Israel/Palestine thread

They are not a threat anymore. Israel does need to make sure they are never again a threat in the future.

Not until the hostages are returned and Hamas is out of power.

Hamas choosing Sinwar is an interesting choice. Western nations are increasing calling for a Palestinian state, but obviously Hamas choosing Sinwar as their political leader indicates they have no indication of allowing a Palestinian State, as a Palestinian state with him in charge of Gaza is a complete non starter for everyone.

As I have said 1,000 times, and you can now make it 1,001; the Palestinian state exists nowhere but in the Western imagination, and there is no indication in word or deed the Palestinians even desire their own state alongside Israel.

And in a sane world Hamas making Sinwar their leader should be a giant red flag this is obviously the case; but we dont live in a sane world so the Western world will continue its Kakuki Theatre of Palestinian statehood.

Has it ever benefited Israel to play nice?

This shows that Israel has no intention of enslaving Palestinians.

Here:

It is a giant red flag, but I think for a different reason. It shows that the incredibly predictable outcome of Israel's actions is increased danger to Israel, more extreme and violent stances towards Israel, and a constantly shrinking chance of anything resembling peace.

agree. the West is faking and lying about any sort of 2 state solution. Israel has already outlawed it in the Knesset anyway.

its all a joke and a lie. doesnt matter if its Sinwar in charge or a collaborationist.

You realize Haniyeh had Sinwar's job before Sinwar, and he wasn't any more moderate than Sinwar, before or after his job transfer. The whole "moderate" narrative is something Western media completely made up, to put pressure on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. The only difference is that unlike Haniyeh, Western audiences know enough about Sinwar that western media and leadership cant gaslight Westerners into believing Hamas political faction is going to be moderate under Sinwar.

Hamas has been the same since Day 1. And nothing Israel is doing is increasing danger to Israel (from Hamas at least) or shrinking chance for a fictional peace that has always existed nowhere but the Western imagination since the day Hamas was elected into office.

Your analysis presupposes a "moderate" stance and/or desire for peace from Hamas that has never existed. If anything Israel's mistake which allowed 10/7 to happen was putting their guard down because they were played by Hamas (and the Western nations vouching for them) and thought they were working towards something resembling peace.

When someone keeps repeatedly showing you who they are, at some point you have to believe them. You and me have the luxury to keep pretending the popular supported Palestinian authorities have any objective other than annihilation of Israel, but 10/7 and the aftermath showed Israel doesn't have the luxury of such fantasies.

no offense, but you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. every post is pure fanfic copium

I dont know if Israel's current strategy is the best one or not. But if we are being honest the chance for "something resembling peace" from actors like Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas was always 0.0%. Iran and all its proxies (including Hamas) promise to destroy Israel. At some point, we have to believe that is their aim and eventually they will try to realize it. So the only question is whether Israel should be forcing a confrontation now or kicking the can down the road.

The only argument to kick the can down the road that I can see is if you think the IRI really will be overthrown. But I dont think anyone should be making any plans relying on that pipe dream. Especially as Russia and China (and arguably the Democrat Party in the US) are clearly working to keep the IRI in power; so there is no reason to assume they will be overthrown anytime soon, even if their support is in single digits.

they didnt put their guard down bc they trusted Hamas or wanted peace. they transferred a bunch of soldiers to the West Bank bc they are doing apartheid and seizing land. they needed the soldiers there to help the settlers do pogroms and steal land.

they arrogantly thought that they had Gaza contained.

Still refusing to the use the full phrase I see. "relative moderate". You're dropping half of it.

I was not aware that Haniyeh was as radical as Sinwar. What was Haniyeh's October 7th equivalent?

That’s actually you lol. Even Victor’s opinions often seem more rooted in reality than yours.

Address CONTENT and not each other or there will be timeouts

Not really sure why this guy is so hung up on the “relative moderate” phrase. Israel said they were killing all Hamas leadership, military and political and they are done with meaningless the distinctions. Israel’s actions have not made them any new enemies who didn’t already want them completely eradicated pre Oct 7. Maybe you can show some proof that Israel is in more danger now than if they allowed Hamas to attack with impunity and retain control of Gaza for the past year.

Also I don’t know why BGP is pushing this “relative moderate” narrative when it’s not even a fact. I’m curious, What exactly made Haniyeh a moderate besides comparisons to Sinwar’s extremism?

I checked the recent Reuters article that claims him as, “seen by many diplomats as a moderate compared with the more hardline members of the Iran-backed group inside Gaza.” The article conveniently offers no further clarification or specifics… hm. The only other allusion to him being moderate is that he was participating in cease-fire talks. Basically nothing concrete to support this notion of him as a moderate. In fact, a few of the included quotes contradict it, like him calling for military resistance against Israel.

Hamas is also not completely stupid and they understand how to play western rubes. Of course their chosen figurehead and mouthpiece to the west will be propped up as a “moderate”. It’s probably intentional so they can pretend to talk peace while simultaneously waging their forever war against the infidels.

You quoted the question, answer it.

You explain what those words mean then question their meaning. It reads like an expert level troll but I'm pretty sure you're serious.

Your question is irrelevant. You’re obsessing over meaningless semantics when there’s not a shred of proof that Hanieyeh can ever be considered a moderate. The use of the word “relative” is the only way the term moderate could ever be associated with Haniyeh. Do you think anyone is denying that Sinwar is worse than Haniyeh? Again, not sure why you’re hung up on this dead pos.

I guess Haniyeh’s Oct 7 comparison would be suicide bombing campaigns. Very moderate approach to achieving a 2 state solution. I can see why he was spearheading the ceasefire talks.

Haniyeh was part of the political leadership willing to share power with Fatah and demilitarize Hamas, as long as they get to keep the billions of dollars they embezzled.

Call it corruption or moderation. Doesn’t matter. Point is Haniyeh was willing to negotiate on behalf of Hamas for his personal gain and that made him someone useful to keep alive.

If it's meaningless semantics then include the extra word and argue against that so we can avoid this discussion. Continually misrepresenting views by omitting half of what was said is arguing in bad faith.

Suicide bombings were typically done by the military wing, I think it's a stretch to attribute them to Haniyeh, but feel free to prove me wrong, it's not something I am confident about either way.

I do not think the suicide bombings (as horrible as they were) were on par with October 7, making it a moot point anyways.

You deem to have solved why it is an important word to include.

No, I think people are dropping the word to equivocate, as I've mentioned before.

Because it keeps getting brought up in bad faith. Why don't you ask that user?

It’s only an important word to include if you want to misrepresent the truth. Your opinions on how “bad” suicide bombings are does not immediately make it a moot point. Is there any indication that Haniyeh wouldn’t have supported an attack similar to Oct 7 if it would have been possible in the past? All recent indications pointed to him supporting it full heartedly.

By the time Israel offed him, Haniyeh didnt seem to have the power to demilitarize Hamas anyways. Sinwar and the military wing were already unleashed dogs. Are the military and political wings completely separate? Because in that case, what influence would Haniyeh have to demilitarize Hamas lmao? Also him embezzling billions in aid money and letting the blame fall on Israel is a big issue. I don’t think Israel is interested in negotiating with Hamas and Haniyeh was largely a figurehead with no real power. Of course he was happy to sit back and collect millions, keeping his hands relatively clean while preaching the good word of global jihad. Good riddance. Anyone interested in lasting peace in the ME should be celebrating his passing.

answer this question

Obviously 2 is the “more moderate” option. I still believe Sinwar is preferable to Sinwar + Haniyeh.

Hezzbollah is already posturing to back down and hopefully it’s at least temporarily sincere. I assume part of it is the remaining Axis of Resistance leaders who aren’t hiding underground don’t want to die in the next week.

hamas' rape and murder of a thousand israeli civilians occurred under his leadership

if he was in any sense moderate, relatively moderate, moderately moderate, extreme in his moderation, or otherwise, his moderate ways didnt make the slightest bit of difference to anything

its an unequivocal good that he experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly