Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]
As mentioned many times before, the military and political branch of Hamas are separate entities; Hamas is not monolthic. Everything points to the political branch being caught off guard by October 7.
By legitimizing the political branch and giving them a place in government, the relatively moderate people who are content with spending their money safely would be empowered and incentivized to stop the military branch. No one is suggesting going back to how things were before October 7 and just waiting for the next terrorist attack.
No, this is not suggesting he was a good person, so mentioning how he is not a good person is a moot point. What is being suggested is that he is preferable to Sinwar, the person who planned and executed October 7th. Even if Sinwar is killed, he likely would have been preferable to Sinwar's successor because Israel's actions are only going to lead to further radicalization. Eventually Israel needs to think about what they're going to do once they take a step back, because they will have to sooner or later and Hamas is still going to be there.
imagine supporting the USA or Israel after reading the Btselem testimonies
if it is true that the "political branch" had no idea 7 10 was being planned, then they had 0 control of Gaza.
If they have 0 control of Gaza, they have no power to "stop the military branch" from doing anything. So what you are suggesting is to prop up people with 0 actual power among Gaza palestinians (under your model), which means just... waiting for the next terrorist attack, organized by those who do have power in Gaza (if Israel leaves before killing them all).
It's not about being "preferable to Sinwar" even if that might have been true. It's about thresholds. He was still beyond the threshold of what can be accepted for palestinian leaders.
No one who has ANY ill intent toward Israel or ever talked or acted toward that should be allowed, ever, to have ANY power whatsover in Gaza , for the next 50+ years, IF you truly believe that you want to make it sure terrorist attacks will stop for good.
If that means no palestinian should have power there, then so be it.
"israel actions are going to lead to further radicalization"? not necessarily, if anyone who attempts any violence toward Israel meets certain death, at some point they are stop or are all dead. Rational people would stop, irrational people maybe won't, so you kill all the irrational people who attempt violence toward Israel until there is none left.
What they are doing once they take a step back should be not taking a step back unless Gaza can be militarily occupied by someone Israel think will smother every single ill-intended person in the area.
And we should help achieve that: either paying Israel (instead of UNRWA) to occupy Gaza undefinitely, or helping organize anti-Iran arab countries build a coalition to militarily occupy Gaza, or other options like that.
if it is true that the "political branch" had no idea 7 10 was being planned, then they had 0 control of Gaza.If they have 0 control of Gaza, they have no power to "stop the military branch" from doing anything. So what you are suggesting is to prop up people with 0 actual power among Gaza palestinians (under your model), which means just... waiting for the next terrorist attac
I don't know if this is intentional or not, but these are not the same. "Had no idea" is past tense, "have 0 control" is present, and we are now talking about the future. This also doesn't make any sense, it is entirely possible that someone did not know about October 7 yet still has significant political standing (or "control" although I don't think that's the proper metric here) in Gaza.
By legitimizing the political branch and giving them a place in government, the relatively moderate people who are content with spending their money safely would be empowered and incentivized to stop the military branch.
there is a fundamental disconnect here. we are galaxies apart
israel will not settle for a result which leaves hamas as part of the government of gaza, nor should they, nor should anyone reasonably expect them to
oct 7 was a disqualifying event
the distinction between the military and political wing is not compelling at all. the town planning commission of the khmer rouge probably didnt do much of the killing, but it had to go away along with the rest of them
As mentioned many times before, the military and political branch of Hamas are separate entities; Hamas is not monolthic. Everything points to the political branch being caught off guard by October 7. By legitimizing the political branch and giving them a place in government, the relatively moderate people who are content with spending their money safely would be empowered and
You are doing a lot of projection IMO. There is nothing in what the political arm does or says to suggest this is the case at all. All we have is "supposed insiders" assuring us this is the case. Hamas has been in power 20 years, and we have done a lot of appeasement under the theory that this will deradicalize them; and there is no indication appeasement has borne fruit and a lot of evidence it has completely backfired (October 7th for example).
For Haniyeh specifically, he was the military head 2006 to 2017. Hamas did a lot of bad things during that period that worked completely against peace, and nothing that worked towards peace; including but not limited to:
1. Violent civil war to take over Gaza
2. Refusing to honor agreements Fatah had already made with UN/US/Israel/etc.
3. Dismantling whatever civil govt and theoretic democracy there was in place and militarizing Gaza
4. Massive build up of war machine in Gaza
5. Several hot wars with Israel
--And there has been nothing in the last year to suggest Haniyeh was working towards peace or some sort of detente.
I think the main divide we have is that when you read a BBC, Reuters or WaPo articles stating X,Y,Z is true (despite zero evidence it is) you assume the is good faith and they are most likely correct; and I personally dont absent any actual evidence it may be true.
I don't know how to explain this any better: Haniyeh could be the second more evil person on earth, if the choice is between him or the most evil on person then compared to that one person he's relatively good.
Pointing out that Haniyeh has done bad things is not a valid argument to what is being argued. It never was a valid argument to what is being argued.
Eventually Israel will have to deal with Hamas because Israel is incapable of ridding themselves of Hamas. Israel's choices now are shaping what that is eventually going to look like. Killing all of the people who were content with living in Qatar and spending millions, and leaving themselves with only the people who want to risk their lives and the lives of Palestinians in order to kill Israelis is not in Israel's best interest.
If you're looking for a good option, it doesn't exist. If you're looking for a Palestinian leader that has a decades long track record of working towards peace, it's not going to happen. There's bad options and worse options. I'm suggesting Israel take the bad one. So pointing out that the option is bad misses the entire point.
Well the choice isn't between him or the most evil person, he was evil enough to deserve to die and it's good he died.
I don't know how to explain this any better: Haniyeh could be the second more evil person on earth, if the choice is between him or the most evil on person then compared to that one person he's relatively good.
Why in the world do you think Israel is entertaining this choice at all? Israel's objectives is to clearly kill both of them. They aren't going to settle for Sinwar as leader of the political arm of Hamas. They are going to do everything in their power to make sure Sinwar doesn't make it to Turkey or Qatar alive (the 2 places that would take him where the US will assure his safety).
And IF Sinwar makes it out alive it isn't obvious this is going to be worse than Haniyeh for Israel. In some ways it could be better; because like I said Western leaders/media have been running a psyop framing Haniyeh as a moderate that Israel would have to negotiate with, because Western audiences dont know any better.
With Sinwar, the psyop wont work, so this gives Israel way more leverage not to be pressured to make a peace under unfavorable terms.
the whole idea that a "political" non violent arm of Hamas existed juxtaposed to a "military" violent arm is a made up narrative created to help countries politicall "on the fence" donate money to UNRWA .
Everyone with any connection to Hamas wants to genocide jews and to violently eradicate Israel from the area.
Trying to read the tea leaves, it seems everyone (IRI, China, Qatar, US, UN, US media) except Israel was trying to engineer a day after future with the "moderate" Haniyeh in charge of a united West Bank/Gaza Palestinian govt. I think that PR reconciliation stunt China did between Fatah and Hamas was part of this plan.
He was actually a good choice because the Palestinians dont want moderation, they want war. Which is why Fatah is so unpopular, because they are viewed as an actual entity working towards peace, the Palestinian people dont want.
And Haniyeh in words and actions is radical enough for them. However, due to the running psyop Westerners could also accept him as a "moderate."
However, the Netanyahu regime clearly did not find this acceptable, so they took that option off the table. Does this actually put Israel in a worse position for the future? None of us actually know, although we all have our opinions.
That is not the argument at all. No one is saying the political wing was pacifist or in any way juxtaposed to the military wing.
Dunyain: let me know when Hamas is eradicated, I'll admit I was wrong.
That is not the argument at all. No one is saying the political wing was pacifist or in any way juxtaposed to the military wing.
Dunyain: let me know when Hamas is eradicated, I'll admit I was wrong.
I am not sitting in Israel minister strategic meetings. So I dont know what the actual plan is. Maybe they sincerely believe they will eradicate Hamas, I dont know. But clearly, in the opinion of the Netanyahu govt they didn't feel Haniyeh remaining alive was for the best interest of Israel, so they took that option off the table.
The Netanyahu govt isn't purposefully rushing Israel towards suicide. So we have to accept they think what they are doing is in Israel's best interest. And it takes a lot of hubris IMO to assume you and I can do a better job to determine this than the people running the country.
I am not doubting that I have an extremely different view from Bibi on what is good for Israel.
This statement is straight from Khalid Al-Hayya, deputy chairman of the Hamas political wing. The article is from April so it doesn’t speak to Haniyeh’s involvement in Oct 7, but it squarely contradicts the notion that the wings are separate.
Are there sources that backup Hamas’ military and political wings being separate? I’ve seen this statement a few times but never justified with evidence.
Like I said, there is a disconnect where you assume because CNBC reports something (providing no evidence) it is actually true. And even if it was true, Netanyahu cabinet clearly doesn't believe a slightly more moderate Haniyeh being in charge of Hamas is an acceptable outcome. In some ways, Sinwar might be better, because as I said there is less pressure on Israel to have to engage in what they clearly view as bad faith negotiations.
The psyop that leaders of Western nations and media have been running clearly indicates Haniyeh in charge was an outcomes they preferred. But lets be honest; we are juggling a lot of different priorities and aren't as invested in Israel as Israel's own leadership and people are.
There’s nothing concrete in that article to suggest that there is a separation between the wings.
Really this entire discussion is moot because I don’t think Israel has any intention of negotiating with Hamas at this point. Their position has been clear from the start: surrender, lay down arms, return the hostages. If Hamas wants to meet those terms at any time they are free to.
At this point negotiation only favors Hamas, which is maybe why the media has been pushing this story.
Of course Hamas is ready to talk ceasefire now that they can’t leave their tunnels. Israel understands that Hamas will never give up the hostages so in reality Hamas has no bargaining chips and negotiation is pointless. Negotiation and ceasefires only benefit Hamas and give them time to rebuild for the next Oct 7.
Are we going to just ignore the senior Hamas official saying “yeah we’re in close talks with the military guys” because an article uses the word separation once with almost no context? Maybe it’s just a spiritual separation, who knows? They are clearly not separated on their intentions to exterminate infidels.
Doyle: That wasn't meant to refute what you're saying, it just happened to be what about what is being discussed. Although there is an expert saying just that.
Dunyain: the article does include evidence: "Haniyeh, based in Qatar, was Hamas’ lead negotiator in the cease-fire talks with Israel and was described as being more pragmatic and supportive of a deal. While the negotiations have been ongoing for months with no success, Sinwar — who is based inside Gaza and is said to have the last word on Hamas’ major decisions — often stalls or cuts off communications during the talks." This is evidence which has been discussed itt.
Doyle: That wasn't meant to refute what you're saying, it just happened to be what about what is being discussed. Although there is an expert saying just that.Dunyain: the article does include evidence: "Haniyeh, based in Qatar, was Hamas’ lead negotiator in the cease-fire talks with Israel and was described as being more pragmatic and supportive of a deal." This is evide
All good just assumed you were providing a source. However, who is describing him as these things? Does the article actually have sources? CNBC stating that doesn’t mean anything if they just conjured it out of thin air.
The statement from the former Israeli analyst is vague and doesn’t imply there was any meaningful separation, most certainly not a separation in communication. It sounds like they are just separate branches of the same organization. He doesn’t elaborate on the nature of this separation or the media chose not to include it. In fact, the analyst acknowledges that it may have been a Hamas tactic to help with negotiations and secure their future after the war. Keeping the guys who talk to westerners relatively clean from all the murdering westerners bits is not a bad idea.
Unless they are specifically talking post Haniyeh, that last bit pretty much confirms that Sinwar has been in control the entire time. Haniyeh was never in a position to make the calls, and never had the power, balls, or will to challenge that. I’m sure Israel understood this long before the media reported on it.
