• cannache@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think there are many people that are seriously pro hamas, just benign or neutral, in respect to the fact that one side which has a large collection of groups working together, the Israeli defense force and US government etc, etc yet has kind of made some blunders and has not played their cards very well.

    Even for the USA, after 9-11 and Iraq, when they moved ahead with invading Afghanistan, there was still an attempt to spend some time with negotiation and “state building” despite being seen across the world as barbarian invaders. See, the gift of being ignorant but having a lot of guns is that you don’t have as much weight on your shoulders if you screw up, the biggest project could be a highway, but for Israel, they’ve had a lot of international support and has had more than 50 yrs to resolve the Palestine question, I think it’s quite fair to say by now that they’re kind of bulldozing just to act like they have easy answers because they have an urban growth problem now more than an actual terrorism problem.

    Ironically the fact that they now have a terrorism problem is more a symptom of government incompetence than terrorists actually actively seeking to destroy the state of Israel

    To be blunt, even a Zionist here would understand that it’s not about being for or against the state of Israel having a right to exist, it’s about the issue of the IDF failing to resolve real issues with terrorists while essentially turning a blind eye to repeated problematic behaviours.

    • rivermonster@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I get your points and don’t disagree fully. But they have had a terrorism problem for a long, long time. If Hamas had not been blowing up civilians on busses, then Perez would have been elected, and chances of a 2 state solution would have been high (it was so close). Then, had Perez been elected, it is less likely Arafat would have walked away from the talks–which he did (effectively ending a possibility of 2 state from the Oslo accords).

      But Hamas did successfully put Netanyahu (a horrific war criminal) into power (remember he was losing until the Hamas suicide and bus bombings and because of that he won by what like 1 percent). Thus, Hamas successfully prevented 2 state, which they then used to rise to power and become the elected representatives of Gaza.

      A two state solution would have been even more likely had that Israeli orthodox piece of shit not assassinated Rabin. The reality is the greatest enemy to peace has been rhe religious nut jobs on BOTH sides. But even then, I still think Pereze would have managed it while working with Arafat.

      By not cracking down on Hamas, Arafat enabled their rise to power and successfully gave them enough coverage to sink 2 state by getting Netanyahu elected. And their partnership (Hamas and Netanyahu) have made this whole fucking mess even worse ever since.

      History matters on this stuff. Especially when people are protesting in support of terrorists without any historical context or understanding of the propaganda they’ve fallen victim to.

      • cannache@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Warmongers unintentionally keep each other employed, what a suprise, truly a potential future case of systems producing human displacement as a means of sustaining other systems