…That is meant as a joke, right?
What Hamas does is not ‘resistance’. But as long as there are Westerners willing to continue making that excuse in the face of people swooping down in hangliders to rape teenagers at a music festival, why should Hamas change their behavior? The incentives are all aligned to keep going.
Only when the world makes it clear that no matter how many “brave acts of rapesistence” Hamas performs on the Israeli population, Palestine will never be “Arab from the River to the Sea” (Min el-maiyeh lel mayieh, Falasteen Arabiya) will there actually be an incentive for them to change tactics, put down their rockets and their AKs, and accept a two state solution.
…my thoughts on ICE and American police would be a suitable and interesting topic for another thread if you want to start it.
I really don’t want to spend the next few days arguing about comparative blame, justifications, etc., but to keep it short, you feel the new leaders of Hamas are at least less involved, less responsible, or less likely to repeat the horrors of October 7th, or any other prior attacks during times of relative peace.
Or at least, that’s how I read this section:
I disagree. Yes, many of the leaders behind that particular operation are gone, I do not believe that those that remain would disavow them, or not repeat them given time and opportunity. If anything, given the reprisals and excesses of Bibi’s government, I suspect them to be further entrenched in their hatred and desire for obliterating their enemy.
So, I disagree with the fundamental premise that forcing Israel alone (since you keep asking me about my concerns about dual responsibility) to abide by terms that there will be lasting peace.
I fully agree with the next section as well:
I disagree though with the next piece:
You’re wrong. Oh, I exaggerate for comical effect, but I do see, and have seen for decades shared responsibilities. Going back to the PLO era, there were good faith efforts on both sides to try to find an compromise that could be lived with, and several times, such initiatives were tanked by people on their own side, hardliners of either stripe.
So, again, reading from the regions history, these current actions have justified or not created a new generation that will hate for a lifetime - they are very unlikely to ever settle for an equal peace. So, and back to Hamas again, they, or perhaps a splinter group will take a portion, giving willingly or by force, any funds to be used for the Palestinian people to re-arm, build forces, and attack again even IF Israel is bound by international pressure to abandon their attacks, indiscriminate and otherwise.
So again, I believe (being pragmatic, jaded, realpolitik, take your choice) that for a generation at least, peace needs to be evenly enforced on both sides, where Palestinian militants need to be stopped and judged from carrying out their own indiscriminate (if not always effective) attacks on Israelis, and similarly, settler aggression and IDF abuse (general term, but including rape, murder, torture, too many to list all by either group) on the same basis.
Now, once again, I don’t blame you for disagreeing on the shared responsibility, or a faith in new Palestinian leadership being able to make a real change. I just don’t agree with it.
If anything, I think you’re likely more an idealist than I, which can be admirable. I just draw very different conclusions on how the situation can and will be resolved.
And the point of the original hypothetical was to focus back on some of the fundamental disagreements rather than the over-specific arguments in the thread: what specific responses or actions are proportionate, or justified, or excusable. I think that’s the wrong place to argue from. We need to find something that works to reduce the harm first, to prevent justifiable or not violent response, and then build towards a lasting peace and a possible future where both sides cooperate (probably grudgingly) or at least take no active violent actions against the other.
…this is a strawman.
My argument isn’t that “forcing Israel alone” is the way forward.
My argument is that there are two sides at the table, and one side is in compliance with the ceasefire, and the other is actively committing ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Both sides need to abide by the terms. But one side IS abiding by the terms. And the other side is not. We should not treat these as equal.
I believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. My belief is shared by every single major reputable humanitarian agency in the world and a broad consensus of genocide and Holocaust scholars. There is an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice, which has issued interim orders in order to prevent genocide.
There aren’t “two sides” to an ongoing genocide. You are looking for a compromise. I think we should be looking to end the genocide. Then we need to end the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Then we need to end the Isreali torture chambers. Then we need to end the illegal occupation of Palestine.
THEN we can start looking for compromise.
I can’t see how we start with compromise when the cards are all stacked on the other side. Gaza is destroyed. The West Bank lives under apartheid. Thousands of Palestinians are being tortured as we speak. What should they be compromising on?
My question to you again is, “Do you not think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?” Because if you don’t think that’s happening, how would you characterize it?
…I’m not talking about Hamas.
So quote the portion of the Guardian piece in which they report that the facts justify Israel’s failure to prosecute. I’ll wait.
I already quoted the article. The Guardian would not make such an editorial comment in a news article.
The article makes no characterization of the Israeli officials’ assertions. Just like it often reports Trump’s statements (even when they’re lies, as they usually are). They are not reporting that the assertions are accurate – they are only reporting that the assertions were made.
If you’re unable to show a single quote justifying your trust of these Israeli officials’ assertions, then I stand by what I said. You haven’t provided anything at all to refute it.
No should it. It quoted them, and checked the facts.
I am not putting trust in them, I am putting trust in the Guardian and several other reliable News Sources, noted for their fact checking. Now you are asking me to fly to Israel and check the fact myself, no one needs to do that- you trust certain media sources.
This is ridiculous. You quote VERY dubious news sources, then when others quote reliable, trusted unbiased News sources, you wont accept them.
The Guardian did not “check” and support any facts that refuted what I said. If you disagree, show me the specific quote. It shouldn’t be hard – the article is short.