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

[Laurencio]

You can't "remove" Hamas from Gaza unless you kill everybody in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has been regularly bombing Gaza to smithereens for decades.

Hamas is first and foremost a resistance movement born from the Israeli occupation, just like Hezbollah. It was until 10/7 financed by Qatar, with Israel's blessing which used it as an excuse to torpedo the Palestinian Authroity and any peace talk. We can discuss about its methods, some of which are thoroughly condemnable and constitute war crimes, but a "terrorist organization" is an oversimplified and quite convenient explanation to delegitimize the Palestinian side and justify anything Israel does.

Colonization and occupation tend to have this effect on people. They're generally not okay with their land being stolen, constantly treated like dirt and killed like dogs. You can kill all of Hamas leaders, decimate its forces, destroy its equipment without ever getting rid of it. It will always reappear in one form or another.

That's the mistake every single colonial power makes: they think that they can kill their way to victory. That's why they always win battles but end up losing the war in the long run. Resistance movements don't need to win, they just need to survive.

It's never been a war. Hamas has no tanks, no air force, no artillery, no navy. It's not even a country. There are no battles. It's a one-sided massacre carried out by the most powerful country in the region with the civilian population as the primary target. With the full support of the US and the West who would never let it happen if it was any other country.

It's a 75 years long struggle for independence against an occupier who denied Palestinians any right to self-determination and has been stealing their land for decades, wih the firm intention of getting rid of them one way or another. The illegal settlement policy has never stopped since Israel was founded in 1948. Last July, the Israeli Knesset overwhelmingly voted a resolution against a two state solution, officialising what everybody knew for decades.

I will start of by saying, this is a great response and a great post. So thank you for that. I also largely agree with everything you are saying here, with a few exceptions.

You can't "remove" Hamas from Gaza unless you kill everybody in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has been regularly bombing Gaza to smithereens for decades.

I agree - another "Hamas" will replace the current one, that is inevitable. The strategy of "trimming the grass" unsurprisingly failed miserably. Israel took their eye of the situation and wound up in a security situation that allowed Hamas to complete the October7th attacks. It was almost inevitable that something like that would happen - and Hamas probably went a little further than they had planned. This is also why I don't think Netanyahu just stops because Sinwar is dead, and as long as he can hold the threat of "Hamas" as a rallying-banner, I don't think the west gets involved to the point they should to help Gazans.

And Hamas has every interest to stop this massacre. It's main intent was to destroy the Abrahma Accords, bring Palestine on the map and get as many hostages as possible to exchange against the Palestinian ones detained without judgment (you should read about administrative detention) in Israeli prison. Netanyahu has been the one constantly sabotaging any cease-fire deal.

I mostly agree. Netanyahu is unquestionably the biggest obstacle to peace. There was a proposal on the table where Hamas leadership was exiled from Gaza, but that was - rather naturally - rejected as fantasy. Unfortunately, I think that is what has to happen for Netanyahu to stop. I don't see a situation where an emboldened Netanyahu stops without total victory in some shape or form. "Hamas" as an organization is probably done. It feels like it's just a question of how long does the war have to last for him to get what he wants at this point.

There can be no surrender because it would change absolutely nothing to Israel's colonization policy and handling of the Palestinians. On the contrary, it would only make it easier as the world would sigh in relief and Palestine would disappear from the center of attention once again, and Israel resume what it's been doing in the last 75 years with the complicty and support of the West.

I think this is the point where we mostly differ actually. Because I agree it wouldn't change Isreal's colonization policy, but it would give breathing room for political opportunities and dissenting voices. The US was very close in getting the Saudis involved in negotiations for Palestinian independence in 2023 - that project was basically torpedoed by the aftermath of October 7th, and will take a long time to rebuild. I think it was the best plan for peace we have seen in 20 years, but of course it would have brought the Saudis closer to Israel too - which the Iranians aren't too keen on. Before this conflict, the "Biden policy (not actually his, but w/e)" to Palestine was considered a possible pathway to a two-state solution. Now however, after October 7th his handling of the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster.

In an effort to avoid igniting the region and being forced into a war with Iran he has given far too much support to Netanyahu in hopes that this would somehow make Netanyahu listen to calls for restraints. It was a strategy a lot of foreign policy experts and many of his own advisors were strongly against. I have no idea why he thought that would work - especially not in an election year with Trump breathing down his neck. He painted himself into a corner, and now he can't make any moves because Israel are basically threatening him with a war against Iran.

I get that surrender is "meaningless", I don't necessarily disagree in a larger strategic sense, but I think we are at a point where the needs of the population right now is more important. The number one priority right now should be to end the conflict so that Gaza can receive humanitarian aid. It won't "solve" anything, that isn't the point either, but when that happens a handful of political opportunities will open up - and some of them will be taken. A huge issue when dealing with extremism - in all forms - is that extremists tend to immanentize the eschaton. The idea that nothing matters other than the ultimate goal, it is a common theme in both jewish and islamic extremism. The idea that we are on a set path towards an inevitable result. Jurgensmeyer writes extensively about this in "Terror in the mind of God". The problem is, that it isn't true. Change and progress can happen, but it always next to impossible to see it while in the midst of conflict and unfortunately extremists tend to be born in conflict.

 

[Raoul]

The IDF are sharing this drone clip of Sinwar. There's nothing graphic in it for the record.

Assuming this is before a second overhead strike that landed him on the ground floor with massive hole in his head.

 

[That_Bloke]

Sending them to Egypt is a great plan because as history has shown, once a people are expelled from a land they always cut their ties and forget about the old country.

Of course, but with the annexation and ethnic cleansing of North Gaza, how are 1.8 million people going to live on half of a territory that already was the most densely populated in the word, without even taking into account the resources the Gazans will lose?

It's impossible.

If Israel has it its way and it pretty much looks like it, that's what will happen. What I've seen from Kamala Harris, let alone Trump, makes me strongly doubt that either of them would stand against it. The US will take note, tacitely acknowledge the fact, keep pumping billions and weapons, and the West will follow.

 

[Idxomer]

That's apart from what has been happening in Jabalia.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[E-mal]

Growing up they use to tell me ‘’ ‘’ is the devil and I did not believe it, guess I was wrong.

What a world we live in now, no remorse, no anger for the innocent folks in Palestine

 

[MoskvaRed]

This has to be the plan, given the destruction and death. I wouldn't put it past the US to throw billions at Egypt to get it to happen.

I’ve thought that since last December - the goal is ethnic cleansing. Most Israelis are descendants of Europeans and we all know how the modern, peaceful European borders were arrived at. The inconvenient “minority” (although 50% in this case) will be driven into Sinai and Jordan.

 

[Pintu]

The IDF are sharing this drone clip of Sinwar. There's nothing graphic in it for the record.

Why would they release this? Someone is very dumb or is deliberately trying to undermine Netanyahu’s narrative.

 

[That_Bloke]

I will start of by saying, this is a great response and a great post. So thank you for that. I also largely agree with everything you are saying here, with a few exceptions.

Thank you.

I mostly agree. Netanyahu is unquestionably the biggest obstacle to peace. There was a proposal on the table where Hamas leadership was exiled from Gaza, but that was - rather naturally - rejected as fantasy. Unfortunately, I think that is what has to happen for Netanyahu to stop. I don't see a situation where an emboldened Netanyahu stops without total victory in some shape or form. "Hamas" as an organization is probably done. It feels like it's just a question of how long does the war have to last for him to get what he wants at this point.

Most of the Hamas political leadership is already exiled in Qatar.

He won't. He wants them all dead, and it's just an excuse anyway.

No total victory can be achieved, unless you consider ethnic cleansing and genocide as a total victory.

I think this is the point where we mostly differ actually. Because I agree it wouldn't change Isreal's colonization policy, but it would give breathing room for political opportunities and dissenting voices. The US was very close in getting the Saudis involved in negotiations for Palestinian independence in 2023 - that project was basically torpedoed by the aftermath of October 7th, and will take a long time to rebuild. I think it was the best plan for peace we have seen in 20 years, but of course it would have brought the Saudis closer to Israel too - which the Iranians aren't too keen on. Before this conflict, the "Biden policy (not actually his, but w/e)" to Palestine was considered a possible pathway to a two-state solution. Now however, after October 7th his handling of the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster.

Where are those dissenting voices and which political opportunities are you talking about?

What plan are you referring to and where did you get that from?

In an effort to avoid igniting the region and being forced into a war with Iran he has given far too much support to Netanyahu in hopes that this would somehow make Netanyahu listen to calls for restraints. It was a strategy a lot of foreign policy experts and many of his own advisors were strongly against. I have no idea why he thought that would work - especially not in an election year with Trump breathing down his neck. He painted himself into a corner, and now he can't make any moves because Israel are basically threatening him with a war against Iran.

Biden is a racist and a lifelong zionist. His handling of the Middle-East comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with his ideology. All of his talks about cease-fire were just that, words. He never intended to set any red line to Netanyahu.

I get that surrender is "meaningless", I don't necessarily disagree in a larger strategic sense, but I think we are at a point where the needs of the population right now is more important. The number one priority right now should be to end the conflict so that Gaza can receive humanitarian aid. It won't "solve" anything, that isn't the point either, but when that happens a handful of political opportunities will open up - and some of them will be taken. A huge issue when dealing with extremism - in all forms - is that extremists tend to immanentize the eschaton. The idea that nothing matters other than the ultimate goal, it is a common theme in both jewish and islamic extremism. The idea that we are on a set path towards an inevitable result. Jurgensmeyer writes extensively about this in "Terror in the mind of God". The problem is, that it isn't true. Change and progress can happen, but it always next to impossible to see it while in the midst of conflict and unfortunately extremists tend to be born in conflict.

I don't know if you realize that the Palestinians truly are under existential threat. They're dealing with a supremacist ethno-state which final solution to the Palestinian question is to get rid of all of them. By any means necessary.

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria (the actual West Bank) will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan (River) there will only be Israeli sovereignty." (Art. 1 of the Likud Charter)

Religion plays its part but one must never lose sight from the fact that it's a struggle for independence above all else. And do you know how resistance in occupied territories and wars of independence unfold? You win or you disappear. There's no surrender, no in-between.

I understand where you're coming from and appreciate your thoughts, but they're not grounded in the reality of the situation.