Has anyone changed their mind from what they have read on here?

This is taken from the Times of Israel dated 13th December.

In Gaza, the terror group received 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago.

It's almost like you can't kill off a terrorist organisation by bombing and starving everyone, leaving them believing that without any kind of military(Hamas isn't military I know but its the closest they have to an army) at all they would be even more vulnerable than they already are. If only someone had told Israel this in the beginning....

do you not think most of the population support hamas? The latest poll seems to think they are well supported and nothing seems to indict that election wouldn't be replicated.

Support for Hamas is certainly growing not just in Gaza but the West Bank too.
Still I’m sure it’s all part of Bibi’s brilliant plan..

Of course they weren't. 60% of the population are under 24. You'd have to be in your late 30s now to have been old enough to vote in the last election. I'd say roughly 25-30% of the population are old enough to have voted and that's a generous estimate given only 6% of the population have made it over the age of 55. Everybody knows that at this stage but some people choose to try and ignore it to try and compare it with Israel who voted in a facist government only this time last year.

@Molymoly do you not think most of the population support hamas? The latest poll seems to think they are well supported and nothing seems to indict that election wouldn't be replicated.

@floodlightonwhatisright but it is 17 years since Hamas was elected. Probably the majority of Palestinians weren't old enough to vote then.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Really, so you think the Palestinians did not functionally elect Hamas?

Another post that tries to excuse Palestinians in voting in Hamas. Whilst they might not have had elections since, the Palestinians definitely voted and elected Hamas. It's irrelevant whether Palestinians knew or suspected Hamas might be a terrorist government at that time - the fact is that you stated they were not elected by the Palestinians!

This happened in 2006? 2006 was nearly 20 years ago?

Really, so you think the Palestinians did not functionally elect Hamas?

Another post that tries to excuse Palestinians in voting in Hamas. Whilst they might not have had elections since, the Palestinians definitely voted and elected Hamas. It's irrelevant whether Palestinians knew or suspected Hamas might be a terrorist government at that time - the fact is that you stated they were not elected by the Palestinians!

Well, take a look at this Aljazeera link which I know is a paper that many posters trust which says amongst other things:

"Hamas wins huge majority

The Islamic group Hamas has won a huge majority in parliamentary elections, with Palestinian voters rejecting the long-time rule of the Fatah movement."

"Hamas supporters streamed into the streets to celebrate.

In the southern Gaza town of Rafah, supporters shot in the air and handed out candy. Others honked horns and waved Hamas flags from car windows."

"Half the seats in Wednesday’s parliament vote were chosen on a national list and the other half by districts.
"

So Hamas was certainly functionally and democratically elected.

Just like the Israeli government.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/1/26/hamas-wins-huge-majority

I've posted this previously, but I can't remember which thread. It seems relevant here though.

If Palestine wants to be a recognized state in and of itself (which I support), surely their leadership should be held to the same standards as all other political leaders worldwide? Hamas was elected in 2006. They're not new to governing a nation, so there is no excuse as to their constant failures to their people and blatant disregard to International Humanitarian Law. I understand that Palestine's political system is not democratic, so there is no blame from me towards Palestinian citizens.

In the case of the Israel/Palestine conflict, I think it's important to distinguish between Israel and the IDF just as we do Palestine and Hamas. Whilst one is democratic and the other authoritarian, they are both the representative leadership. By targeting criticism to the leadership, we avoid calls of anti-Semitism and anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

Not to me because today’s Palestinians did not functionally elect Hamas.
That's my view, plus there's issues about statehood and recognition as a country Vs occupied territories, and the various factions around governance of Palestinian territories. People tended to speak of Isis/So Called Islamic State not Syria when discussing actions there by a terror group.

If Israel as a country was taken over by a terrorist group, I'd name the terrorist group.

Hamas are a terrorist organisation who, despite being elected in 2006, have not held elections since and have openly said they have an issue with Jewish people beyond the current conflict. They don't get to hide or legitimise themselves as a state in my opinion. We either call them a terrorist organisation or we acknowledge them as a state the way we do when speaking about North Korea or other extreme and oppressive regimes.

Israel is a democratic country and using a country's name to refer to the actions of a country's government is standard across a range of issues.

You can’t keep saying Israel is the only democracy in the ME and then pretending you think the Gazans voted for Hamas.

I mean, which is it?

Not to me because today’s Palestinians did not functionally elect Hamas.

Are you really going to try and argue Israel is not an occupier under international law?
The opinion of a random mumsnetter counts for more than international law 😉

But, I am not Muslim, so whether the term is useful and accurate is not up to me.

Thanks @flowerssss Had a look at wiki, and Isee it's complex and even controversial as a term. This bit caught my eye,

At a 2009 symposium on "Islamophobia and Religious Discrimination", Robin Richardson, a former director of the Runnymede Trust[37][failed verification] and the editor of Islamophobia: a challenge for us all,[38] said that "the disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are significant" on seven different grounds, including that it implies it is merely a "severe mental illness" affecting "only a tiny minority of people"; that use of the term makes those to whom it is applied "defensive and defiant" and absolves the user of "the responsibility of trying to understand them" or trying to change their views; that it implies that hostility to Muslims is divorced from factors such as skin color, immigrant status, fear of fundamentalism, or political or economic conflicts; that it conflates prejudice against Muslims in one's own country with dislike of Muslims in countries with which the West is in conflict; that it fails to distinguish between people who are against all religion from people who dislike Islam specifically; and that the actual issue being described is hostility to Muslims, "an ethno-religious identity within European countries", rather than hostility to Islam.

@stormy4319trevor yes I see your point about what it's called. "Phobia" means you're afraid of something.

I've taken this from Wikipedia

Islamophobia is the fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general,[1][2][3] especially when seen as a geopolitical force or a source of terrorism.[4][5][6]
The scope and precise definition of the term Islamophobia, is the subject of debate. Some scholars consider it to be a form of xenophobia or racism, some consider Islamophobia and racism to be closely related or partially overlapping phenomena, while others dispute any relationship; primarily on the grounds that religion is not a race.

There are a number of other possible terms which are also used in order to refer to negative feelings and attitudes towards Islam and Muslims, such as anti-Muslimism, intolerance against Muslims, anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Muslim bigotry, hatred of Muslims, anti-Islamism, Muslimophobia, demonisation of Islam, or demonisation of Muslims. In German, Islamophobie (fear) and Islamfeindlichkeit (hostility) are used. The Scandinavian term Muslimhat literally means "hatred of Muslims".[10]

I think the difference here is that Israel is the only country in the world where Judaism is in the majority. It is officially a Jewish State. Palestinians are mostly Muslim, but there are dozens of other countries whose people practice Islam in a majority. The Israel/Palestine conflict is centered on these two factions, and there is no intention (implied or overt) to eliminate Muslims.

The fact that Israel is unique in it's religious identity makes the case for inferred religious hate much more complex.

@LolaSmiles Thank you - I agree and thanks for teaching me a new word! Metonymy - it's a good one.

Thanks @Xenia My opinion is that if people were phobic they would be afraid of people who are Muslim. I don't see much hostility towards Muslims being expressed as fear, it's more like anger. I feel the term diminishes the aggression experienced by Muslims. But I may be wrong and there are good reasons for the use of the term. On the Afghans, their suffering has been terrible.

Exactly as you said @LolaSmiles . I try to add "government" when referring to Israel (Israeli government) for avoidance of doubt, but when typing quickly it is easy to forget to do this.

And it is standard in newspapers etc to refer to a country at war by country name only. Of course the newspapers are referring to the government, armed forces, and not to the citizens of a nation.Same as the posters using the word "Israel" when referring to the conflict.

It's the same on a lot of topics. Metonymy is used a lot when writing about current affairs.
This example on climate change is another example.
The UK rushed out its climate plan just days before Cop26 – and it shows.
As a British citizen I certainly had nothing to do with a rushed plan on climate change, but it's common to discuss the actions of the government by the country name. Is the writer making a statement about British citizens, I don't think so.
Or would we argue this headline
US leant on Britain to jail detainees freed from Guantánamo Bay is accusing US citizens of being complicit in torture? I also don't think so, but if using country names is a synonym for "your average citizen of that country" that's how we should interpret it.

If it's unacceptable to use country names in this way then there's a lot of medica coverage across a range of topics that needs rewriting.

Anti-muslim would be a more accurate word as the equivalent to anti-semitism. Phobia implies mental illness etc although it is commonly used.I believe in religious freedom for all.

I just watched a good Al J programme about Pakistan expelling 1.7m Afghans. The expulsion is of those who entered illegally, undocumented ones and is for various reasons including the murders by the fundamentalist Islamic Pakistini Taliban which the Afghan Taliban apparently shelters, Pakistan thinks. About 400k have returned so far many living in tents.

I don't think there is an official term for it. I am going with "anti-Palestinian rhetoric" because technically it Palestinians are Semites, but aren't the intended group in reference to anti-Semitism. And while mostly Muslim, Palestinians are a multitude of religions, so it's not a hatred or fear of Islam per-se. It's also not racism because Israelis and Palestinians are often a similar skin tone as they originate from the same part of the world.

I am happy to be corrected or educated further on the matter though!

So would it be evident to you if somebody was to say Gaza or Palestine is trying to wipe Israel out (as Hamas has stated they wanted to do ) that they meant the government Hamas ? As I guarantee that MN would rightfully delete my post.

@flowerssss I am not sure, really. I see what you are saying, but I suppose Palestinians have not called themselves a Muslim state, even though they make up the majority? The Palestinian identity is shared with non-Muslims and seems to be rooted in a shared culture and history. Israel identifies as a Jewish state, the only one in the world, and the national identity is built on that. I'm still wondering if the term 'islamophobic' is an accurate descriptor of the prejudice faced by Muslims, if anyone cares to comment.

Exactly as you said @LolaSmiles . I try to add "government" when referring to Israel (Israeli government) for avoidance of doubt, but when typing quickly it is easy to forget to do this.

And it is standard in newspapers etc to refer to a country at war by country name only. Of course the newspapers are referring to the government, armed forces, and not to the citizens of a nation. Same as the posters using the word "Israel" when referring to the conflict.