Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[africanspur]

This thread is reasonably fascinating if nothing else. As time goes on, it is largely descending into virtue signaling imo. Who can out-hate Israel the most, with the most provocative Tweet, latest clip of a radical statement from someone Jewish and so forth. I mean, if that brings you joy, I guess who am I to judge.

The last two pages basically read: not only were Hamas justified on October 7th, if anything we should be shocked that Israel and the world are even that upset about it. If you just read certain posters' comments recently, you'd think that Hamas was doing the world a favour on October 7th, by bringing the much-deserved attention to the Gazan situation, as well as demonstrating that Israel is not all powerful. Well done Hamas, good job all around.

I guess I'm now in the minority, but all I see now are people self-satisfied and none contributing towards any kind of solution or longer-term strategy. October 7th was the f*ck you Israel deserved. And if that has single-handedly ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, ensured there will now no longer be a two-state solution in our lifetimes well that's just too bad. And Israel's fault.

It's geuninely incredible to me. And some of these views were shared on October 7th and 8th, before Israel had done a single act of retribution.

I just find it agonisingly sad. Listening to the dehumanisation and appalling conditions of the Gazans. How both the west and the Arab world abandoned them to Israel's whims. How the far-right of Israel basically just sought to ignore them in their prison city, hoping the problem would just go away via death. Despite that, I have to believe the answer was never an attack like October 7th. Cutting off kids fingers and making the parents watch. Slowly pulling out eyeballs. Deliberately targeting and slowly killing kids at a music festival.

As per the book, violence is a language Israel understands. By all means, attack military targets. Hell, take hostages - that actually worked well for getting concessiosn in the past for Hamas.

If you honestly believe that indescriminately, deliberately and painfully murdering civilains is the answer to the Gazan question, then you can't be that upset about Israel's actions now imo. Because if you believe those acts have purpose, well then bombing an entire building to kill strategic targets is morally similar, if not superior. At least you can point towards the bombing of a building having a military goal. And if you're up in arms about the horrific things settlers have done to Palestinian citizens, well why are you laissez-faire about what Hamas did to Isreali civilians?

Anyway, I shall take my leave now, and hope that somewhere in the real corridors of power some smart people have ideas of how to move the situation forward. Because all I see is that October 7th made it far, far worse.

Have you noticed that much of your posting on here is asking people to provide solutions, as if we're at the table, while contributing no solutions yourself? And on top of that, using inflammatory statements like 'virtue signalling'?

The one time you were asked a question yourself (what would you do generally were you a Palestinian), you replied with more questions and a negative (I'd not have done what Hamas did).

You are sad for the Palestinians but without any solutions yourself about what to do, despite being the police of solutions on here.

You also keep on repeating the same tropes, as if anyone on this thread actually supports Hamas or its actions.

I imagine the reason you're not hearing any solutions is because there are basically none left. That isn't because of October 7th, it was the case before.

There is no incentive for Israel to sue for peace. They are the regional military superpower. They are backed by the worlds actual superpower, both morally and militarily. Any criticism is shameful and anti semitic. People have genuinely convinced themselves that a statehood offer that isn't anything akin to what pretty much anyone would consider an actual state was an amazing offer. It's not an offer that the Palestinians will likely ever accept.

So I think one of two things will happen. The first is that the situation carries on as it is. Slowly but surely Israel continues to take more land, continues to eke out the last drop of Palestinian dignity and 'managing the situation', with permanent occupation/ apartheid/ blockade etc. That I think is the most likely situation in our lifetimes. The second one and the one that I think will be the ultimate outcome is ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians out.

And to head off your inevitable comment. Hamas are scum. I do not agree with what they did on October 7th.

 

[Kaos]

This thread is reasonably fascinating if nothing else. As time goes on, it is largely descending into virtue signaling imo. Who can out-hate Israel the most, with the most provocative Tweet, latest clip of a radical statement from someone Jewish and so forth. I mean, if that brings you joy, I guess who am I to judge.

The last two pages basically read: not only were Hamas justified on October 7th, if anything we should be shocked that Israel and the world are even that upset about it. If you just read certain posters' comments recently, you'd think that Hamas was doing the world a favour on October 7th, by bringing the much-deserved attention to the Gazan situation, as well as demonstrating that Israel is not all powerful. Well done Hamas, good job all around.

I guess I'm now in the minority, but all I see now are people self-satisfied and none contributing towards any kind of solution or longer-term strategy. October 7th was the f*ck you Israel deserved. And if that has single-handedly ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, ensured there will now no longer be a two-state solution in our lifetimes well that's just too bad. And Israel's fault.

It's geuninely incredible to me. And some of these views were shared on October 7th and 8th, before Israel had done a single act of retribution.

I just find it agonisingly sad. Listening to the dehumanisation and appalling conditions of the Gazans. How both the west and the Arab world abandoned them to Israel's whims. How the far-right of Israel basically just sought to ignore them in their prison city, hoping the problem would just go away via death. Despite that, I have to believe the answer was never an attack like October 7th. Cutting off kids fingers and making the parents watch. Slowly pulling out eyeballs. Deliberately targeting and slowly killing kids at a music festival.

As per the book, violence is a language Israel understands. By all means, attack military targets. Hell, take hostages - that actually worked well for getting concessiosn in the past for Hamas.

If you honestly believe that indescriminately, deliberately and painfully murdering civilains is the answer to the Gazan question, then you can't be that upset about Israel's actions now imo. Because if you believe those acts have purpose, well then bombing an entire building to kill strategic targets is morally similar, if not superior. At least you can point towards the bombing of a building having a military goal. And if you're up in arms about the horrific things settlers have done to Palestinian citizens, well why are you laissez-faire about what Hamas did to Isreali civilians?

Anyway, I shall take my leave now, and hope that somewhere in the real corridors of power some smart people have ideas of how to move the situation forward. Because all I see is that October 7th made it far, far worse.

See the issue I have with this post is it reverts to some of the more predictable strawman tropes that have been recurring soundbites from Israel's apologists. Absolutely no one is endorsing Hamas, and it goes without saying that their terror attacks deserves nothing more than complete condemnation. But to suggest that those wanting to hold Israel to account and directing them to deserved condemnation is somehow akin to being 'laissez-faire' about Hamas' actions and incentives is equally disingenuous.

As for your point about this attack seemingly being regarded as necessary and a victory for those wanting to illuminate the plight of the Palestinians - I'd argue the opposite in fact. The frustrating angle for people like me is how this attack has merely narrowed the lens from which this conflict is analysed, essentially starting the clock on October 7th, and removing the contextual backdrop to it. Decades prior and leading up to October 6th, every day Palestinians have been subjected to terror, to being imprisoned, to being driven out of their homes and being flat out murdered, all the while an occupation continues and expands, without a modicum of condemnation or media outrage from the international community. This thread to take an example has been continuously been bumped for years with horrible stories surfacing regarding the actions of Israeli politcians, the IDF and settlers, but we've been numbed into regarding it as a normal occurrence. So you could hardly blame those that wish to broaden the narrative on the overall scale of suffering and backdrop to all this instead of reducing it to this idea that anything but a condemnation of Hamas is deemed appropriate.

And finally your last point. There is in fact a solution to this, and its not particularly complicated. Israel needs to cease its occupation, treat the Palestinians like human beings and genuinely engage in a framework to give them a state based on a proposed model endorsed by the international community. And while you say that this latest Hamas attack has scorched any possibility of that - well thats a point made in bad faith considering we all knew it was never a possibility nor benevolent intention from the Israelis on October 6th either. All this attack has done is allowed them to justify an objection to a pathway to peace they never sincerely intended to honour or humour.

 

[flameinthesun]

and none contributing towards any kind of solution or longer-term strategy.

A great solution and long term strategy would be to stop the bombing of Gaza, condemn and remove all settlers from occupied land, keep an appropriate military presence outside Gaza to protect against Hamas whilst allowing the Gaza people to rebuild their land, work with the west bank to allow them to develop into a prosperous vision of what a Palestine could be without Hamas influence and allow all rights of Israel to apply to any Israeli citizen regardless of religion.

 

[JPRouve]

The one time you were asked a question yourself (what would you do generally were you a Palestinian), you replied with more questions and a negative (I'd not have done what Hamas did).

I still don't have a response, I still don't have the acknowledgement of palestinians. They are Hamas and/or gazans and in both case somehow seen as universally violent.

 

[OldTrevil]

Only major international players with loads of clout can pick sides. Rest need to side with where the power is.

I'm not saying they outwardly fund or send weapons to Palestinian resistance, but condemning genocide and not ingratiating oneself or maintaining normal relations to a racist, blood drenched colonial regime currently bombarding babies and innocent men and women, is the least you can expect from a government that is half independent and with even a piece of a moral compass.

 

[Pintu]

 

[Beachryan]

Pure waffle.

1) I'm still yet to see one post justifying Hamas' actions, but that underpins the basis of the drivel posted above.
2) Even putting Hamas to one side - the situation Palestinians live in is inhumane, and Israel hold all the cards. In fact, they've held all the cards for decades and no amount of non-violent protesting, or petitioning has got them to see Palestinians as their fellow human beings.
3) The actions of Israel over the last month have shown clearly that they just want the land, and don't give a shit about how they get it. They'll atomise is day by day in the WB and obliterate the Gazan Palestinians to get it there.
4) Your post is devoid of any context, and if we apply context, we'd know that Hamas didn't appear in a vacuum, nor did the events of the 7th happen in a vacuum. They're a direct response to Israeli brutality and aggression.
5) Most of the participants here, barring a few, are cognisant of the fact that Israel is an apartheid state being backed by a military superpower against a group of individuals that have no army, no navy, and no airforce, and yet are still positioned as 'the bad guys' in mainstream Western media.
6) The lack of two state solution is Israel's fault. How many times does this need to be said?
7) Again, putting Hamas to one side - how can anyone with any shred of decency and morality consider what's happening in the West Bank as normal? If you were really objective and impartial (which you aren't), you could still hold your pro-Israeli view whilst calling out the likes of Ben Gvir, Bibi and Israeli settlers brandishing their own form of terrorism...but this is all by the by to you as anyone that calls this out is 'virtue signalling' and seeing who can 'out hate Israel'.

There's more I can say but your post just screams of "no, it can't be me who is wrong...it must be all these people!". All in all, it's a pathetic post.

Ha, because you've gone personal let's do this:
1. I apologise, when one reads things like "The reality of the situation is that each and every civil liberty of these people has been taken from them. That coupled with the subjugation and dehumanisation they face on a daily basis, plus the indiscriminate killings and violence they suffer means that they either have to suffer in silence and die or at least fight back." one could begin to think perhaps said 'fighting back' is being 'justified'. That must be my poor handling of the language.
2. No disagreement there.
3. I'm not sure all of Israel wants that, but certainly the far right fringe does.
4. Not one post is justifying Hamas actions. "Hamas didn't appear in a vacuum, nor did the events of the 7th happen in a vacuum. They're a direct response to Israeli brutality and aggression." Again, my poor understanding of the language, clearly.
5. No disagreement there.
6. Utterly absolving all responsibity of the Arab world on the two-state conundrum is naive at very best, deliberately obtuse I'd say.
7. Totally agree, it's immoral, it's horrible and the world should be looking to fix it. I despise Netanyahu, hate what the settlers do and have dreaded what the reaction to October 7th would be.

My position is very simple: Israel's treatment of Gazans is abhorrent, and it should be condemned for it. Other powers - including the Arab ones that happily ignore it - should be considering this a major issue of any foreign policy agenda. Israel's reaction to October 7th is disgusting, irrational, unnecessary, predictable and deplorable. I've said this over and over.

BUT. What Hamas did on October 7th did more to damage the lives of Gazan Palestinians than anything in the last 15 years. On top of that, it was barbaric and brutal in a way that fortunately virtually no conflicts on Earth are anymore. And because an organisation acted in that way, I do judge it, as an organisation, regardless of the situation that led to it.

 

[Beachryan]

A great solution and long term strategy would be to stop the bombing of Gaza, condemn and remove all settlers from occupied land, keep an appropriate military presence outside Gaza to protect against Hamas whilst allowing the Gaza people to rebuild their land, work with the west bank to allow them to develop into a prosperous vision of what a Palestine could be without Hamas influence and allow all rights of Israel to apply to any Israeli citizen regardless of religion.

Totally agree. It would. The first step, today, for that would be the plan for removing Hamas as a force. How does one start that?

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[Rooney24]

When do we tip over from “defending itself” to pure revenge ?

10,000, 20,000, 30,000??

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

4. Not one post is justifying Hamas actions. "Hamas didn't appear in a vacuum, nor did the events of the 7th happen in a vacuum. They're a direct response to Israeli brutality and aggression." Again, my poor understanding of the language, clearly.

Explanations are not justifications. There is some overlap between them, of course, but they can be distinct.

 

[Raoul]

Ha, because you've gone personal let's do this:
1. I apologise, when one reads things like "The reality of the situation is that each and every civil liberty of these people has been taken from them. That coupled with the subjugation and dehumanisation they face on a daily basis, plus the indiscriminate killings and violence they suffer means that they either have to suffer in silence and die or at least fight back." one could begin to think perhaps said 'fighting back' is being 'justified'. That must be my poor handling of the language.
2. No disagreement there.
3. I'm not sure all of Israel wants that, but certainly the far right fringe does.
4. Not one post is justifying Hamas actions. "Hamas didn't appear in a vacuum, nor did the events of the 7th happen in a vacuum. They're a direct response to Israeli brutality and aggression." Again, my poor understanding of the language, clearly.
5. No disagreement there.
6. Utterly absolving all responsibity of the Arab world on the two-state conundrum is naive at very best, deliberately obtuse I'd say.
7. Totally agree, it's immoral, it's horrible and the world should be looking to fix it. I despise Netanyahu, hate what the settlers do and have dreaded what the reaction to October 7th would be.

My position is very simple: Israel's treatment of Gazans is abhorrent, and it should be condemned for it. Other powers - including the Arab ones that happily ignore it - should be considering this a major issue of any foreign policy agenda. Israel's reaction to October 7th is disgusting, irrational, unnecessary, predictable and deplorable. I've said this over and over.

BUT. What Hamas did on October 7th did more to damage the lives of Gazan Palestinians than anything in the last 15 years. On top of that, it was barbaric and brutal in a way that fortunately virtually no conflicts on Earth are anymore. And because an organisation acted in that way, I do judge it, as an organisation, regardless of the situation that led to it.

I think you'll find that many are reluctant to go negative on Hamas because they view them as a necessary counterweight to Israeli power in the area. This is why you keep hearing the "history didn't begin on 10-7" line; it allows them to tacitly frame Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel as a legitimate act of a longer term dispute between both sides, without the moral inconvenience of having to admit that it was actually Hamas' actions a month ago that has led to the current invasion of Gaza and every knock on effect such an invasion would entail.

 

[JPRouve]

I think you'll find that many are reluctant to go negative on Hamas because they view them as a necessary counterweight to Israeli power in the area. This is why you keep hearing the "history didn't begin on 10-7 line", it allows them to tacitly link Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel as a legitimate act of a longer term dispute between both sides, without the inconvenience of admitting that it was actually Hamas' actions a month ago that has led to the invasion of Gaza and every knock on effect such an invasion would entail.

Who is reluctant to go negative on Hamas? Aren't they almost exclusively considered and labeled as a terrorist organization, you can't go more negative than that?

 

[Raoul]

Who is reluctant to go negative on Hamas? Aren't they almost exclusively considered and labeled as a terrorist organization, you can't go more negative than that?

I think there's a safe middle ground that @Beachryan explicated in his earlier post where one can fervently criticize Hamas for 10-7 and also be critical of the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli response.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

This is why you keep hearing the "history didn't begin on 10-7" line; it allows them to tacitly link Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel as a legitimate act of a longer term dispute between both sides, without the moral inconvenience of having to admit that it was actually Hamas' actions a month ago that has led to the current invasion of Gaza and every knock on effect such an invasion would entail.

I think the reason you keep hearing the line "history didn't begin on 10-7" is because history, in fact, did not begin on 10-7.

 

[Beans]

I think you'll find that many are reluctant to go negative on Hamas because they view them as a necessary counterweight to Israeli power in the area. This is why you keep hearing the "history didn't begin on 10-7" line; it allows them to tacitly frame Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel as a legitimate act of a longer term dispute between both sides, without the moral inconvenience of having to admit that it was actually Hamas' actions a month ago that has led to the current invasion of Gaza and every knock on effect such an invasion would entail.

I've never heard anyone call Hamas a necessary counterweight.

Surely you understand that Palestinians have a justified grievance, with a long history.

What makes Israeli apartheid acceptable when South African apartheid had to be stopped, boycotted, et cetera?

 

[Raoul]

I think the reason you keep hearing the line "history didn't begin on 10-7" is because history, in fact, did not begin on 10-7.

It didn't begin on 9/11 either, but it was a major inflection point that ultimately led to the demise of the attackers. That's what 10/7 was as well and it will have a similar result.

The other part the "history didn't begin on 10/7" line omits is that the power dynamic in the Israeli-Hamas relationship is lopsidedly on the side of the Israelis. Therefore, a Hamas attack tacitly promotes the expected Israeli response.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

It didn't begin on 9/11 either, but it was a major inflection point that ultimately led to the demise of the attackers. That's what 10/7 was as well and it will have a similar result.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the last month was a major inflection point that will ultimately lead to the demise of the attackers.

 

[Raoul]

I've never heard anyone call Hamas a necessary counterweight.

Surely you understand that Palestinians have a justified grievance, with a long history.

What makes Israeli apartheid acceptable when South African apartheid had to be stopped, boycotted, et cetera?

Except that they don't represent all Palestinians. They represent themselves and their own militant objectives, and have very little to show in the way of progress and stability in their 17 years in Gaza; this latest situation being the exclamation mark on a calamitous nearly 2 decade run that has culminated in their own demise and the total obliteration of the Gaza strip.

 

[The Corinthian]

Ha, because you've gone personal let's do this:
1. I apologise, when one reads things like "The reality of the situation is that each and every civil liberty of these people has been taken from them. That coupled with the subjugation and dehumanisation they face on a daily basis, plus the indiscriminate killings and violence they suffer means that they either have to suffer in silence and die or at least fight back." one could begin to think perhaps said 'fighting back' is being 'justified'. That must be my poor handling of the language.
2. No disagreement there.
3. I'm not sure all of Israel wants that, but certainly the far right fringe does.
4. Not one post is justifying Hamas actions. "Hamas didn't appear in a vacuum, nor did the events of the 7th happen in a vacuum. They're a direct response to Israeli brutality and aggression." Again, my poor understanding of the language, clearly.
5. No disagreement there.
6. Utterly absolving all responsibity of the Arab world on the two-state conundrum is naive at very best, deliberately obtuse I'd say.
7. Totally agree, it's immoral, it's horrible and the world should be looking to fix it. I despise Netanyahu, hate what the settlers do and have dreaded what the reaction to October 7th would be.

My position is very simple: Israel's treatment of Gazans is abhorrent, and it should be condemned for it. Other powers - including the Arab ones that happily ignore it - should be considering this a major issue of any foreign policy agenda. Israel's reaction to October 7th is disgusting, irrational, unnecessary, predictable and deplorable. I've said this over and over.

BUT. What Hamas did on October 7th did more to damage the lives of Gazan Palestinians than anything in the last 15 years. On top of that, it was barbaric and brutal in a way that fortunately virtually no conflicts on Earth are anymore. And because an organisation acted in that way, I do judge it, as an organisation, regardless of the situation that led to it.

On 1&4 - you're conflating explanation for justification. It's a convenient get-out clause for an individual to try and link the two together but they're not the same.

On 2 - Israel does want that, and the government of Israel has already said that. We've also had Bibi present a map a month ago which showed 'Greater' Israel as having all of the Gaza and the WB to themselves.

On 6 - why does a 2 state solution need the Arab world's input? It's another tactic of lumping Palestinians in as 'Other Arabs' despite them having their own distinct culture, dialect, and heritage. Yes, they are Arabs, and there should be some considerations for Arab stakeholders, but the parties that can actually make a 2 state solution work is Israel, the Palestinians, and the US.

On 7 - you 'dread' what the reaction will be based on Oct 7...despite that same behaviour having occured year on year in the West Bank before Oct 7th. Do you see what I'm getting at? This never started with Oct 7th, and Oct 7th was just another flashpoint in a long bloody line of flashpoints that you can trace back to 75 years ago.

This crowbarring of Oct 7th as the starting point is disingenuous. I also find your phrasing here especially strange, "BUT. What Hamas did on October 7th did more to damage the lives of Gazan Palestinians than anything in the last 15 years. On top of that, it was barbaric and brutal in a way that fortunately virtually no conflicts on Earth are anymore. And because an organisation acted in that way, I do judge it, as an organisation, regardless of the situation that led to it."

Gazan Palestinians live under a blockade - by most neutral accounts, it's deemed an open air prison. They aren't allowed to move other than the small strip of land they're given, their water, fuel, electricity, and wages are all at the whim of a fascist, racist government, and they're living in squalor. Do you know the reality of living like that? Especially for that amount of time? The WB are living in what has been described as apartheid. Again, what do you think day to day is like for them?

Your whole post can be summarised as "yea they live in a shit situation and they should suffer in silence."

The other part on what Hamas did - there are literally countless examples before October 7th of Israel being as barbaric, and as savage as Hamas. The reality is, Hamas and the Israeli government are both sides of the same coin - in their MO, their rhetoric, and their actions. We just don't have a military superpower cosying up to Hamas like they do with the Israeli government.

I'd encourage you to read up on and understand the reality of life over there prior to October 7th. The UN Sec Gen got it spot on when he said it didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Kaos]

I think you'll find that many are reluctant to go negative on Hamas because they view them as a necessary counterweight to Israeli power in the area. This is why you keep hearing the "history didn't begin on 10-7" line; it allows them to tacitly frame Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel as a legitimate act of a longer term dispute between both sides, without the moral inconvenience of having to admit that it was actually Hamas' actions a month ago that has led to the current invasion of Gaza and every knock on effect such an invasion would entail.

1) No one is shy of condemning Hamas, and certainly no one has glorified or endorsed them. Its a silly myth that for some reason is still being perpetuated here. Can we bin this strawman please?

2) Questioning the length of the lens of which this conflict is observed (ie 10.7) again isn't absolving Hamas nor does it justify their actions. What it does is offer some much needed context beyond the US-Israeli open and close defence of Israel merely defending itself and fighting terror. The fact you used 9/11 to embolden your point is unfortunate considering the aftermath of that was a textbook example of how not to react.

 

[JPRouve]

I think there's a safe middle ground that @Beachryan explicated in his earlier post where one can fervently criticize Hamas for 10-7 and also be critical of the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli response.

That post was as far from the middle ground as you can be. It pretends that nearly everyone didn't criticize Hamas for 10-7 which is a lie and a frankly crass one, it's shameful to call that middle ground or even a good post. People have consistently criticized Hamas and labeled them as a terrorist organization. But apparently if you point out that Israeli extremists and IDF are part of the equation for peace and that they need to be judged properly then what you said about Hamas disappear or can be distorted.

 

[Raoul]

That post was as far from the middle ground as you can be. It pretends that nearly everyone didn't criticize Hamas for 10-7 which is a lie and a frankly crass one, it's shameful to call that middle ground or even a good post. People have consistently criticized Hamas and labeled them as a terrorist organization. But apparently if you point out that Israeli extremists and IDF are part of the equation for peace and that they need to be judged properly then what you said about Hamas disappear or can be distorted.

A post critical of both sides is by definition balanced. Now, on the other hand, if one is only interested in posts that are critical of Israel, whilst absolving Hamas of any responsibility, then I can see how one would feel such a post wouldn't be balanced.

 

[Beachryan]

On 1&4 - you're conflating explanation for justification. It's a convenient get-out clause for an individual to try and link the two together but they're not the same.

Go ahead and articulate the difference then, in this exact context. By explaining the conditions which created Hamas, by constantly posting tweet after tweet of Israeli atrocities, by 'explaining' just how barbaric the Israeli occupation is you thus explain why October 7th happened. It is the result of previous action. It is explained.

If one therefore uses these explanations to show that previous action was the causation of it, how is that not justifying it?

 

[The Corinthian]

A post critical of both sides is by definition balanced. Now, on the other hand, if one is only interested in posts that are critical of Israel, whilst absolving Hamas of any responsibility, then I can see how one would feel such a post wouldn't be balanced.

There's no balance on this situation because the situation isn't balanced in any shape or form.

You post quite a lot in the Russia - Ukraine thread, are your posts balanced or are they, rightly, overwhelmingly on the side of Ukraine who is being invaded by a stronger military force?

 

[JPRouve]

A post critical of both sides is by definition balanced. Now, on the other hand, if one is only interested in posts that are critical of Israel, whilst absolving Hamas of any responsibility, then I can see how one would feel such a post wouldn't be balanced.

No it's not balanced because the target is other posters. Who in this thread absolved Hamas of any responsibility? Who is only focused on criticizing Israel? If anything what we have seen in this thread is a lot of pushback on putting any responsibility on Israel with the very common idea that Israel has/had no other options and also with the attempt to limit the context from 7/10 to today.

Otherwise just tell us who in this thread has not condemned Hamas and labeled them as a terror organization? Who absolved them of any responsibility?

 

[Kaos]

Go ahead and articulate the difference then, in this exact context. By explaining the conditions which created Hamas, by constantly posting tweet after tweet of Israeli atrocities, by 'explaining' just how barbaric the Israeli occupation is you thus explain why October 7th happened. It is the result of previous action. It is explained.

If one therefore uses these explanations to show that previous action was the causation of it, how is that not justifying it?

Hamas didn't exist prior to 1987, yet a Palestinian resistance did, one of which was secular. When the peaceful and less militant approach appeared futile, desperate Palestinians opted for more extreme measures. That's not a justification for any faction, but merely an explanation of how these developments transpired. See the difference? Another example being the Iraq war - which turned the country into a hotbed for extremists when previously they have virtually zero presence - again you wouldn't take this as an endorsement of said factions.

Let me ask you this - what would be the appropriate response in analysing this conflict? To simply declare Hamas to be despicable cnuts and claim the Palestinians have blown it and be done with it?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Raoul brought up 9/11.

To me, we are in the Iraq War stage of the post 9/11 reaction. The things that are happening are driven by interests and relationships that far predate the inciting incident and are only somewhat connected to it. We reach a point where we can no longer consider the incident the cause.

Israel officials have talked pretty openly about displacing millions of Palestinians, while also killing and displacing Palestinians in the West Bank. The current leader of Israel, who has been critical in the past of the Gaza disengagement plan, is now talking about occupying Gaza indefinitely. To me it is clear that 'October 7th' is subsumed in a greater conflict by now.

Others, of course, may disagree.

 

[Raoul]

1) No one is shy of condemning Hamas, and certainly no one has glorified or endorsed them. Its a silly myth that for some reason is still being perpetuated here. Can we bin this strawman please?

2) Questioning the length of the lens of which this conflict is observed (ie 10.7) again isn't absolving Hamas nor does it justify their actions. What it does is offer some much needed context beyond the US-Israeli open and close defence of Israel merely defending itself and fighting terror. The fact you used 9/11 to embolden your point is unfortunate considering the aftermath of that was a textbook example of how not to react.

Unfortunately, there has been little condemnation of Hamas for obvious reasons. Condemning them would morally undercut and shift the spotlight away from, the free Palestine movement. We had the attacks a month ago and the narrative almost immediately shifted towards rationalizing it under the banner of "open air prison", "living under apartheid" etc. There was an astonishing lack of compassion for Israelis, because doing so would've shifted the focus from the pro-Palestinian position.

The 9/11 comparison is quite appropriate on many levels given the comparative loss of life with 10/7, where the Israelis lost about 6x as many people on an adjusted basis; and the overwhelming response from both sides that ultimately killed the perpetrators, and will likely do the same in this case.

 

[The Corinthian]

Go ahead and articulate the difference then, in this exact context. By explaining the conditions which created Hamas, by constantly posting tweet after tweet of Israeli atrocities, by 'explaining' just how barbaric the Israeli occupation is you thus explain why October 7th happened. It is the result of previous action. It is explained.

If one therefore uses these explanations to show that previous action was the causation of it, how is that not justifying it?

Do me a favour, and check my post history in this thread - I've been posting pretty much since I got access to this part of the forum, about Israel's barbarity and the way their enabled to act that way by a fascist government. A long time before October 7th.

So this idea I'm posting tweet after tweet just since October 7th is way beyond the mark.

Secondly, do you know the context in which Hamas was created? It's why I encouraged you to read up on this prior to October 7th - there have been peaceful calls for a 2 state solution from the Palestinian side throughout the years. There was even a 'Great March of Return' in Gaza a few years ago which was a non-violent protest near the Gaza border in which Israelis killed over 200 Palestinians, and intentionally maiming much of the Palestinian youth there.

What do you think Palestinians should do? I'm genuinely all ears as to what you think they should do.

I'm also a little confused you're glossing over the many posts from the pro-Israeli posters that are justifying ethnic cleansing, and genocide. I mean you've done it yourself.

 

[Beachryan]

Let me ask you this - what would be the appropriate response in analysing this conflict? To simply declare Hamas to be despicable cnuts and claim the Palestinians have blown it and be done with it?

I think acknowledging that Hamas has written itself out of the future is important. The most realistic (and this is now a stretch) solution would have to involve a new government of Gaza, perhaps even some kind of extension of the leadership of the West Bank. A body like the UN would have to, initially, take over Gaza and somehow remove the Hamas presence. I've no idea how that would work, given the tunnel systems and impossiblity of urban warfare. Said UN peacekeeping force would also have to sign-off on (attempting to) ensure no violence is taken across the border on Israelis.

Israel should be forced to pull back settlements to some agreed level - though clearly not the 1947 borders as that is simply impossible now, and holding out for that will the Palestinians nowhere.

Blockades should be removed, freedom of movement restored and so forth towards an actual solution.

But all of that is now predicated on removing Hamas. Because Isreal cannot now work with Hamas. And I cannot fathom how you remove an organisation like that.

 

[Kaos]

Unfortunately, there has been little condemnation of Hamas for obvious reasons. Condemning them would morally undercut and shift the spotlight away from, the free Palestine movement. We had the attacks a month ago and the narrative almost immediately shifted towards rationalizing it under the banner of "open air prison", "living under apartheid" etc. There was an astonishing lack of compassion for Israelis, because doing so would've shifted the focus from the pro-Palestinian position.

The 9/11 comparison is quite appropriate on many levels given the comparative loss of live with 10/7, where the Israelis lost about 6x as many people on an adjusted basis; and the overwhelming response from both sides that ultimately killed the perpetrators, and will likely do the same in this case.

So we've upgraded from complete absolution to 'little condemnation' which is progress I guess. But I have to ask - what's the appropriate response then? What's adequate condemnation? Do you deem it only appropriate if we siphoned all our energy into condemning Hamas with complete fervour while blinding ourselves to the contextual backdrop? Did you expect this thread to be nothing but all of us declaring how despicable Hamas were and pretending this entire conflict exists in a vacuum with no understanding as how any of these horrors came to be?

And yes the 9/11 comparison is still an unfortunate one. The perpetrators were killed a decade after the attacks, but not before entire countries (some of which had no involvement in the attacks) were destroyed and hundreds of thousands were killed, and plunging an entire region into chaos and instability. If we consider that to be an appropriate benchmark for which to model a response, then I don't know what to say.

 

[Raoul]

Let me ask you this - what would be the appropriate response in analysing this conflict? To simply declare Hamas to be despicable cnuts and claim the Palestinians have blown it and be done with it?

The appropriate response would be to condemn the Hamas attacks and acknowledge that the overall existence and practices of Hamas in Gaza has brought all of the death and destruction we are seeing in Gaza today. The Israelis should likewise also be condemned for their "shoot first, think later" approach of bombing the hell out of Gaza, as opposed to a traditional counterinsurgency. They should also be condemned for the appalling behavior of settlers killing and intimidating Palestinians in the WB. Both sides should be apportioned responsibility for their actions, which is a good starting point from which to proceed.

 

[Beachryan]

The appropriate response would be to condemn the Hamas attacks and acknowledge that the overall existence and practices of Hamas in Gaza has brought all of the death and destruction we are seeing in Gaza today. The Israelis should likewise also be condemned for their "shoot first, think later" approach of bombing the hell out of Gaza, as opposed to a traditional counterinsurgency. They should also be condemned for the appalling behavior of settlers killing and intimidating Palestinians in the WB. Both sides should be apportioned responsibility for their actions, which is a good starting point from which to proceed.

There, it's not so hard is it And thanks for the backup on here.

 

[Kaos]

I think acknowledging that Hamas has written itself out of the future is important. The most realistic (and this is now a stretch) solution would have to involve a new government of Gaza, perhaps even some kind of extension of the leadership of the West Bank. A body like the UN would have to, initially, take over Gaza and somehow remove the Hamas presence. I've no idea how that would work, given the tunnel systems and impossiblity of urban warfare. Said UN peacekeeping force would also have to sign-off on (attempting to) ensure no violence is taken across the border on Israelis.

Israel should be forced to pull back settlements to some agreed level - though clearly not the 1947 borders as that is simply impossible now, and holding out for that will the Palestinians nowhere.

Blockades should be removed, freedom of movement restored and so forth towards an actual solution.

But all of that is now predicated on removing Hamas. Because Isreal cannot now work with Hamas. And I cannot fathom how you remove an organisation like that.

There's some merit to what you're saying here but I disagree with one fundamental point - Israel isn't just incapable of working with Hamas, they're incapable of working with the Palestinians for a lasting peace, nor have they historically been seen to. Take Hamas out of the equation - you still have an occupation (again, this precedes Hamas' genesis), you still have the settler terrorism and colonisation in the WB (a region where Hamas has close to zero influence and presence), and you still have a dogmatically compromised US, that enables and absolves Israel, evidently showing no desire to arbitrate a peaceful process in a way thats both fair and inline with the international consensus.

 

[The Corinthian]

The appropriate response would be to condemn the Hamas attacks and acknowledge that the overall existence and practices of Hamas in Gaza has brought all of the death and destruction we are seeing in Gaza today. The Israelis should likewise also be condemned for their "shoot first, think later" approach of bombing the hell out of Gaza, as opposed to a traditional counterinsurgency. They should also be condemned for the appalling behavior of settlers killing and intimidating Palestinians in the WB. Both sides should be apportioned responsibility for their actions, which is a good starting point from which to proceed.

Bombing the hell out of Gaza and killing and intimidating the Palestinians in the West Bank has happened and has been happening for decades. It's why starting the conversation at October 7th is such a narrow minded way to frame the conversation. It's a flashpoint, but the actions of the Israelis hasn't changed because of it. If you were a child born in Gaza in 2009, you would have already lived through 16(!) separate incidents of Israelis bombing the shit out of Gaza.

So, what would be your appropriate response to Israel's actions prior to October 7th?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The appropriate response would be to condemn the Hamas attacks and acknowledge that the overall existence and practices of Hamas in Gaza has brought all of the death and destruction we are seeing in Gaza today. The Israelis should likewise also be condemned for their "shoot first, think later" approach of bombing the hell out of Gaza, as opposed to a traditional counterinsurgency.

Raoul, maybe this is just semantics, but I don't see how Hamas can "bring all the death and destruction we are seeing today" and for there to be any space left to condemn Israel. Condemn them for... the deaths that Hamas brought?

 

[Kaos]

The appropriate response would be to condemn the Hamas attacks and acknowledge that the overall existence and practices of Hamas in Gaza has brought all of the death and destruction we are seeing in Gaza today. The Israelis should likewise also be condemned for their "shoot first, think later" approach of bombing the hell out of Gaza, as opposed to a traditional counterinsurgency. They should also be condemned for the appalling behavior of settlers killing and intimidating Palestinians in the WB. Both sides should be apportioned responsibility for their actions, which is a good starting point from which to proceed.

Do you realise how dangerous a precedence this sets? It was Israel who decided the best way to take out a terror organisation was to indiscriminately bomb a city, killing thousands in the process, and displacing millions. At what point is it acceptable to start holding them culpable? Once a million are dead? Once the entire city is ethnically cleansed? Or have we decided that whatever consequences this point on, no matter the human cost or scale of suffering inflicted by those in the position of power, are infinitely the fault of Hamas?

As for this balanced condemnation towards Israel - there was practically none prior to this terror attack, not only that but they were protected and absolved from any condemnation of it. What makes you think that'll change now or after Hamas are gone?

 

[Raoul]

Bombing the hell out of Gaza and killing and intimidating the Palestinians in the West Bank has happened and has been happening for decades. It's why starting the conversation at October 7th is such a narrow minded way to frame the conversation. It's a flashpoint, but the actions of the Israelis hasn't changed because of it. If you were a child born in Gaza in 2009, you would have already lived through 16(!) separate incidents of Israelis bombing the shit out of Gaza.

So, what would be your appropriate response to Israel's actions prior to October 7th?

October 6th ? To my recollection, there was no bombing campaign. The previous, occasional tit for tat rocket attacks which were met by Israeli bombing responses seemed to be the status quo and certainly in no way justified 10-7 (and that includes the alleged Hamas justification for Israelis going into al-aqsa).

 

[Kaos]

October 6th ? To my recollection, there was no bombing campaign. The previous, occasional tit for tat rocket attacks which were met by Israeli bombing responses seemed to be the status quo and certainly in no way justified 10-7 (and that includes the alleged Hamas justification for Israelis going into al-aqsa).

So we conveniently ignoring the Palestinian status quo then? The occupation, the settler terrorism, the WB apartheid, the suffocating Gaza blockade? Where was the appropriate condemnation and action in response to that? Or do we just consider that to be a palatable status quo.