon Hamas again, once Phase 2 of the ceasefire never goes into effect. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2709 Posts
On December 09 2025 03:40 dyhb wrote: It was expected for Hamas to break the ceasefire soon after signing. Israel was also expected to retaliate and to deal harshly with violations in the terms of the ceasfire. Hamas additionally rejected terms of the ceasefire (follow-up phases), and most informed observers expected Hamas to refuse to lay down its arms. Therefore, Hamas is expected to maintain its control through arms in the territory within the yellow line, and Israel is expected to not withdraw from it based on Hamas retaining arms and control. It was only a temporary line if Hamas proceeded to allow an international force to take control. The ultimate issue is that nobody is willing to bear the cost of forcing Hamas to surrender arms and relinquish control. It will kill Palestinian civilians and it will cost deaths in Western militaries. I don't see Netanyahu re-mobilizing the IDF to make war upon Hamas again, once Phase 2 of the ceasefire never goes into effect. I mean sure. The real test will be if in 2-5 years settlements starts popping up in the "yellow zone" or not. That's when we will know if this was a legitimate operation to gain security for Israel or an ethnic cleansing in disguise. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 09 2025 05:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: I mean sure. The real test will be if in 2-5 years settlements starts popping up in the "yellow zone" or not. That's when we will know if this was a legitimate operation to gain security for Israel or an ethnic cleansing in disguise. I’d be pretty surprised if that didn’t happen, I have to say. | ||
|
pmp10
3381 Posts
On December 09 2025 03:40 dyhb wrote: It was expected for Hamas to break the ceasefire soon after signing. Israel was also expected to retaliate and to deal harshly with violations in the terms of the ceasfire. Hamas additionally rejected terms of the ceasefire (follow-up phases), and most informed observers expected Hamas to refuse to lay down its arms. You write that as if Israel didn't break the terms too. The deal was never going to be implemented without a lot of pressure on both sides. Unsurprisingly as soon as the fighting stopped, the pressure eased. | ||
|
Legan
Finland553 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
Although if they did have a Nelson Mandela then Hamas would just publicly execute him anyway. Hamas couldn’t be more useful to Zionism if they were a Mossad front. Two violent groups very invested in the continuation of the conflict. Anyone wanting peace is outgunned. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1114 Posts
Phase 2 is supposed to be happening and it involves military forces from Arab countries as peacekeeping troops, of course, no one really consulted anyone other then Israel and the US when the ceasefire agreement was made, so none of this is happening, almost as if it was basically a PR move to appease Trump before things simply revert to the mean, only time all leverage that Hamas had in hostages is gone and some of the leverage Israel was using by means of cutting off aid is also partially removed due to much more aid being allowed in. Of course, the last time we saw this less then a year ago ceasefire was officially ended by Israel (and this was of course unilaterally blamed on Hamas by US and them) only for the siege and cutting off of aid to begin, I wonder if this is what's next, sure seems like this is the authoritarian playbook both for Israel and Russia when it comes to US led peace negotiations. | ||
|
Legan
Finland553 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1423 Posts
On December 09 2025 22:47 KwarK wrote: Armed Palestinian resistance has no hope of stopping the worst elements of Zionism from expanding into the remaining Palestinian lands. Only Israel’s government can stop that and the only thing that would make them do that is the kind of international pressure and isolation that apartheid South Africa faced. But Gaza doesn’t have a Nelson Mandela for the world to rally behind, it just has Hamas. Lots of people willing to die for Gaza, too few people willing to live for it. Although if they did have a Nelson Mandela then Hamas would just publicly execute him anyway. Hamas couldn’t be more useful to Zionism if they were a Mossad front. Two violent groups very invested in the continuation of the conflict. Anyone wanting peace is outgunned. It is not an accident that Netanyahu let Hamas take power, let them get all those Qatari millions in to solidify their power. Unlike the PLO who has (at least publicly) a goal of a two state system and a free Palestine. Hamas is proudly everything that Netanyahu and the even further afar people want everyone to believe all Palestinians are. Hamas are not freedom fighters. They are the perfect foil to create a policy around needing to kill to be safe. | ||
|
PremoBeats
539 Posts
On December 09 2025 23:55 Billyboy wrote: It is not an accident that Netanyahu let Hamas take power, let them get all those Qatari millions in to solidify their power. Unlike the PLO who has (at least publicly) a goal of a two state system and a free Palestine. Hamas is proudly everything that Netanyahu and the even further afar people want everyone to believe all Palestinians are. Hamas are not freedom fighters. They are the perfect foil to create a policy around needing to kill to be safe. I’m curious about a couple of points you’re making here, and I’m trying to understand the basis for them. When you say “Netanyahu let Hamas take power,” do you mean that literally? As in: is there recorded historical evidence that the Israeli governmental oppossition actively enabled Hamas’s 2006 election victory and its 2007 takeover of Gaza? Because as far as I’m aware, Hamas took power through internal Palestinian elections and then a violent conflict with Fatah. So I’m wondering whether there are sources indicating an active Israeli role in that original power shift, or if people are talking about something more indirect or strategic in hindsight. Similarly, regarding the Qatari millions: those transfers happened many years after Hamas already controlled Gaza. Do we know for certain that the Israeli government intended those funds to “solidify Hamas’s power,” or were they officially framed as humanitarian payments to avoid collapse and maintain short-term stability? Do we have clear evidence about how much of that money Hamas diverted? Or is this another area where commentary and interpretation differ depending on political perspective? I am not denying the possibility of some Israeli hardliners trying to balance a "managable hostile status quo" instead of a political process that forces concessions. I’m just trying to understand which parts are established fact, and which parts come from broader political analysis about the long-term consequences of Netanyahu’s policies. I’m simply skeptical because if there really had been an intentional policy to ‘let Hamas take power’ or to ‘keep Hamas in place,’ we would probably have seen some kind of evidence after all these years - internal documents, leaked memos, whistleblowers, ex-officials talking, anything. Israel is a country where things do leak, especially controversial security decisions, and former intelligence heads have openly criticized Netanyahu before. Yet none of them has ever said there was an actual directive or strategic plan to maintain Hamas rule. What we do have is criticism that certain policies ended up strengthening Hamas politically, but not proof that strengthening Hamas was the goal. So for me, the big question is whether this claim is established historical fact, or more of an interpretive political narrative that people repeat because it fits a certain view of the conflict. This argumentation runs alongside the same lines as other notions. If it really was true... we'd have concrete evidence by now. | ||
|
Billyboy
1423 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035 | ||
|
PremoBeats
539 Posts
1. Policy X happened (Israel allowed Qatari funds into Gaza, opposed strengthening PA, and pursued a “conflict management” approach.) 2. Policy X had consequence Y (Hamas remained in control of Gaza and gained resources and political stability.) 3. Consequence Y benefited Hamas (Hamas’s rule became more durable over time.) 4. Therefore, Policy X “propped up Hamas.” The problem is that this line of reasoning speaks to outcomes, not to intent. What I was asking for was evidence that these policies were adopted because they would keep Hamas in power - such as internal documents, directives, or testimony from decision-makers explicitly stating that maintaining Hamas rule was a strategic objective. None of the three sources provide that. They show that certain policies ended up strengthening Hamas, not that strengthening Hamas was the goal. So the claim being made in those links is fundamentally interpretive and retrospective. It evaluates the long-term consequences of policies and then labels those consequences as “propping up Hamas.” That is a legitimate political critique, but it is not the same thing as demonstrating a deliberate strategy to install or preserve Hamas’s rule. An analogy would be left-leaning parties introducing rent-control policies to address a housing crisis. Those policies may reduce investment and construction, worsen housing shortages, and deepen the crisis unintentionally. One could then retroactively claim that the parties knew this would happen and intentionally pursued those policies to gain more voters or justify greater state control - especially when economic advisors had warned about such risks. But absent hard evidence of that motive, this would still be an attribution of intent based on outcomes alone. In both cases, attributing motive on the basis of retroactive theory-crafting without concrete evidence is insufficient. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1114 Posts
Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015. According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. While Netanyahu does not make these kind of statements publicly or officially, his words are in line with the policy that he implemented. Smotrich (Finance minister) and Netyanahu (Prime minister) both described this as a strategy. There is no need for analogies or analyzing, this is from the biggest Israeli news site and it describes this intent and strategy directly. | ||
|
PremoBeats
539 Posts
On December 13 2025 22:08 Jankisa wrote: Did you just refuse to read the article? Smotrich (Finance minister) and Netyanahu (Prime minister) both described this as a strategy. There is no need for analogies or analyzing, this is from the biggest Israeli news site and it describes this intent and strategy directly. No Jankisa, I did not refuse to read the article. I read about maintaining a ceasefire or giving Gazan families more income. My point is: That there is a difference between letting things happen or being active in Hamas taking control or even intending for other things like humanitarian gains and having a stable Hamas stay in power as a bonus to prevent the unification of the Palestinians. There is further a difference between having hard evidence and having political leaks from anonymous attendees that reported retrospectively and simply might want to harm Netanyahu for whatever reasons. And saying that Netanyahu helped Hamas take power, when he was in the opposition simply doesn't click with me. As I wrote: "I am not denying the possibility of some Israeli hardliners trying to balance a "managable hostile status quo" instead of a political process that forces concessions. I’m just trying to understand which parts are established fact, and which parts come from broader political analysis about the long-term consequences of Netanyahu’s policies." | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18206 Posts
On December 14 2025 00:35 PremoBeats wrote: No Jankisa, I did not refuse to read the article. I read about maintaining a ceasefire or giving Gazan families more income. My point is: That there is a difference between letting things happen or being active in Hamas taking control or even intending for other things like humanitarian gains and having a stable Hamas stay in power as a bonus to prevent the unification of the Palestinians. There is further a difference between having hard evidence and having political leaks from anonymous attendees that reported retrospectively and simply might want to harm Netanyahu for whatever reasons. And saying that Netanyahu helped Hamas take power, when he was in the opposition simply doesn't click with me. As I wrote: "I am not denying the possibility of some Israeli hardliners trying to balance a "managable hostile status quo" instead of a political process that forces concessions. I’m just trying to understand which parts are established fact, and which parts come from broader political analysis about the long-term consequences of Netanyahu’s policies." https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” The quote there, supposedly verbatim what Netanyahu said at a Likud meeting seems pretty black and white to me. Even if you don't believe the quote is actually his, the circumstantial evidence that is compiled in this article, let alone Raz's book, seems undeniable. | ||
| ||
