Israel Hamas War XI -- Foggier and Foggier

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Likud is garbage, but they didn't allow or encourage Hamas to come to power. They didn't even come to power until Hamas had already won elections and seized Gaza from Fatah.

Yeah, stupid...uh...Times of Israel and their revisionist history:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

Quote

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Yeah, stupid...uh...Times of Israel and their revisionist history:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

 

The TOI journalist's argument is ridiculous. No doubt Netanyahu is a shit who only cares about himself. But he had no option to prevent aid into Gaza, which is the infusion she is disingenuously referring to. Furthermore, even Kerry and several sources around him and the 2014 negotiations have acknowledged how far Netanyahu was willing to go to negotiate a 2 state solution based on 67 borders with Abbas, which was thwarted by Abbas forming a unity gov with Hamas when voting on the last stage of the prisoner release was delayed.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The TOI journalist's argument is ridiculous. No doubt Netanyahu is a shit who only cares about himself. But he had no option to prevent aid into Gaza, which is the infusion she is disingenuously referring to. Furthermore, even Kerry and several sources around him and the 2014 negotiations have acknowledged how far Netanyahu was willing to go to negotiate a 2 state solution based on 67 borders with Abbas, which was thwarted by Abbas forming a unity gov with Hamas when voting on the last stage of the prisoner release was delayed.

But the ToI are not the only ones saying this. It’s virtually everywhere, including direct quotes from Netanyahu himself talking about how strengthening Hamas was “good” for them.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The TOI journalist's argument is ridiculous. No doubt Netanyahu is a shit who only cares about himself. But he had no option to prevent aid into Gaza, which is the infusion she is disingenuously referring to. Furthermore, even Kerry and several sources around him and the 2014 negotiations have acknowledged how far Netanyahu was willing to go to negotiate a 2 state solution based on 67 borders with Abbas, which was thwarted by Abbas forming a unity gov with Hamas when voting on the last stage of the prisoner release was delayed.

So it's disingenuous to say that Israel's policy towards Hamas was not, as the article indicates, to keep them around and encourage divisions between them and the PA?

And it's disingenuous to say that Israel's policy towards rocket attacks from Hamas has been to only attack the sources of the rockets but do nothing to stop further Hamas action?  

The above is a really interesting framing of Netanyahu's viewpoint (from the wiki):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process#:~:text=On 3 September 2014%2C Abbas,East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital.

Quote

 

The negotiations were scheduled to last up to nine months to reach a final status to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by mid-2014. The Israeli negotiating team was led by veteran negotiator Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, while the Palestinian delegation was led by Saeb Erekat, also a former negotiator. Negotiations started in Washington, DC[74] and were slated to move to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and finally to Hebron.[75] A deadline was set for establishing a broad outline for an agreement by 29 April 2014. On the expiry of the deadline, negotiations collapsed, with the US Special Envoy Indyk reportedly assigning blame mainly to Israel, while the US State Department insisting no one side was to blame but that "both sides did things that were incredibly unhelpful."[76]

Israel reacted angrily to the Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement of 23 April 2014 whose main purpose was reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, the formation of a Palestinian unity government and the holding of new elections.[77] Israel halted peace talks with the Palestinians, saying it "will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for Israel's destruction", and threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority,[78][79] including a previously announced Israeli plan to unilaterally deduct Palestinian debts to Israeli companies from the tax revenue Israel collects for the PA.[80] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Abbas of sabotaging peace efforts. He said that Abbas cannot have peace with both Hamas and Israel and has to choose.[81][82] Abbas said the deal did not contradict their commitment to peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution[83] and assured reporters that any unity government would recognize Israel, be non-violent, and bound to previous PLO agreements.[84] Shortly after, Israel began implementing economic sanctions against Palestinians and canceled plans to build housing for Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank.[85] Abbas also threatened to dissolve the PA, leaving Israel fully responsible for both the West Bank and Gaza,[86] a threat that the PA has not put into effect.[87]

Notwithstanding Israeli objections and actions, the new Palestinian Unity Government was formed on 2 June 2014.[88]

 

 

[Bael's Bastard]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Netanyahu is literally the leader of the Israeli government and he and his party have been in power for almost two decades. He literally represents the majority view of Israelis. 

Hamas is an unelected government in one part of the areas Palestinians are.

You're right to say that it isn't a fair comparison - it is far more accurate to lump Israelis with Netanyahu than it is to lump Palestinians with hamas.

He definitely doesn't represent the majority view of Israelis. Maybe not even the majority view of Israeli Jews. He has been able to cobble together coalitions for a decade and a half never winning more than 30% of the vote. Hamas won 44% of the proportional Palestinian vote compared to 41% for Fatah, and 40% of the district vote compared to 35% by Fatah and 20% by independents.

Hamas was elected by both Gazan and WB Palestinians. They were only able to seize Gaza. It is fair to say Palestinian society is divided between Hamas, Fatah, and "IDK," or that they won a plurality rather than a majority, but it is bullshit to act like openly genocidal Jew-hating Hamas wasn't elected comfortably in both Gaza and the WB, and their most heinous actions are not widely supported in both Gaza and WB.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

He definitely doesn't represent the majority view of Israelis. Maybe not even the majority view of Israeli Jews. He has been able to cobble together coalitions for a decade and a half never winning more than 30% of the vote. Hamas won 44% of the proportional Palestinian vote compared to 41% for Fatah, and 40% of the district vote compared to 35% by Fatah and 20% by independents.

Netanyahu has been able to get a coalition and by rule he is the leader of that coalition. That coalition represents a majority of Israelis. This isn't rocket science, and saying that just because Likud isn't a majority means he isn't is an obvious falsehood. And until October 7th the majority of Israelis supported either Likud or parties that were actually MORE to the right of Likud, so if anything Netanyahu is a bit on the side of moderate for that coalition. 

I get that you don't like him, but Netanyahu has been a fairly reasonable amalgamation of Israeli majority viewpoints for almost 20 years now as evidenced by his continued elections and ability to form governments. Israelis have had plenty of opportunity to kick him and his party out, and they have not done so. The one time Israel possibly had a chance to do so they failed to form a government, which led to Netanyahu coming back and being even more right-wing. Not a great bit of evidence saying that Israelis don't support that!

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Hamas was elected by both Gazan and WB Palestinians.

In 2006.

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

They were only able to seize Gaza. It is fair to say Palestinian society is divided between Hamas, Fatah, and "IDK," or that they won a plurality rather than a majority, but it is bullshit to act like openly genocidal Jew-hating Hamas wasn't elected comfortably in both Gaza and the WB

They were not elected comfortably in both Gaza and the WB; they won 40% of the overall vote. 

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

, and their most heinous actions are not widely supported in both Gaza and WB.

Now that is actually pretty accurate, which is what I said before. 

But it's also bullshit to argue that Israel's most heinous actions - illegal settlements, detaining Palestinians without trial or representation, killing civilians and journalists without any repercussions - are also not widely supported in Israel. As I've said repeatedly most of the Israeli parties support repression of Palestinians, they do not support any two-state solution or one-state solution, they do not support integration, they do support continued settlement, and they support the current West Bank occupation and behaviors. Saying that Israelis don't support this is not an accurate statement nor is it backed by evidence.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Hamas is an unelected government in one part of the areas Palestinians are.

Hamas was elected and it should speak to the beliefs of many Palestinians that they supported a group that's platform was in part kill the Jews. 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 Again I will note that the Israeli army took over the hamas hq (they said) without dropping any bombs, and took the place without any reported deaths and either minimal or no civilian casualties. Israel has already shown they have this capability.

Not really. Hamas fled if you believe they had a HQ there. The bombing likely played a large role in that. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hamas was elected and it should speak to the beliefs of many Palestinians that they supported a group that's platform was in part kill the Jews. 

Sure! But that was in 2006. And they were elected on a policy that did not support that and supported being far more moderate. 

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. Hamas fled if you believe they had a HQ there. The bombing likely played a large role in that. 

There wasn't any bombing in the Al-Shifa area though. That's sort of the point. Israel avoided most of that. They bombed quite heavily in a lot of other areas. Israel also said they killed a number of Hamas there too in the ground assault, so the idea that they fled is not fully accurate. 

And again we have a whole lot of evidence that this is not a required way of dealing with enemies like Hamas. The US - probably the world's leading expert on insurgencies, invading Middle East countries and dealing with war - thinks that Israel is fucking this up. 

Do you actually have evidence that wars like this look like this always? I've provided a bunch of examples in the past about how this is not accurate - we have things like Mosul or Fallujah in recent years as examples of fighting in heavily urban environments and not having mass civilian casualties as a result of the bombing or of the sieges - but you've provided nothing save a reference to an ethnic cleansing simulator.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure! But that was in 2006. And they were elected on a policy that did not support that and supported being far more moderate. 

You can't say they weren't elected and then admit they were, but that was in the past. And yes, they were clear about their views long before they were elected, when they were elected and that of today. It's always been the same. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You can't say they weren't elected and then admit they were, but that was in the past. And yes, they were clear about their views long before they were elected, when they were elected and that of today. It's always been the same. 

I don't consider a government that dramatically changed after getting into office and directly went against things they said they'd not do which ALSO hasn't had an election in 17 years to be elected.

And no, it hasn't always been the same. They campaigned under the title 'Change and reform'. Polling at the time that elected Hamas had these results:

Quote

 

An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:

Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition

Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%

Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%

Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%

Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemployment

Support for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%

Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%

Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%

Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[36]

 

Now, a VERY big reason that Hamas won was because Palestinians were tired of the incompetence and corruption of the Fatah party and Abbas, but the way they capitalized on this was to say publicly they were going to seek peace with Israel and focus entirely on corruption and gang fighting. 

And...here's the bitterly hilarious part. This might have actually worked, if it wasn't for the US under Bush stepping in and trying to first force the issue with an election when Fatah was not doing very well, and then arming Fatah and encouraging them to oust Hamas.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't consider a government that dramatically changed after getting into office and directly went against things they said they'd not do which ALSO hasn't had an election in 17 years to be elected.

And no, it hasn't always been the same. They campaigned under the title 'Change and reform'. Polling at the time that elected Hamas had these results:

They never changed. Hamas always has advocated for armed resistance against Israel. This is basically like saying a known anti-abortion judicial nominee changed their views during the confirmation process when everyone knew what they believed before and how they'd act after.

And this:

Quote

Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%

Is as meaningless as a right track/wrong track poll because change can mean anything. You could say you want Hamas to soften its policies, I could say I want them to be more harsh, we both want change. 

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They never changed. Hamas always has advocated for armed resistance against Israel. This is basically like saying a known anti-abortion judicial nominee changed their views during the confirmation process when everyone knew what they believed before and how they'd act after.

That is probably reasonable, but in this case it's kind of a big deal because Hamas' goals towards Israel were not at the time what those people were voting for. 

Really, the primary goal was to get rid of Fatah and the corruption, so a lot of the vote wasn't precisely pro-Hamas as it was anti-Fatah, but the big point here was that Hamas wasn't running on a primarily 'fight Israel' platform. They weren't being elected because they were more against Israel than Fatah was (and Fatah at the time largely had the same viewpoints). 

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And this:

Is as meaningless as a right track/wrong track poll because change can mean anything. You could say you want Hamas to soften its policies, I could say I want them to be more harsh, we both want change. 

It's not particularly meaningless, especially if you look at the context involved and what people were saying then. Heck, you took that out of context and ignored the part where almost 80% polled wanted a peace agreement with Israel! I don't think it's a reasonable idea to take that viewpoint without being willfully ignorant and obtuse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That is probably reasonable, but in this case it's kind of a big deal because Hamas' goals towards Israel were not at the time what those people were voting for. 

Really, the primary goal was to get rid of Fatah and the corruption, so a lot of the vote wasn't precisely pro-Hamas as it was anti-Fatah, but the big point here was that Hamas wasn't running on a primarily 'fight Israel' platform. They weren't being elected because they were more against Israel than Fatah was (and Fatah at the time largely had the same viewpoints). 

Eh, this is like someone in FL arguing they voted for a member of the KKK because they liked how they wanted to deal with corruption and the python problem in the Everglades. You still voted for someone who was open about being in the KKK. 

Quote

It's not particularly meaningless, especially if you look at the context involved and what people were saying then. Heck, you took that out of context and ignored the part where almost 80% polled wanted a peace agreement with Israel! I don't think it's a reasonable idea to take that viewpoint without being willfully ignorant and obtuse.

Because it's vague. 80% wanted a peace agreement while a plurality voted in a party that again was not for one. No one should be surprised that people support one thing and vote for a party totally opposed to it, even when it might be the thing they want most. 

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

But it would be difficult to hold new elections during the war.

Why?

Genuine question. It is certainly difficult for Ukraine to hold elections due to the war, for example. But here, I don't see the problem. The only real reason it would be difficult that I can see if the belief that it would be difficult, which politically has become a truism, but I can't see that other than the political belief, there is an actual practical reason.

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

 

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, and I think the sustained bombing is misguided for several reasons. That said, the only other real option to dismantle Hamas would be a full ground invasion and that too would be heavily criticized. Israel didn't have any good options and were caught flatfooted. 

They had better options.  They could have taken the time to come up with better options.  The US response to 9/11, or Israel's response to Munich, there are examples of terrorism being handled with more thought and planning.  And you'd think that limiting the radicalization of future terrorists would play into that calculus.  

My point being, that saying "they had to do something" to explain the response to the Oct. 7 attack is obvious at best, but when used to justify or rationalize it, it is just plain wrong.  Because the implication is they didn't have other options.  Beyond that, it's a logical mess.  You can explain anything by saying "they had to do something ". 

This idea that "you can't have it both ways" is founded on the false premise that there were no other effective choices.

[TrueMetis]

15 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

 

 

They had better options.  They could have taken the time to come up with better options.  The US response to 9/11, or Israel's response to Munich, there are examples of terrorism being handled with more thought and planning.  And you'd think that limiting the radicalization of future terrorists would play into that calculus.  

My point being, that saying "they had to do something" to explain the response to the Oct. 7 attack is obvious at best, but when used to justify or rationalize it, it is just plain wrong.  Because the implication is they didn't have other options.  Beyond that, it's a logical mess.  You can explain anything by saying "they had to do something ". 

This idea that "you can't have it both ways" is founded on the false premise that there were no other effective choices.

Which is just fucking astonishing given what a shit show that ended up being, and also another example of "they had to do something when... no they didn't. Doing literally nothing would have been a better outcome that what ended up happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Also, and I know that this is going to piss people right off, but just "armed resistance against Israel" isn't a problem. They're an occupying force, killing their soldiers is fine actually. Bunch of ya'll are American how can not get this? It's the specific method they use that is the issue, the attacking civilians and calling for genocide, if they stuck to military targets then there would be no real ground to condemn them.

Like I know this is something of a quibble because Hamas very much did not *just* advocate armed resistance against Israel, but I have to reject the idea that doing so alone would be something to condemn.

Edited November 29, 2023 by TrueMetis

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

But here, I don't see the problem.

There shouldn't be a real problem, as, judging by the interviews All Things Considered has been doing with Israeli soldiers-- almost none of which are seeing combat, who come home for R&R on the Med, and clean laundry, food, seeing family and friends, relaxing, the war per se isn't IN Israel at all. "It's good to be where things are normal," said one.  Even the ATC people are rather taken aback, and couldn't help mention that for Palestinians, w/o food, water, medications, nowhere to go to be safe, it was quite a contrast.

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, this is like someone in FL arguing they voted for a member of the KKK because they liked how they wanted to deal with corruption and the python problem in the Everglades. You still voted for someone who was open about being in the KKK. 

Because it's vague. 80% wanted a peace agreement while a plurality voted in a party that again was not for one. No one should be surprised that people support one thing and vote for a party totally opposed to it, even when it might be the thing they want most. 

To be perfectly blunt, the material conditions of someone living in Florida and someone living in the occupied territories are so different that it really can't be compared.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

They had better options.  They could have taken the time to come up with better options.  The US response to 9/11, or Israel's response to Munich, there are examples of terrorism being handled with more thought and planning. 

Dude, they took nearly 250 hostages and quickly threatened to kill them. You can't just wait when that's the case, especially after they also killed well over a thousand people. This is pretty evident now considering many hostages are god knows where and will probably never be recovered.

Quote

And you'd think that limiting the radicalization of future terrorists would play into that calculus.  

This is where Israel really fucked up. Obviously it's easy to play MMQB, but they never should have cut off the water and allowed food and aid in and done a much better job at precision bombing. It would have never been perfect, however, that doesn't justify many of their actions.

32 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

To be perfectly blunt, the material conditions of someone living in Florida and someone living in the occupied territories are so different that it really can't be compared.

You've clearly never lived in FL. 

But in all seriousness, once you pick a side you have to live with the awful things they do, especially when they tell you about them. 

[GrimTuesday]

Netanyahu just posted this

This is the translation for those who don't want to go onto twitter to translate it

Quote

Tonight, the cornerstone is laid in the Gaza Strip for the settlement "Ofir" named after the former head of the Negev Gate Council, the late Ofir Liebstein, who was murdered by Hamas. Ofir was a leader, a man of the Land of Israel, a man of construction, a man of settlement. Children will grow up here And girls who will be educated about his contribution, his heroism and his sacrifice. We will restore the settlements, expand the settlements and add more settlements. The wheat will grow again.

Edit: I'm seeing some people saying the translation is not entirely correct and this settlement is actually in what is called the Gaza Envelope which is in southern Israel surrounding Gaza. I'm leaving this here in case other folks see it on twitter.

Edited November 30, 2023 by GrimTuesday