|
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. |
Israel didn't give Palestinians control over Gaza. All they did is on one day, without any agreement, the Israeli riot police moved in and got the colonists that still remained out. Then they smashed their own greenhouses, that weren't already demolished, to destroy them. When the Israeli forces left, Palestinian thugs came in and looted and destroyed whatever was left. This in part happened because there was no hand-off to the Palestinian authorities or security forces. Maybe a highly competent Palestinian authority could have done that independently. But if you do that normally, you make agreements between both sides how to manage this. So when Israeli police leaves, Palestinian police moves right in. Sharon deliberately didn't want that because there was no agreement with the Palestinians.
Control over the borders, the air space, the seaport, the airport, drinking water, electricity, and the sea, didn't change. That's all controlled by Israel. Though the severity of the siege and border crossings have changed from strict, to less strict, back to strict.
All that happened is that Israeli colonists no longer live in Gaza but instead they build way more new colonies in the West Bank.
To say that Israel gave Gaza independence is utter bullshit and an unhinged take.
|
United States41344 Posts
On June 13 2024 22:55 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 21:27 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote: Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush. It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense. If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence? Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority. The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not. What kind of nonsense is this? Gaza's only airport was demolished by Israel. Gaza's only naval port is blockaded by Israel. Gaza's land borders are not controlled by any authority in Gaza. Gaza's infrastructure such as power & water facilities are routinely damaged by strikes from Israel. It's been this way for decades. The blockade they're under is far more all-encompassing than Nazi attacks on merchant ships ever were, like it's not even close. It's funny you keep calling Hamas a 'death cult government' when Israel has killed more people in 6 months of this conflict than Hamas & friends did in 60 years, by the way. What does that make Israel's government? Hamas’s goal in the short term is maximum dead Palestinians. Israel’s is not. This latest conflict was initiated by Hamas with the goal of dead Palestinians.
|
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
When the Israeli forces left, Palestinian thugs came in and looted and destroyed whatever was left. This in part happened because there was no hand-off to the Palestinian authorities or security forces. Maybe a highly competent Palestinian authority could have done that independently. But if you do that normally, you make agreements between both sides how to manage this. So when Israeli police leaves, Palestinian police moves right in. Sharon deliberately didn't want that because there was no agreement with the Palestinians.
The entire motivation for withdrawing from Gaza was that Israel's presence and influence were both deeply unwelcome. Israel choosing who should fill the power vacuum and handing off power to them is of course not what Palestinians were hoping for. There's no way Israel doing a power transfer with some Palestinian faction would have been a net positive. If anything it would have invalidated the Palestinian Authority. Israel simply leaving and not letting themselves hang around to take care of logistical tasks was clearly the right call.
You correctly point out greenhouses and whatnot were destroyed by both Israelis and Palestinians.
Here is the Wiki article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#Greenhouses
The remaining settlements' greenhouses were looted by Palestinians for 2 days after the transfer, for irrigation pipes, water pumps, plastic sheeting and glass, but the greenhouses themselves remained structurally intact, until order was restored.[78][81] The deputy Palestinian finance minister said around 30% of greenhouses were damaged. Palestinian Authority security forces attempted to stop the looters, but were inadequately staffed. In some places, there was no security, while some Palestinian police officers joined the looters.[82]
In such a case, do you really think Palestinians would have appreciated Israel formalizing the process of who rules over Gaza after Israel was gone? There's just no way that would be a good idea.
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
Control over the borders, the air space, the seaport, the airport, drinking water, electricity, and the sea, didn't change. That's all controlled by Israel. Though the severity of the siege and border crossings have changed from strict, to less strict, back to strict.
If the entire premise of Israel leaving Gaza was that Gaza hates Israel, I think it is disingenuous to frame this as if Israel had no reason to control their air space and maritime space. That is clearly strictly beneficial for them and there had been plenty of conflict to indicate risks associated with letting Gaza do as they please in their air space and maritime space.
Many other countries are reliant on neighbors for water or electricity. They maintain strong relations and take many steps to ensure they always have a good relationship. Hamas has not shown any interest in having relations with Israel comparable to other countries that rely on each other for water or electricity.
This all gets back to what Kwark has described regarding surrendering or not surrendering. Hamas and Palestinians are essentially asking for all of the benefits of surrendering without actually surrendering. That is not reasonable.
|
On June 14 2024 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
When the Israeli forces left, Palestinian thugs came in and looted and destroyed whatever was left. This in part happened because there was no hand-off to the Palestinian authorities or security forces. Maybe a highly competent Palestinian authority could have done that independently. But if you do that normally, you make agreements between both sides how to manage this. So when Israeli police leaves, Palestinian police moves right in. Sharon deliberately didn't want that because there was no agreement with the Palestinians.
The entire motivation for withdrawing from Gaza was that Israel's presence and influence were both deeply unwelcome. Israel choosing who should fill the power vacuum and handing off power to them is of course not what Palestinians were hoping for. There's no way Israel doing a power transfer with some Palestinian faction would have been a net positive. If anything it would have invalidated the Palestinian Authority. Israel simply leaving and not letting themselves hang around to take care of logistical tasks was clearly the right call. You correctly point out greenhouses and whatnot were destroyed by both Israelis and Palestinians. Here is the Wiki article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#GreenhousesShow nested quote + The remaining settlements' greenhouses were looted by Palestinians for 2 days after the transfer, for irrigation pipes, water pumps, plastic sheeting and glass, but the greenhouses themselves remained structurally intact, until order was restored.[78][81] The deputy Palestinian finance minister said around 30% of greenhouses were damaged. Palestinian Authority security forces attempted to stop the looters, but were inadequately staffed. In some places, there was no security, while some Palestinian police officers joined the looters.[82]
In such a case, do you really think Palestinians would have appreciated Israel formalizing the process of who rules over Gaza after Israel was gone? There's just no way that would be a good idea. Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
Control over the borders, the air space, the seaport, the airport, drinking water, electricity, and the sea, didn't change. That's all controlled by Israel. Though the severity of the siege and border crossings have changed from strict, to less strict, back to strict.
If the entire premise of Israel leaving Gaza was that Gaza hates Israel, I think it is disingenuous to frame this as if Israel had no reason to control their air space and maritime space. That is clearly strictly beneficial for them and there had been plenty of conflict to indicate risks associated with letting Gaza do as they please in their air space and maritime space. Many other countries are reliant on neighbors for water or electricity. They maintain strong relations and take many steps to ensure they always have a good relationship. Hamas has not shown any interest in having relations with Israel comparable to other countries that rely on each other for water or electricity. This all gets back to what Kwark has described regarding surrendering or not surrendering. Hamas and Palestinians are essentially asking for all of the benefits of surrendering without actually surrendering. That is not reasonable.
2 points.
1, This set of discussion was originated from the comment from Kwark that the Isrealis left the palestinian alone and the palestinian refused to (re)build their country. Which is not true as the Isrealis had never left and remain an occupying power.
2, It is not ideal to conflate the concept of "occupying power", which is what is the matter of this discussion, to "neighbouring country". As pointed out by GreenHorizon a few page/post above, the occupying power have the obligation to provide (or allow in) necessities to the occupied population as per Geneva Convention.
|
On June 14 2024 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
When the Israeli forces left, Palestinian thugs came in and looted and destroyed whatever was left. This in part happened because there was no hand-off to the Palestinian authorities or security forces. Maybe a highly competent Palestinian authority could have done that independently. But if you do that normally, you make agreements between both sides how to manage this. So when Israeli police leaves, Palestinian police moves right in. Sharon deliberately didn't want that because there was no agreement with the Palestinians.
The entire motivation for withdrawing from Gaza was that Israel's presence and influence were both deeply unwelcome.
Saying Israel left Gaza because they suddenly realized they were 'unwelcome' is absolutely wild!
Israel choosing who should fill the power vacuum and handing off power to them is of course not what Palestinians were hoping for.
Israel doesn't get to choose. The Palestinians had an election where they elected Abbas. Naturally, Israel should have made a deal with Abbas about how to give back Gaza. Israel didn't do that. In fact, The Palestinians/Abbas strongly objected to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.
There's no way Israel doing a power transfer with some Palestinian faction would have been a net positive. If anything it would have invalidated the Palestinian Authority.
How would making a deal with the Palestinian Authority and handing off Gaza to PA security forces have invalidated them? Are you confused about when Hamas won the parliamentary election and the Gaza-West Bank spit aka Fatah vs Hamas civil war happened?
Israel simply leaving and not letting themselves hang around to take care of logistical tasks was clearly the right call.
Clearly? Israel is literally back in Gaza. Clearly their plan to just leave Gaza and ignore it failed. In fact, even before the current conflict, Israel reinvaded Gaza at least 3 times. Do you even know anything about this conflict?
You correctly point out greenhouses and whatnot were destroyed by both Israelis and Palestinians.
Of course everything I point out was correct. And I am glad to see you have to go to wikipedia to make sure I was correct, because you have no knowledge of this conflict yourself. I must honestly admit though, that after I wrote that part, I went to wikipedia as well to recheck. And I literally read that part to see if and how much looting there was. I didn't remember there were 2 days of looting.
In such a case, do you really think Palestinians would have appreciated Israel formalizing the process of who rules over Gaza after Israel was gone? There's just no way that would be a good idea.
Wut? Are you talking about 2024? Or about 2005?
For sure it would have been good for ordinary Palestinians if at least all those greenhouses would still be functional. They are kinda a big deal over there.
If the entire premise of Israel leaving Gaza was that Gaza hates Israel,
And Israel hates Gaza.
I think it is disingenuous to frame this as if Israel had no reason to control their air space and maritime space. That is clearly strictly beneficial for them and there had been plenty of conflict to indicate risks associated with letting Gaza do as they please in their air space and maritime space.
Of course they have a reason to. It would be great, for Israel, if Israel could prevent any weapons or explosives from entering Gaza. Then, October 7th wouldn't have happened. t would also be great for Hamas is they could do border checks on Israel, to make sure not a single bullet enters Israel.
Many other countries are reliant on neighbors for water or electricity. They maintain strong relations and take many steps to ensure they always have a good relationship. Hamas has not shown any interest in having relations with Israel comparable to other countries that rely on each other for water or electricity.
Are you really comparing Israel being able to turn off electricity in Gaza to say France selling their nuclear power to her neighbors? Really? Of course countries are inter-dependent on each other. And they would get into trouble if magically their neighboring country magically disappears. Which is why they try to have friendly relationships. But if you really want to go there, what does Gaza have that makes Israel dependent on Gaza?
This all gets back to what Kwark has described regarding surrendering or not surrendering. Hamas and Palestinians are essentially asking for all of the benefits of surrendering without actually surrendering. That is not reasonable.
Wut? Where all the sudden did you jump to this? And who surrenders? Why are you piling together Hamas and the Palestinians in general? And who is surrendering? Hamas? WUT I guess your point is that Palestinians have only 1 demand: unconditional surrender of Israel. Sure bro.
You are again very very confused. Very.
|
On June 14 2024 04:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 22:55 Salazarz wrote:On June 13 2024 21:27 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote: Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush. It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense. If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence? Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority. The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not. What kind of nonsense is this? Gaza's only airport was demolished by Israel. Gaza's only naval port is blockaded by Israel. Gaza's land borders are not controlled by any authority in Gaza. Gaza's infrastructure such as power & water facilities are routinely damaged by strikes from Israel. It's been this way for decades. The blockade they're under is far more all-encompassing than Nazi attacks on merchant ships ever were, like it's not even close. It's funny you keep calling Hamas a 'death cult government' when Israel has killed more people in 6 months of this conflict than Hamas & friends did in 60 years, by the way. What does that make Israel's government? Hamas’s goal in the short term is maximum dead Palestinians. Israel’s is not. This latest conflict was initiated by Hamas with the goal of dead Palestinians.
While I have not seen enough evidence to confirm / disagree with the notion that Hamas want maximum dead palestinians in the short term whatever short term means. I can confidently say that the goal of the Isreal (both in the short term and the long term) are maximum dead palestinians. There are plenty of quote from Isreal officials, commentators alike, and the action of the army to point to the argument for Isreal's goal in this event is to massacre the palestinians.
Just look at this article from the Intercept: Netanyahu's Goal for Gaza: “Thin” Population “to a Minimum” (Dec 2023)
https://theintercept.com/2023/12/03/netanyahu-thin-gaza-population/
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 14 2024 11:41 mounteast01 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2024 04:30 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 22:55 Salazarz wrote:On June 13 2024 21:27 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote: Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush. It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense. If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence? Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority. The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not. What kind of nonsense is this? Gaza's only airport was demolished by Israel. Gaza's only naval port is blockaded by Israel. Gaza's land borders are not controlled by any authority in Gaza. Gaza's infrastructure such as power & water facilities are routinely damaged by strikes from Israel. It's been this way for decades. The blockade they're under is far more all-encompassing than Nazi attacks on merchant ships ever were, like it's not even close. It's funny you keep calling Hamas a 'death cult government' when Israel has killed more people in 6 months of this conflict than Hamas & friends did in 60 years, by the way. What does that make Israel's government? Hamas’s goal in the short term is maximum dead Palestinians. Israel’s is not. This latest conflict was initiated by Hamas with the goal of dead Palestinians. While I have not seen enough evidence to confirm / disagree with the notion that Hamas want maximum dead palestinians in the short term whatever short term means. I can confidently say that the goal of the Isreal (both in the short term and the long term) are maximum dead palestinians. There are plenty of quote from Isreal officials, commentators alike, and the action of the army to point to the argument for Isreal's goal in this event is to massacre the palestinians. Just look at this article from the Intercept: Netanyahu's Goal for Gaza: “Thin” Population “to a Minimum” (Dec 2023) https://theintercept.com/2023/12/03/netanyahu-thin-gaza-population/
This quote has only been reported by far-left news outlets with mixed credibility. I can't find confirmation of it by any unbiased/credible sources. Could you provide a credible source?
|
On June 14 2024 18:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2024 11:41 mounteast01 wrote:On June 14 2024 04:30 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 22:55 Salazarz wrote:On June 13 2024 21:27 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote: Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush. It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense. If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence? Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority. The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not. What kind of nonsense is this? Gaza's only airport was demolished by Israel. Gaza's only naval port is blockaded by Israel. Gaza's land borders are not controlled by any authority in Gaza. Gaza's infrastructure such as power & water facilities are routinely damaged by strikes from Israel. It's been this way for decades. The blockade they're under is far more all-encompassing than Nazi attacks on merchant ships ever were, like it's not even close. It's funny you keep calling Hamas a 'death cult government' when Israel has killed more people in 6 months of this conflict than Hamas & friends did in 60 years, by the way. What does that make Israel's government? Hamas’s goal in the short term is maximum dead Palestinians. Israel’s is not. This latest conflict was initiated by Hamas with the goal of dead Palestinians. While I have not seen enough evidence to confirm / disagree with the notion that Hamas want maximum dead palestinians in the short term whatever short term means. I can confidently say that the goal of the Isreal (both in the short term and the long term) are maximum dead palestinians. There are plenty of quote from Isreal officials, commentators alike, and the action of the army to point to the argument for Isreal's goal in this event is to massacre the palestinians. Just look at this article from the Intercept: Netanyahu's Goal for Gaza: “Thin” Population “to a Minimum” (Dec 2023) https://theintercept.com/2023/12/03/netanyahu-thin-gaza-population/ This quote has only been reported by far-left news outlets with mixed credibility. I can't find confirmation of it by any unbiased/credible sources. Could you provide a credible source?
I thought the Intercept is a reasonably credible source though. The original report is from a Israelis news outlet, in Hebrew. The same piece of information is also reported by Al Jazeera.
However, in this particular conflict, the main stream media which is usually considered credible source are collectively bias for Israel. Would you mind let me know what you would consider credible?
On another note, even if you do not consider the report on Netanyahu want to thin Gaza's population as credible, the information about how the Israel army conduct this operation still support the argument that the Israel army want to do as much killing as possible, not just to the militant, but to the general population / civilian as well. The ICJ concluded that Israel is plausible in committing genocide is another piece of evidence of that.
|
Netanyahu & co are very much aware of when they are talking to a western audience, and when to a domestic audience. Their language is not the same in English or in Hebrew.
The Intercept is a very reliable news source. And the language used in Hebrew has been all over Israeli media.
|
On June 14 2024 22:12 Suibne wrote: Netanyahu & co are very much aware of when they are talking to a western audience, and when to a domestic audience. Their language is not the same in English or in Hebrew.
The Intercept is a very reliable news source. And the language used in Hebrew has been all over Israeli media.
I've been looking for a translated version of the original, haven't been able to find anything. Please provide a source, otherwise I think we can safely consider it propaganda. Netanyahu is my target of criticism all day every day. But lies are lies and they must be exposed.
|
|
Looks like the report from Haaretz has been confirmed. But it should be noted that Smotrich's views are not that of Israel's administration, and not of the population either.
"But his views do not reflect the official government position that Gazans will be able to return to their homes after the war against the Islamist movement Hamas which controls Gaza, now nearing the start of its fourth month."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-repeats-call-palestinians-leave-gaza-2023-12-31/
The CBC article is also relevant. These ideas are floating around consistently in Israel both generally and in remarks made by some officials. Fortunately it is not being described as a concrete proposal, so there's that. Important though to keep an eye out for a shift in tone as the war continues. Netanyahu is likely toying with these ideas. If or when people lose interest in following the news and the war becomes background noise, concrete implementations of displacement could become considerably more realistic.
|
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote: Do you even know anything about this conflict?
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote: Of course everything I point out was correct. And I am glad to see you have to go to wikipedia to make sure I was correct, because you have no knowledge of this conflict yourself.
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote: You are again very very confused. Very.
My dude, please take note of the fact that many people here are able to have these conversations while remaining very polite despite our major disagreements.
You are a previously banned user on an alt and the mods are letting you continue to post because second chances are ok sometimes. But you should take note of how stark a difference there is in the general tone and character of your posts compared to everyone else. We're all a bunch of 30+ boomers talking politics on an internet forum. Please try to engage in a more appropriate way.
On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
Wut? Where all the sudden did you jump to this? And who surrenders? Why are you piling together Hamas and the Palestinians in general? And who is surrendering? Hamas? WUT I guess your point is that Palestinians have only 1 demand: unconditional surrender of Israel. Sure bro.
You are again very very confused. Very.
Its not clear to me where our understandings diverge, so I will try to concisely outline my assumptions:
1: Hamas is the elected government of Gaza
2: Hamas is not surrendering in the war vs Israel.
3: Palestinians prefer Hamas over any other government option. They continue to support the decision to launch the October 7 attack and they support Hamas's continuation of the war.
Here is the poll I am referencing: https://pcpsr.org/en/node/980
They have been conducting similar polls throughout the conflict.
If you disagree with any of those assumptions, please indicate which ones. I think if we are operating under different assumptions, we will just be talking past each other. I would like to better understand your perspective but right now I am having a hard time contextualizing what you are saying.
|
On June 15 2024 03:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote: Do you even know anything about this conflict?
Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote: Of course everything I point out was correct. And I am glad to see you have to go to wikipedia to make sure I was correct, because you have no knowledge of this conflict yourself.
My dude, please take note of the fact that many people here are able to have these conversations while remaining very polite despite our major disagreements. You are a previously banned user on an alt and the mods are letting you continue to post because second chances are ok sometimes. But you should take note of how stark a difference there is in the general tone and character of your posts compared to everyone else. We're all a bunch of 30+ boomers talking politics on an internet forum. Please try to engage in a more appropriate way. Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 23:18 Suibne wrote:
Wut? Where all the sudden did you jump to this? And who surrenders? Why are you piling together Hamas and the Palestinians in general? And who is surrendering? Hamas? WUT I guess your point is that Palestinians have only 1 demand: unconditional surrender of Israel. Sure bro.
You are again very very confused. Very. Its not clear to me where our understandings diverge, so I will try to concisely outline my assumptions: 1: Hamas is the elected government of Gaza 2: Hamas is not surrendering in the war vs Israel. 3: Palestinians prefer Hamas over any other government option. They continue to support the decision to launch the October 7 attack and they support Hamas's continuation of the war. Here is the poll I am referencing: https://pcpsr.org/en/node/980They have been conducting similar polls throughout the conflict. If you disagree with any of those assumptions, please indicate which ones. I think if we are operating under different assumptions, we will just be talking past each other. I would like to better understand your perspective but right now I am having a hard time contextualizing what you are saying.
The results of the survey show a lot more than that.
"Support for the attack on October 7: While overall support for the October 7 Hamas offensive remains high, it has seen a four-percentage point decline compared to the previous poll, now at two-thirds. The decrease in this percentage came from the Gaza Strip, which saw a decrease of 14 percentage points. It is important to note that support for this attack, as we will see later, does not necessarily mean support for Hamas and does not mean support for any killings or atrocities committed against civilians. Support comes from another motive: findings show that more than 80% of Palestinians believe that the attack has put the Palestinian issue at the center of attention and eliminated years of neglect at the regional and international levels."
Support for October 7 has declined by 14 percent in Gaza. This is a very significant decline, and it also shows that the people who are least affected by the war are more likely to support Hamas' invasion. Clearly Hamas is unable to radicalize the people in Gaza through their continued war effort, if anything the opposite is happening. It's very important to understand this.
Furthermore, support for Hamas is a separate issue from support for October 7, they're not inherently intertwined. Palestinians who support October 7 are saying that it has drawn attention to the plight of Palestinians. The need for international recognition is a very important issue for Palestinians, and especially for those living in Gaza. This begs the question: how many would support October 7 if it hadn't resulted in greater attention and care? A question that can't be answered, but very important to keep in mind.
Also this:
"War crimes: As we found in the previous two polls, three and six months ago, almost all Palestinians believe that Israel is committing war crimes today while almost all believe that Hamas is not committing war crimes. Moreover, more than 90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israeli civilians on the seventh of October. Only one in ten Palestinians have seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas. The results show that those who watched the videos are about fifteen times more likely than those who did not to believe that Hamas fighters committed atrocities on October 7."
Basically the reason why so many Gazans (or Palestinians in general) do not believe Hamas has committed atrocities is because they're simply misinformed. They haven't even seen any evidence. Of course their view of Hamas is warped, what else do we expect? It has little to do with them being radicalized, it has everything to do with them being misinformed.
|
you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us.
|
On June 16 2024 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us. Palestinians have been stuck in a deep and dark hole for a long-ass time. That's kinda what they're mad about.
|
On June 16 2024 03:20 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2024 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us. Palestinians have been stuck in a deep and dark hole for a long-ass time. That's kinda what they're mad about.
Exactly right. And the other important nuance is that support for October 7 would likely be much lower if Palestinians knew about Hamas' crimes.
I'm glad that Mohdoo posted this survey, because it proves something that I've been arguing for a long time: that Palestinians are nowhere near as radical as people claim they are. There are important nuances that have gone ignored. Many people here don't want to believe it, they'd rather see all Palestinians as hopelessly lost extremists. The survey proves them wrong. It's important to show people that Palestinians are not worthy of the dehumanization efforts that have been made by radical pro-Israel voices.
|
On June 16 2024 03:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2024 03:20 Severedevil wrote:On June 16 2024 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us. Palestinians have been stuck in a deep and dark hole for a long-ass time. That's kinda what they're mad about. Exactly right. And the other important nuance is that support for October 7 would likely be much lower if Palestinians knew about Hamas' crimes. Hamas literally paraded dying civilians in the streets and bragged about killing Jews in videos as a propaganda stunt (before they took them down to better play the victim card). I would bet they did that because it strengthens their support, not the opposite.
|
On June 16 2024 06:21 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2024 03:37 Magic Powers wrote:On June 16 2024 03:20 Severedevil wrote:On June 16 2024 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us. Palestinians have been stuck in a deep and dark hole for a long-ass time. That's kinda what they're mad about. Exactly right. And the other important nuance is that support for October 7 would likely be much lower if Palestinians knew about Hamas' crimes. Hamas literally paraded dying civilians in the streets and bragged about killing Jews in videos as a propaganda stunt (before they took them down to better play the victim card). I would bet they did that because it strengthens their support, not the opposite.
Right, we should of course ignore what a credible survey says and instead bet on our personal biased intutition. Makes complete sense.
|
United States41344 Posts
On June 16 2024 03:20 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2024 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: you have to be in a pretty deep and dark hole when you look at the (almost) complete destruction of Gaza and think "its good that this happened because at least now people are talking about us. Palestinians have been stuck in a deep and dark hole for a long-ass time. That's kinda what they're mad about. Not all Palestinians. Hamas run Gaza is more mismanaged than the West Bank, for example. And there are shitloads of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
One might infer from this that Hamas don’t have the best interests of Gazans in mind.
|
|
|
|