What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[icehorse]

Three-state solution

Right! And notice that Jordan and Egypt don't have to give up any land and Palestinians don't get a homeland, just different bosses.

 

[Copernicus]

If we really want justice and long lasting peace, I think we have to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. One example would be to carve out land for Palestinians that includes a bit of Jordan and a bit of the Sinai, Gaza, and a bit of southern Israel.

Everyone has some skin in the game, not just Israel.

Palestinians are not Egyptian or Jordanian. In fact, about 20% of the Israeli population consists of Palestinians. I think that the Palestinian situation is really primarily an Israeli problem to deal with, not Jordanian or Egyptian. Jordan has already assimilated a large population of Palestinian refugees, and they would strain to absorb any more Palestinians than Israel does. The majority of Israelis seem to want their country to remain primarily a Jewish state rather than a truly multi-ethnic nation.

I just don't see any easy solution for the problem, but locking up two million Palestinians in Gaza and pretending that they are not a ticking time bomb clearly isn't a solution either. Large numbers of Jews and Palestinians hate each other simply because of which side they belong to, and they see the solution as possible only after settling scores that never actually get settled by either side. The only thing that people seem able to agree on is that there are too many competing solutions and none that seem able to transcend the regional animosities.

Maybe the three-state solution is the best option, but I suspect that it would run up against a wall of opposition in the Knesset. What would happen to all of those Israeli settlements? Jordan doesn't seem anxious to add all of those Palestinians to its already saturated population.

 

[icehorse]

Palestinians are not Egyptian or Jordanian. In fact, about 20% of the Israeli population consists of Palestinians. I think that the Palestinian situation is really primarily an Israeli problem to deal with, not Jordanian or Egyptian. Jordan has already assimilated a large population of Palestinian refugees, and they would strain to absorb any more Palestinians than Israel does.

Well "Jordanian" is a term that was made up 100ish years ago, as was the country called "Jordan". And Palestinians (also kind of a recently made up term) have traditionally lived in portions of "Jordan" and portions of Egypt. (And Egypt's borders have not been stable throughout history.)

So I'm not proposing that Jordan take on more refugees. (And, btw, can you explain the concept of "refugees" living in camps for 4 generations?)

I'm proposing that Jordan give back a little of the land that literally fell into its lap 100ish years ago. I'm also proposing that Israel give up it's land in the SE corner of Israel and that Egypt give up a bit of the Sinai peninsula. In exchange, Israel gets the WB.

The majority of Israelis seem to want their country to remain primarily a Jewish state rather than a truly multi-ethnic nation.

fwiw, Israel is BY FAR the most multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation in the ME.

 

[Copernicus]

Well "Jordanian" is a term that was made up 100ish years ago, as was the country called "Jordan". And Palestinians (also kind of a recently made up term) have traditionally lived in portions of "Jordan" and portions of Egypt. (And Egypt's borders have not been stable throughout history.)

Well, if you want to play that game, Israel didn't even have that status a hundred years ago. In fact, Jordan has been an independent nation two years longer than Israel. National borders in the world today are all fictional, if you go back far enough. They certainly don't look anything like the national borders that existed when all of those revered holy scriptures were originally authored. This isn't about where ethnic populations existed historically or about where some pieces of those ethnic groups have lived. And it would do well for people to stop tossing around the label "antisemitic" without taking into account that both Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages. Arabs also consider themselves descendants of Abraham. And lets not forget that there are indigenous Christians living there, too. We'll all go mad if everyone has to decide national boundaries on the basis of history and ethnicity.

So I'm not proposing that Jordan take on more refugees. (And, btw, can you explain the concept of "refugees" living in camps for 4 generations?)

Are you Jordanian? Don't they get a say in any of this? Refugees are a well-understood concept, and Jordanians are well aware of where, when, why all those Palestinians ended up moving from God knows where to Jordan in 1948, when Israel became a sovereign nation for the first time.

I'm proposing that Jordan give back a little of the land that literally fell into its lap 100ish years ago. I'm also proposing that Israel give up it's land in the SE corner of Israel and that Egypt give up a bit of the Sinai peninsula. In exchange, Israel gets the WB.

Take it up with the Jordanian and Egyptian governments. What appears like a reasonable solution to you may have a different impression on them. And I'm assuming that you want Israel to keep all of those settlements in the West Bank that make the Palestinian areas look like an archipelago on maps.

Here is the ethnic distribution in a one-state solution might look like:

fwiw, Israel is BY FAR the most multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation in the ME.

Possibly. I don't actually know that for a fact. In any case, so what? It could be a lot more multi-ethnic than it is. But I'm just a foreigner sitting off in a country far away, so I don't think my ideal solution has any standing here. I've only visited Israel once for a few days, but I did wander into East Jerusalem once and get escorted out by some reasonably polite Palestinians. So I guess that makes me slightly more knowledgeable of what it's like than most Americans.

 

[icehorse]

Well, if you want to play that game, Israel didn't even have that status a hundred years ago. In fact, Jordan has been an independent nation two years longer than Israel. National borders in the world today are all fictional, if you go back far enough. They certainly don't look anything like the national borders that existed when all of those revered holy scriptures were originally authored. This isn't about where ethnic populations existed historically or about where some pieces of those ethnic groups have lived.

I'm just zooming out and doing a thought experiment. I agree with what you've said above.

But what I'm sure we've all heard - over and over again - is how "Israel" is living on stolen land, when exactly the same holds true for Jordan and a big chunk of the ME. By no means am I holding Israel as faultless - far from it. But I also do not think there will be lasting peace if neighbors in the region do not budge.

Take it up with the Jordanian and Egyptian governments. What appears like a reasonable solution to you may have a different impression on them. And I'm assuming that you want Israel to keep all of those settlements in the West Bank that make the Palestinian areas look like an archipelago on maps.

Well of course Jordan and Egypt would not accept this idea without a lot of compensation (if at all). That said, the solution I'm proposing tackles the problem that neither Israel nor Palestine should look like an archipelago. I think that maps that look like swiss cheese will never offer a lasting peace My proposal ends up with two geographically cohesive states with minimal gerrymandering.

 

[Kenny]

I'm just zooming out and doing a thought experiment. I agree with what you've said above.

But what I'm sure we've all heard - over and over again - is how "Israel" is living on stolen land, when exactly the same holds true for Jordan and a big chunk of the ME. By no means am I holding Israel as faultless - far from it. But I also do not think there will be lasting peace if neighbors in the region do not budge.

An additional problem when people say Israel stole the land... one first ask, "How"? i thought the United Nations gave it to them. Of course, that could go round and round too...

But who stole what from whom? Did the British take it from the Ottomans? Did the Ottomans steal it from the Media/Persians? Who stole it from the Romans who stole it from the Jews who stole it from the Canaanites of which Abraham lived in and probably had children who were born in Canaan?

So who does it belong to?

What I find interesting is this:

These are BILLIONS... where is it going? Not for the people but rather for Hamas and/or Hezbollah to buy armaments. Not because Israel has a desire to attack nor is it for defense since there are no real enemies. No, it is because of their mantra of "Eradicate all Jews / Little Satan".

If they would invest in infrastructure, agriculture, business et al, they would have a thriving self-ruling country,.

 

[Little Dragon]

"What Israel did is a justified response to war crimes."
"So, you think killing civilians can be justified?"

What Israel has done, so far, is understandable. If not considered ethical or moral or legal. In my view.
Given the recent horrors inflicted up them by Hamas terrorists.

Should Israelis have superhuman patience?

Do you think they're superhuman?

I don't, I think they're human. I think they're humans experiencing shock tragedy and fury. Responding militarily in ways that they believe is necessary to protect themselves from future massacres.

Hamas was all about killing civilians.

The IDF will be all about killing Hamas fighters.

That's the real difference. The former are barbaric cowards shooting unarmed families and rave goers, the latter are soldiers, exterminating armed terrorists in the streets and tunnels.

Israel will end the war that Hamas started. People like you, will then hopefully fall silent, and save your terrorist sympathizing whataboutism, for another time.

 

[Little Dragon]

says the crown prince of virtue signaling, ha!

I sense salty tears...

 

[Little Dragon]

"So, you think killing civilians is justified if you believe it will protect your homeland?"
"Yes."

This is a very simplistic representation of everything I've said on this thread.

Yes I would do anything to protect my nation and country, from total destruction and or enslavement.

I would do anything necessary, tactical and strategic, to achieve that end. Out of desperation and out of other options.

However I would not ever condone that we carry out targeted attacks to specifically massacre and kidnap innocent civilians.

I might press the red button, if my nation had just been struck with nukes. I would kill many millions. I might order a city that manufactures missiles, to be razed to the ground, a city housing thousands, if necessary.

I would only do these terrible things, if it was absolutely necessary for the immediate survival and safety of my people.

Not in any reality, was doing what Hamas did just recently justifiable on any strategic or tactical let alone moral, level. It was not necessary to protect the people of Palestine, from immediate and total destruction. By doing what they did.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm just zooming out and doing a thought experiment. I agree with what you've said above.

But what I'm sure we've all heard - over and over again - is how "Israel" is living on stolen land, when exactly the same holds true for Jordan and a big chunk of the ME. By no means am I holding Israel as faultless - far from it. But I also do not think there will be lasting peace if neighbors in the region do not budge.



Well of course Jordan and Egypt would not accept this idea without a lot of compensation (if at all). That said, the solution I'm proposing tackles the problem that neither Israel nor Palestine should look like an archipelago. I think that maps that look like swiss cheese will never offer a lasting peace My proposal ends up with two geographically cohesive states with minimal gerrymandering.

I don't think that you have come up with a solution that has eluded the best minds who have tried to come up with a solution to the problem. It is a very complex one, because the cycle of violence and revenge has been going on for a very long time there--since David Ben-Gurian and the Haganah executed Plan Dalet in 1948 to bring about the modern Israeli state. Some historians call that action defensive, others offensive. Some call it ethnic cleansing. Among academics, it's a controversial subject, but we can unwind the violence all the way back to that event, which itself had a history of ethnic tensions dating from 1937, when the Jewish population worried about what would happen after the British left. Before 1948, the majority of people living in what is now modern Israel, were Palestinian Arabs, not European or Sabra Jews.

Now we have a situation in 2023, where the dense Palestinian population of Gaza is run by a government that is openly terrorist and full of hatred for Israel. They launch a devastating attack on the Israeli civilian population, murdering innocent people and taking hostages. The Israeli government, unlike Hamas, is not a terrorist organization. Or is it? What is the difference?

The current path Israel is on appears to be largely a revenge attack on the civilian population of Gaza. The water supply from Israel to Gaza was cut off for 48 hours, but only restored after strong pressure from the US. The civilian population in northern Gaza has been given an impossible 24 hours to flee, and the Israeli Defense Force is poised to invade. Egypt has sealed its border even tighter, fearing an overwhelming flow of humanity from Gaza. The Israeli government is not a terrorist organization, but one has to keep asking what is the difference between it and the terrorists it now threatens to exterminate? It keeps wavering between a thirst for payback and a desire to behave better than those Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel so brutally. Will acting worse than Hamas stop the violence or lead to a solution? Will it finally settle the score or just run up a bigger score to be settled against it in the future?

In the face of all this hatred and revenge, I don't know what solution will work, but I am pretty sure that a military solution will not work. Those caught up in the cycle of violence will be lucky to find a diplomatic one.

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't think that you have come up with a solution that has eluded the best minds who have tried to come up with a solution to the problem. It is a very complex one, because the cycle of violence and revenge has been going on for a very long time there--since David Ben-Gurian and the Haganah executed Plan Dalet in 1948 to bring about the modern Israeli state. Some historians call that action defensive, others offensive. Some call it ethnic cleansing. Among academics, it's a controversial subject, but we can unwind the violence all the way back to that event, which itself had a history of ethnic tensions dating from 1937, when the Jewish population worried about what would happen after the British left. Before 1948, the majority of people living in what is now modern Israel, were Palestinian Arabs, not European or Sabra Jews.

Now we have a situation in 2023, where the dense Palestinian population of Gaza is run by a government that is openly terrorist and full of hatred for Israel. They launch a devastating attack on the Israeli civilian population, murdering innocent people and taking hostages. The Israeli government, unlike Hamas, is not a terrorist organization. Or is it? What is the difference?

The current path Israel is on appears to be largely a revenge attack on the civilian population of Gaza. The water supply from Israel to Gaza was cut off for 48 hours, but only restored after strong pressure from the US. The civilian population in northern Gaza has been given an impossible 24 hours to flee, and the Israeli Defense Force is poised to invade. Egypt has sealed its border even tighter, fearing an overwhelming flow of humanity from Gaza. The Israeli government is not a terrorist organization, but one has to keep asking what is the difference between it and the terrorists it now threatens to exterminate? It keeps wavering between a thirst for payback and a desire to behave better than those Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel so brutally. Will acting worse than Hamas stop the violence or lead to a solution? Will it finally settle the score or just run up a bigger score to be settled against it in the future?

In the face of all this hatred and revenge, I don't know what solution will work, but I am pretty sure that a military solution will not work. Those caught up in the cycle of violence will be lucky to find a diplomatic one.

Sometimes, there are no good options.

 

[Copernicus]

Sometimes, there are no good options.

Exactly. That is the usual outcome of any act of violence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but I'd say not in isolation. If we're really gonna have a long lasting peace we must also blame other regional forces...

So, we can't acknowledge any human rights violations in isolation unless we address literally all human rights violations?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What Israel has done, so far, is understandable. If not considered ethical or moral or legal. In my view.
Given the recent horrors inflicted up them by Hamas terrorists.

By the exact same logic, would you not say that what Hamas did was understandable, if not considered moral or legal?

Why are you applying this logic so selectively?

Should Israelis have superhuman patience?

I would prefer they did not commit war crimes. I'm not sure how patience comes into it.

Do you think they're superhuman?

No. I think their government are war criminals.

I don't, I think they're human. I think they're humans experiencing shock tragedy and fury. Responding militarily in ways that they believe is necessary to protect themselves from future massacres.

Deliberately threatening the lives of millions of civilians is "necessary to protect themselves" from future massacres?

Again, this is selective reasoning. You're willing to give endless benefit of doubt to the war crimes committed by Israel, but reserve no such consideration by war crimes committed by Hamas. Your logic in inconsistent.

Hamas was all about killing civilians.

And yet, your entire argument is that it is "understandable" to threaten and kill civilians if you believe you have a strong enough justification for it. By your logic, what Hamas did is no worse than what Israel is doing.

The IDF will be all about killing Hamas fighters.

Once again, you ignore the fact that what I am talking about is the literal war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza that threaten the lives of 2.3 million CIVILIANS. I have explicitly stated that a military response TO HAMAS is justified, but that war crimes against CIVILIANS is not. Right now, Israel is COMMITTING WAR CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS (and has been doing so for decades). Why won't you address that?

That's the real difference. The former are barbaric cowards shooting unarmed families and rave goers, the latter are soldiers, exterminating armed terrorists in the streets and tunnels.

Both are killing civilians using historical injustices and killings as a pretext. Both, by your logic, are justified.

Israel will end the war that Hamas started. People like you, will then hopefully fall silent, and save your terrorist sympathizing whataboutism, for another time.

I am not the one arguing that killing civilians is understandable. That's you. I have not once said anything even close to condoning what Hamas did, nor have I even once committed "whataboutism". I have been very clear in my argument: the rhetoric you are using to justify Israel's response to Hamas by committing war crimes is no different to the justification used by Hamas to commit their acts of barbarity. That has been my point from post one, and for you to call me a "terrorist sympathiser" just proves that you are disingenuous and incapable of self-reflection.

How dare you accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser when you literally believe that threatening millions of civilians is, apparently, totally fine and dandy if circumstances allow it. Hamas would love you.

Once again:

Hamas kill thousands: "We need to do anything necessary to protect our people!"
Israel threatens to kill millions: "Eh, understandable."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a very simplistic representation of everything I've said on this thread.

No, it's very much what you have said, unambiguously.

Yes I would do anything to protect my nation and country, from total destruction and or enslavement.

Like Hamas.

I would do anything necessary, tactical and strategic, to achieve that end. Out of desperation and out of other options.

Like Hamas.

However I would not ever condone that we carry out targeted attacks to specifically massacre and kidnap innocent civilians.

So, do you or do you not condemn Israel's war crimes against the people of Gaza?

I might press the red button, if my nation had just been struck with nukes. I would kill many millions. I might order a city that manufactures missiles, to be razed to the ground, a city housing thousands, if necessary.

Like Hamas.

I would only do these terrible things, if it was absolutely necessary for the immediate survival and safety of my people.

This is just jingoism, as what counts as "necessary for the immediate survival and safety of your people" is nebulous. If you burn down someone's house and kill their family, there's a chance they'll come for you and you'll justify then killing them for the "immediate survival and safety" of you and your family. But that doesn't address the injustice that YOU committed UPON THEM. The logic you're using is just as much a justification for the people coming to kill you as it would be for you to kill them, and it doesn't touch upon the root cause of the actual issue to begin with. Again, look at what Israel deems "absolutely necessary" in this context. Cutting off food, water and power to over 2 million people (almost half of whom are children). What part of that is any more "necessary" than what Hamas did?

You're literally arguing that, as long as you BELIEVE you have the justification to commit war crimes, it's fine to commit war crimes. What Hamas did was, at least notionally, justified BY THEM as being a response to immediate threats posed to them from Israel following seventy years of settler colonialism and war crimes against the Palestinian people. That is the justification THEY are using. It's identical to your logic here.

That's my point. Your logic justifies both Hamas terrorism and Israeli war crimes. You have no moral position, and you have no basis on which to condemn Hamas in the first place without committing to total hypocrisy.

Not in any reality, was doing what Hamas did just recently justifiable on any strategic or tactical let alone moral, level.

Not according to you. You believe that you can justify almost anything if you use the cloak of "the survival of my people". Israel is directly threatening the survival of the Palestinian people for decades, so - BY YOUR LOGIC - Hamas is justified in committing acts of terrorism.

I, on the other hand, don't think all acts of violence as justified by context, and I don't happen to believe that Hamas' motivations are intrinsically linked to the freedom of the Palestinian people. Nor do I believe that Israel's blockade of Gaza is a genuine response to Hamas, but merely an escalation of policies Israel has been engaging in for decades. Hamas committed their terrorist acts because they are violent, antisemitic Jihadists who believe escalating a holy war will bring them martyrdom, and use freedom for the Palestinian people as a convenient pretext to do so. The Israeli government, meanwhile, have been actively engaging in human rights abuses against the Palestinian people in Gaza intended to escalate tension and continue their operations of settler colonialism within controlled Palestinian territories, using the existence and terrorism of Hamas as a means to do so.

It was not necessary to protect the people of Palestine, from immediate and total destruction. By doing what they did.

It's not necessary to commit war crimes against the people of Gaza because of what Hamas did.

And yet, you don't care. Weird that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

By the exact same logic, would you not day that what Hamas did was understandable, if not consider moral or legal?

Why are you applying this logic so selectively?


I would prefer they did not commit war crimes. I'm not sure how patience comes into it.


No. I think their government are war criminals.


Deliberately threatening the lives of millions of civilians is "necessary to protect themselves" from future massacres?

Again, this is selective reasoning. You're willing to give endless benefit of doubt to the war crimes committed by Israel, but reserve no such consideration by war crimes committed by Hamas. Your logic in inconsistent.


And yet, your entire argument is that it is "understandable" to threaten and kill civilians if you believe you have a strong enough justification for it. By your logic, what Hamas did is no worse than what Israel is doing.


Once again, you ignore the fact that what I am talking about is the literal war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza that threaten the lives of 2.3 million CIVILIANS. I have explicitly stated that a military response TO HAMAS is justified, but that war crimes against CIVILIANS is not. Right now, Israel is COMMITTING WAR CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS (and has been doing so for decades). Why won't you address that?


Both are killing civilians using historical injustices and killings as a pretext. Both, by your logic, are justified.


I am not the one arguing that killing civilians is understandable. That's you.

How dare you accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser when you literally believe that threatening millions of civilians is, apparently, totally fine and dandy if circumstances allow it. Hamas would love you.

I can certainly understand the points made to condemn Israel but two things. Firstly, it was not inevitable that Hamas had to carry out this action - so, their choice. And secondly, when a group like Hamas tend to be cowards and hide within the civilian population to avoid being targeted, what options are open to Israel? Realistic ones that is, and that would satisfy the Israeli population.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can certainly understand the points made to condemn Israel but two things. Firstly, it was not inevitable that Hamas had to carry out this action - so, their choice.

I agree. That's not my argument - it's Little Dragon's argument that what Israel did in RESPONSE to Hamas was inevitable. I'm pointing out that, if it's logical to conclude that threatening civilians with war crimes is an inevitable outcome of Hamas terrorism, you could just as easily argue that Hamas terrorism is an inevitable outcome of Israeli foreign policy.

And secondly, when a group like Hamas tend to be cowards and hide within the civilian population to avoid being targeted, what options are open to Israel? Realistic ones that is, and that would satisfy the Israeli population.

I'm not a military tactician, so I'm not really at liberty to suggest solutions. I would say that committing war crimes against millions of civilians probably wouldn't be one of them, however.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree. That's not my argument - it's Little Dragon's argument that what Israel did in RESPONSE to Hamas was inevitable. I'm pointing out that, if it's logical to conclude that threatening civilians with war crimes is an inevitable outcome of Hamas terrorism, you could just as easily argue that Hamas terrorism is an inevitable outcome of Israeli foreign policy.


I'm not a military tactician, so I'm not really at liberty to suggest solutions. I would say that committing war crimes against millions of civilians probably wouldn't be one of them, however.

I must admit, I can't see any other way that Israel could have responded, given the singular atrocity committed. And as to such, how so many other nations would have reacted similarly. Hence why I place the blame squarely on Hamas even knowing the troubles between the two sides and neither being paragons of virtue.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I must admit, I can't see any other way that Israel could have responded, given the singular atrocity committed.

You can't see them responding any other way than with illegal blockades and cutting off power, food and water to millions of people?

Seriously?

And as to such, how so many other nations would have reacted similarly.

No. Acts of international terrorism happen all over the place. Not all of them lead to countries committing war crimes against the civilian populations of occupied territories.

Hence why I place the blame squarely on Hamas even knowing the troubles between the two sides and neither being paragons of virtue.

I can blame Hamas while still acknowledging that to respond to their actions by targeting the civilian population of Gaza is wrong, and a potential justification for further terrorist acts. This leaves out the fact that what Israel are doing in Gaza is not something new, it's just an ESCALATION of already existing policy. It's just doing one big war crime after decades of countless smaller ones.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can't see them responding any other way than with illegal blockades and cutting off power, food and water to millions of people?

Seriously?


No. Acts of international terrorism happen all over the place. Not all of them lead to countries committing war crimes against the civilian populations of occupied territories.


I can blame Hamas while still acknowledging that to respond to their actions by targeting the civilian population of Gaza is wrong, and a potential justification for further terrorist acts. This leaves out the fact that what Israel are doing in Gaza is not something new, it's just an ESCALATION of already existing policy. It's just doing one big war crime after decades of countless smaller ones.

I can't see them not retaliating with force, just as so many other countries would have done. The rest unfortunately comes along with such. Perhaps Hamas should have figured this into their 'calculations'. If not then they are being rather cynical - as to using the Gaza population as 'sob material' - that is, trying to manipulate public opinion in the easiest way possible, given we all hate innocent deaths. Hamas escalated the conflict - so they are actually the cynical ones. Why couldn't they find another way rather than showing their brutality and inhumane nature?