EPTBut no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987.
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 550
| 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. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12583 Posts
On October 14 2026 21:55 dyhb wrote: Nebuchad, from your posts you want to know why Hamas and some portion of Palestinians believe in an Islamist fundamentalist religious ideology that drives their actions, while simultaneously saying that answer does not matter to the conflict, that "both morally in the wrong." Do you want to yield that the answer definitely matters to the moral question? Or is this just a curiosity into something you still think doesn't impact "both groups are killing people and it's not self-defense, so they're both morally in the wrong." You're curious about something that doesn't matter to the morals or ethics of the modern conflict if you are to be believed. You misunderstand. My view is that the current popularity of the ideology of Hamas among Palestinians is not dissociated from the current predicament that Israel and Palestine find themselves in. I therefore believe that it is not "less reductive" or "more complex" to also talk about how Hamas is bad when you talk about this conflict, because you're talking about the exact same cycle of reaction to reaction by two far right entities attacking one another. I think that in order to make a sensible claim that it's reductive to only talk about that, you have to have another reason why Hamas is so popular in Palestine that is not the cycle of reaction that Israel and Palestine are engaged in. Otherwise, it wouldn't be reductive to say that it is. So I wonder what that other reason is. | ||
|
Billyboy
2549 Posts
On October 14 2026 21:43 LightSpectra wrote: How many Palestinians would support Hamas materially and morally if there wasn't ongoing settler violence against Palestinians? I’m not sure that many do right now, it is just that when the choice is support us or we kill your family, you do. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". | ||
|
dyhb
United States792 Posts
On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote: Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay. But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2549 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote: That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them". It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1802 Posts
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward. Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population. In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. | ||
|
dyhb
United States792 Posts
On October 14 2026 22:10 Nebuchad wrote: You’re reducing Hamas Islamist ideology to just another round of the same cycle of violence, so you do acknowledge that you’re reducing it. If I said your belief in a supreme cycle of violence narrative was just another example of leftist ignorance of religious fundamentalism, I’m also reducing why you think as you do. It’s all fine if you’re right and I’m wrong on a self-reinforcing cycle sitting above Islamist ideology on the hierarchy. You misunderstand. My view is that the current popularity of the ideology of Hamas among Palestinians is not dissociated from the current predicament that Israel and Palestine find themselves in. I therefore believe that it is not "less reductive" or "more complex" to also talk about how Hamas is bad when you talk about this conflict, because you're talking about the exact same cycle of reaction to reaction by two far right entities attacking one another. I think that in order to make a sensible claim that it's reductive to only talk about that, you have to have another reason why Hamas is so popular in Palestine that is not the cycle of reaction that Israel and Palestine are engaged in. Otherwise, it wouldn't be reductive to say that it is. So I wonder what that other reason is. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote: I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone in the Middle East against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. | ||
|
Billyboy
2549 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote: It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine. Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward. Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population. In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12583 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:56 dyhb wrote: You’re reducing Hamas Islamist ideology to just another round of the same cycle of violence, so you do acknowledge that you’re reducing it. If I said your belief in a supreme cycle of violence narrative was just another example of leftist ignorance of religious fundamentalism, I’m also reducing why you think as you do. It’s all fine if you’re right and I’m wrong on a self-reinforcing cycle sitting above Islamist ideology on the hierarchy. Glad you're following along! And the next step is how we're going to dril down which of us is right between you and me: you (or Premo, whatever) are going to explain to me why, in your opinion, this nefarious ideology of Hamas is so popular with Palestinians. If it's because of the Israel vs Palestine conflict, well, turns out it was correct of me to "reduce" it to the Israel vs Palestine conflict. If it's some other reason, then I'm wrong! But you'll have to explain what that other reason is. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6602 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote: Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. | ||
|
Billyboy
2549 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote: It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote: Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. | ||
|
dyhb
United States792 Posts
On October 14 2026 23:46 LightSpectra wrote: Nothing strikes you as different between the civil war in 1947 before the state of Israel existed and settler violence in the West Bank now? Brother, if you’re straining to place a civil war in the saga of settler violence we see today, the conceptual stretching speaks for itself.I'm assuming you're not saying it's ok to eject a family from their home and steal their land as long as you call it a "civil war" (but if that is what you're saying, please correct me), so what's your point? | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1802 Posts
On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote: I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-march Since then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. | ||
|
dyhb
United States792 Posts
On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote: You’re likely correct. It’s “Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia” in a settler violence context. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3344 Posts
On October 15 2026 00:34 dyhb wrote: Nothing strikes you as different between the civil war in 1947 before the state of Israel existed and settler violence in the West Bank now? Brother, if you’re straining to place a civil war in the saga of settler violence we see today, the conceptual stretching speaks for itself. Israel stealing Palestinian land has been going on since before the vast majority of Palestinians were born. There have been periods where it slowed down and periods where it accelerated (we're in an acceleration period right now) but the moment a Palestinian becomes cognizant of the world around them, the only reality they've ever known is "Israel is slowly annihilating your way of life, and there's a good chance there's nothing you can to stop them". This was in response to you dismissing the "naive wing of anti-Israel reactionary political thought downplays Hamas and centers Israel as an agent". | ||
|
oBlade
United States6602 Posts
On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote: Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". I literally saw the post before you edited it. Civil war is correct, as dyhb told you. The civil war in the Mandate displaced Arab/Muslim Palestinians. The civil war occurred because the UN ordered the Mandate to be divided. The Mandate was ordered to be divided because the Arabs/Muslims couldn't accept the Jews and their immigration (they were ~1/3 the pop). Before the end of WW2, the interfaith violence in Palestine was overwhelmingly anti-Jewish. Pogroms. Massacres. Not civil war at all. As a result, the Jews also had a problem accepting being a minority in the place they were all immigrating to or lived already because without the British there in charge anymore, they'd be sitting ducks. Problematically, almost every other country in the world also had problems accepting Jews, and they had been persecuted and killed for thousands of years culminating in one of the worst genocides in history. So the rules-based international order, which was created after the biggest war and one of the worst genocides in history, specifically to stop such things, ordered two states. That would not have displaced as many people by itself. But the following rejection, based on the idea Israel shouldn't exist, precipitated a civil war which displaced far more. The idea Israel shouldn't exist continued to cause problems in 1967 and of course still to this day, it's a big theme. It's why Arab countries in the region largely didn't accept "Palestinians," either as refugees, or as full citizens. Leaving them stateless. Absorbing them as citizens would have lent credulity to the idea Israel should exist. Yet it conveniently jived with what most of the regional states thought: the policy that Israel shouldn't exist was the right one. Funnily, they didn't think "Palestine should exist" was a big issue, which is why Egypt and Jordan didn't just give Palestinians land in the 50s or 60s out of the goodness of their hearts. Because a Palestine existing at that time would have undermined the justification for Israel not existing. It wasn't create Palestine, then absorb/unify with Israel. It was always just no Jewish state. So the civil war, as tragic as that was, those people are largely not going to be undisplaced, in any possible future. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, displacing themselves. | ||
| ||
