That question is only relevant if you think Israel could do literally anything in Gaza because Hamas started it. Do you really believe that? Could the IDF torture Gazan children and you would blame Hamas?
Would it be happening if Hamas hadn’t started a war?
Then it’s Hamas’ fault.
Moderating:
This is attacking the poster. Knock it off.
The things Israel and the IDF do are the responsibility, and fault (of things go badly) of Israel and the IDF. This isn’t a radical statement. That Israel and the IDF are doing exactly what Hamas wanted is the fault of Israel and the IDF.
You meant the comment section on a tumblr post? Sure, could be dyed-in-the-wool antisemites. Could be also be pimply 13 year old edgelords. I wouldn’t read anything into them.
Not anymore.
The USA and the UN and Israel came up with a peace plan. Hamas has rejected it.
He did not go into specific details about the changes, but he continued to cast exclusive blame for the stalling of the deal – and the prolonging of the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza – on the US-designated terrorist group, not on Israel. “Israel accepted the proposal as it was,” he reiterated,…“Hamas could have answered with a single word – yes,” he said.
“At some point in a negotiation – and this has gone back and forth for a long time – you get to a point where if one side continues to change its demands, including making demands and insisting on changes for things that it had already accepted, you have to question whether they’re proceeding in good faith or not,” Blinken said in reference to Hamas.
“It’s time for the haggling to stop and a ceasefire to start. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
Hama has refused to accept a fair and reasonable peace plan. But why should Hamas want peace anyway? Yes, the palestinians in Gaza certainly want peace, but Hamas has grown wealthy over stealing aid and selling it to their own people.
Hamas has now shown they dont give a crap for the Palestinian people. They want the suffering and killing to continue. Every death in Gaza that happens from now on is their fault.
It was never in question that Hamas doesn’t care about Palestinian lives. This is a revelation to no one, and it shouldn’t change the equation at all. More carnage helps Hamas. Israel shouldn’t be helping Hamas, but they are, and Netanyahu has been helping Hamas for over a decade.
Then removing them from power should be the priority of any sane individual.
Sounds good to me. Hopefully Israel and the IDF will stop helping them.
I do not deny that Netanyahu is a crook and a horrible leader. But all Hams had to say was “yes” and the war would be over.
Until next time, of course.
Except the protestors , who seem to want to protect Hamas.
How does Israel go about removing Hamas from power then? It is clear the the people of Palestine cant- or even wont.
There are no easy answers, but right now Israel is probably making more militants than they’re killing. This carnage helps no one but Hamas, and I suppose Netanyahu, since it further delays his political reckoning.
But that is now just an excuse to justify anything Israel chooses to do to Palestinians. “Hamas is bad, so as long as you can’t or won’t get rid of Hamas, we’re allowed to do whatever we want to you.” It’s not a policy proposal for meaningful change: it’s just a get-out-of-jail-free card for abusing the status quo.
As long as Israel continues to deny Palestinians rights and sovereignty in their land, and to treat Palestinian lives as disposable, it is not reasonable to expect Palestinians to trust Israel more than they trust Hamas. Palestinians aren’t stupid, and they know perfectly well that Hamas is bad for Palestinians as a people. But they also know that Israel is worse for Palestinians as a people.
Getting rid of Hamas would make things better for Israel, definitely. But it won’t make things fundamentally better for Palestinians, because Israel has no intention of recognizing Palestinian rights and sovereignty, whether Hamas is in or out of the picture. Israel is committed to retaining control over Palestinian lands and Palestinian actions, Hamas or no Hamas, and Palestinians are aware of that.
Then the war continues.
[quote=“Kimstu, post:4167, topic:991317”] Getting rid of Hamas would make things better for Israel, definitely. But it won’t make things fundamentally better for Palestinians, because Israel has no intention of recognizing Palestinian rights and sovereignty, whether Hamas is in or out of the picture.
[/quote]
We dont know that. We do know that Israel is against being attacked by terrorists.
However, it would make things better for the Palestinians as then they could agree to this fair peace deal. If hamas refuses any peace deals, what can israel do even if it wanted to?
We have a metric shit-ton of evidence for it: to take just one example, in the gratuitous establishment of what’s now over three-quarter of a million Israeli settlers in occupied Palestinian territories. No responsible occupying power would have countenanced, much less encouraged, such a thing if their goal was simply temporary occupation for security purposes rather than long-term territorial expansion and resource takeover.
Well, sure; and as noted above, there doesn’t seem to be anybody either in this thread or anywhere in the mainstream commentariat who objects to that.
The point, though, is that the Israeli government has now entrenched itself in the position “as long as there are any terrorists to attack us, then that justifies us in doing any atrocities and oppressions we see fit”. Thereby ensuring both an eternally renewed supply of Palestinian terrorism recruits enraged about all the atrocities and repressions, and a permanent hall pass for Israel’s indefinitely continued denial of Palestinian rights on the basis of eternally renewed attacks.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any of that excuses or justifies Hamas or other Palestinian terrorists in committing terror attacks, no matter what the provocation. I’m just saying that pretending that “just get rid of Hamas” is a meaningful good-faith proposed solution to the problem isn’t really fooling anybody any more.
Yep- that is one way Israel reacts to terrorism.
or the terrorists-“as long as there are any Jews, then that justifies us in doing any atrocities and oppressions we see fit”.
But Hamas should have accepted the peace deal, They could have accepted the peace deal. That is on them, and them alone.
It is not a legitimate way to react to terrorism. If a violent criminal shoots and injures me, for example, I’m not entitled to “react” to that crime by taking over the house of the shooter’s mother and kicking her out into the street and declaring it’s my house now.
Like I said: the point of this exercise, from the dominant Israeli right wing’s point of view, is not primarily obtaining peace, and certainly not undertaking the long-overdue recognition of Palestinian rights. It’s simply about propaganda opportunities to reinforce the message that “no matter what Israel does to Palestinians, anything whatever, it is all the fault of Hamas and only Hamas should be blamed for it, Israel bears no responsibility for its own choices and actions.”
Terrorism from Gaza means commit your own state-sponsored terrorist attacks in the West Bank? Ok, sure, that’s a way to respond. But it makes you a terrorist, too.
And they’re condemned by everyone here.
And no one here cries when a Hamas terrorist dies. Doesn’t justify bombing marketplaces and schools with no terrorists in them.
And Hamas gets stronger, and Israel gets weaker.
(I did warn you that you’d be disappointed.)
Of course. But like I said, it inspired the question of whether certain phrases and beliefs were 100% signs of antisemitism or whether they could honestly be used by people who did not hate Jews.
For example, I can understand “death to Israel” and “Hamas are freedom fighters,” but I wasn’t aware of why one would think that “Israel has no right to self defense,” nor what that means about their view on the Jewish people in general. I can certainly guess (seeing as how in my example, comments condemn Bernie Sanders as being pro Israel for saying they do have a right to self defense), but I’m not sure. Same with “from the river to the sea.” I know that at least one group has said it’s antisemitism, but I see it used often enough that I wondered if it was a widely accepted determination.