They attacked a music festival with indescriminate gunfire, taking and raping hostages. That’s not a deliberate attack against civilians? Was it exclusively an IDF/Zionist affair?
The fuck are you talking about? How do you know what their orders are?
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
What Hamas (and the IDF, but mostly Hamas) did at the festival was frankly horrible, no arguments there. But the festival was in fact something Hamas didn’t know of in advance, so while it’s very much an indictment of the average Hamas soldier (not that it needed to be said Palestinians hate Israelis) I’m not sure it reflects on the leadership.
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
That’d be the case in an ideal world, but I can’t see a universe where they’d be actually be able to do that.
No like in the particular case of Hamas I don’t think it’s possible. As far as the average Palestinian (or Arab more generally) is concerned Israeli = occupier = criminal = death.
Man, militant organizations have restrained their members from retribution against much more severe crimes than “Being the wrong ethnicity”. Hamas isn’t some after-school sports club who can’t do more than wag a finger at their members. They’re an actual organization, with billions (with a B) in funding, a network of informal clientage, and formal organizational structures.
Hamas’s leadership doesn’t restrain or punish those in its ranks who’ve killed civilians because Hamas is down for it. Every Israeli civilian killed is, to them, another Jew closer to the cleansing of Palestine from the occupying power. Not only that, but every Israeli civilian killed hardens Israeli society against Hamas, and Hamas thrives on conflict - as long as there is conflict between the two, there will be Hamas - and so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
I see this a a lot, but it seems to ignore that Hamas participated in the 2008 and 2012/2013 ceasefires in good faith until Israel proved they had no intention of reciprocating (waiting more than a year in the latter case). This is just a guess, but these seem very counterproductive to me if their aim is to intensify the conflict. Like if Israel had actually lifted the blockade Hamas’s raison d’etre would’ve just ceased to exist right then and there.
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process. Like Israel, Hamas used the duration of the ceasefire to rebuild their capacity for operations (material for Hamas, shaping public opinion for Israel), and was ready and eager to resume hostilities - which was undone by Israel being faster ‘on the draw’ than Hamas in the backstab Olympics and catching them by surprise.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
In any case, if Israel had lifted the blockade, Hamas’s reason to be wouldn’t have changed at all - the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and left-wing).
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process.
That’s not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza specifically are two big ones).
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn’t suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn’t have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza’s missile-worthy problems with Israel.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
It’s basically the same as the 2008 one, but lasted a year so we have more stuff to point at.
the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and socialist).
That’s true, but that only works in a Palestine that’s at war; if peace happens they can’t really do much. At worst they get the IRA treatment.
That’s not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza).
The agreement to lift the blockade was only partial, and Israel tried to get away with like, fulfilling 2/3s of it or something along those lines. Hamas, on the other hand, greatly reduced rocket attacks, but failed to uphold what Israel claimed was their responsibility to prevent or punish unauthorized rocket attacks. The ceasefire expired when negotiations for an extension failed due to the Israelis wanting to extend it on the pre-existing agreement, while Hamas wanted greater alleviation of the siege.
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn’t suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn’t have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza’s missile-worthy problems with Israel.
Does it? Was Gaza peaceful before the airstrikes and the blockade? (No)
The issue is far deeper than ‘live and let live’. The Palestinians feel, not incorrectly, that they’ve been reduced to second-class citizens under the occupation of another country. “They aren’t bombing us right now” is a minor offense in comparison.
Any alleviation of the conflict has to be with an eye towards the long-term resolution of the situation.
That’s true, but that only works in a Palestine that’s at war; if peace happens they can’t really do much.
Can’t they? Peace would offer a great opportunity for an unrestricted Hamas to prepare for another war. Israel has offered ceasefire terms which would restrict their ability to prepare for another war, but Hamas feels, and again, not incorrectly, that such would be little more than an excuse to disarm them and then strike when some minor offence gives the Israeli government the excuse.
There is no peace without trust, there is no trust between the actors in this conflict, and honestly, they’ve not given each other any real reason to trust each other.
While lifting the blockade would improve Hamas’s material capacity, and doubtlessly they would take advantage of that, it’s no excuse to keep 2 million plus people in a state of effective siege, especially since the continuation of the siege only offers the prospect of indefinite continuation or the destruction of the besieged considering that the terms offered by Israel are unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Lifting the siege would have materially strengthened Hamas, but could have damaged their support, especially if elections were held in Gaza.
But that requires Israel to have a genuine interest in peace, which it does not.
They attacked a music festival with indescriminate gunfire, taking and raping hostages. That’s not a deliberate attack against civilians? Was it exclusively an IDF/Zionist affair?
The fuck are you talking about? How do you know what their orders are?
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
What Hamas (and the IDF, but mostly Hamas) did at the festival was frankly horrible, no arguments there. But the festival was in fact something Hamas didn’t know of in advance, so while it’s very much an indictment of the average Hamas soldier (not that it needed to be said Palestinians hate Israelis) I’m not sure it reflects on the leadership.
That’d be the case in an ideal world, but I can’t see a universe where they’d be actually be able to do that.
You don’t see a universe where a militant organization can release hostages and punish its own members for violating orders?
No like in the particular case of Hamas I don’t think it’s possible. As far as the average Palestinian (or Arab more generally) is concerned Israeli = occupier = criminal = death.
Man, militant organizations have restrained their members from retribution against much more severe crimes than “Being the wrong ethnicity”. Hamas isn’t some after-school sports club who can’t do more than wag a finger at their members. They’re an actual organization, with billions (with a B) in funding, a network of informal clientage, and formal organizational structures.
Hamas’s leadership doesn’t restrain or punish those in its ranks who’ve killed civilians because Hamas is down for it. Every Israeli civilian killed is, to them, another Jew closer to the cleansing of Palestine from the occupying power. Not only that, but every Israeli civilian killed hardens Israeli society against Hamas, and Hamas thrives on conflict - as long as there is conflict between the two, there will be Hamas - and so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
No argument about the rest, but
I see this a a lot, but it seems to ignore that Hamas participated in the 2008 and 2012/2013 ceasefires in good faith until Israel proved they had no intention of reciprocating (waiting more than a year in the latter case). This is just a guess, but these seem very counterproductive to me if their aim is to intensify the conflict. Like if Israel had actually lifted the blockade Hamas’s raison d’etre would’ve just ceased to exist right then and there.
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process. Like Israel, Hamas used the duration of the ceasefire to rebuild their capacity for operations (material for Hamas, shaping public opinion for Israel), and was ready and eager to resume hostilities - which was undone by Israel being faster ‘on the draw’ than Hamas in the backstab Olympics and catching them by surprise.
I honestly don’t remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
In any case, if Israel had lifted the blockade, Hamas’s reason to be wouldn’t have changed at all - the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and left-wing).
That’s not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza specifically are two big ones).
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn’t suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn’t have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza’s missile-worthy problems with Israel.
It’s basically the same as the 2008 one, but lasted a year so we have more stuff to point at.
That’s true, but that only works in a Palestine that’s at war; if peace happens they can’t really do much. At worst they get the IRA treatment.
The agreement to lift the blockade was only partial, and Israel tried to get away with like, fulfilling 2/3s of it or something along those lines. Hamas, on the other hand, greatly reduced rocket attacks, but failed to uphold what Israel claimed was their responsibility to prevent or punish unauthorized rocket attacks. The ceasefire expired when negotiations for an extension failed due to the Israelis wanting to extend it on the pre-existing agreement, while Hamas wanted greater alleviation of the siege.
Does it? Was Gaza peaceful before the airstrikes and the blockade? (No)
The issue is far deeper than ‘live and let live’. The Palestinians feel, not incorrectly, that they’ve been reduced to second-class citizens under the occupation of another country. “They aren’t bombing us right now” is a minor offense in comparison.
Any alleviation of the conflict has to be with an eye towards the long-term resolution of the situation.
Can’t they? Peace would offer a great opportunity for an unrestricted Hamas to prepare for another war. Israel has offered ceasefire terms which would restrict their ability to prepare for another war, but Hamas feels, and again, not incorrectly, that such would be little more than an excuse to disarm them and then strike when some minor offence gives the Israeli government the excuse.
There is no peace without trust, there is no trust between the actors in this conflict, and honestly, they’ve not given each other any real reason to trust each other.
Lifting the blockade would just allow hamas to get more weapons and do some more slaughtering the thing they like the most
While lifting the blockade would improve Hamas’s material capacity, and doubtlessly they would take advantage of that, it’s no excuse to keep 2 million plus people in a state of effective siege, especially since the continuation of the siege only offers the prospect of indefinite continuation or the destruction of the besieged considering that the terms offered by Israel are unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Lifting the siege would have materially strengthened Hamas, but could have damaged their support, especially if elections were held in Gaza.
But that requires Israel to have a genuine interest in peace, which it does not.