To wonder how anyone thought what was happening in Gaza was ok?

Thanks @Scirocco for answering after the end of a shift, and also all others who answered my question. I appreciate your insights.

IMO Far right and far left are pretty indistinguishable in their inability to appreciate an alternative point of view. Both extremes are not good at finding the common ground needed for compromise and peace.

True enough. But we live in a world where “far right” gets thrown around a lot! Often it means “people who don’t agree with me”.

@CaterhamReconstituted 'far right' in itself isn't necessarily a slur, just an observation of a location on a political spectrum.

@statsfun I think there are a wide range of views and nuances to the issue of people in Gaza supporting or not supporting Hamas.

Many people did not like them, did not agree with terrorism, etc. The population of Gaza is young overall - a lot of people have never been able to vote in an election or had a credible alternative presented, and would have voted for a strong alternative that maybe had a plan to get the blockade lifted and improve opportunities for them. It's pretty much been a one-party-state for a long time, with no free elections.

In a one-party-state, especially one under external blockade, that party becomes the main provider and perceived protector, regardless of other things going on. And that goes beyond keeping the lights on and the streets clean. Hamas effectively controlled a 'black/grey market' of goods that people needed that weren't allowed through the blockade or that came through in insufficient amounts. For example, if you need a specialist baby formula, your only option might be to get that through the black market, otherwise your baby could get very sick (as a parent of a child who had severe CMPA, I've seen how bad that can be). So, as well as the people who absolutely would not want Hamas in power, there were people who didn't like what they were doing but either owed them or felt "at least they're getting things in that we need" (it's hard to want to bring down a government/power that you see as having saved your child's life).

Then there are people who have suffered greatly at the hands of the IDF and the blockade, are angry, and get drawn in to the rhetoric that Hamas could somehow avenge their losses and get Gaza its freedom again (spoiler: Hamas do not have the firepower or technology to do that and were a major factor in the evolution of the current situation). Before we condemn these, mostly young men, as all being evil, we should consider that they have endured a lot and been vulnerable to radicalisation, so de-radicalisation may well be an option. Living in what is experienced as effectively a large open-air prison is claustrophobic. There have been many conflicts in Gaza which left people with major injuries and trauma - a young boy who watched his father have to have his legs amputated due to injuries from the IDF, or whose sibling went out to play and was shot dead by a sniper, etc is unlikely to grow up believing that the people on "the other side of the fence" want peace. Hamas are very good at marketing when it comes to their target audience.

I wouldn't say there was an overwhelming support for Hamas itself or for terrorist attacks. There is a difference between armed resistance and terrorism, and I think some of the surveys don't have the nuance to distinguish this.

Now, Hamas and other groups can also present themselves as the last best hope for ordinary people when the tanks and soldiers come. No matter how much you dislike someone's politics or condemn their actions, if they're the only person offering to stand between you and a soldier coming to kill you, you might feel some gratitude. I don't think it's going to be as clearcut as this conflict either decimating or increasing support - like all politics and war, it's complicated...

Don't know if that answers your question, sorry, just done a night shift and straight into a full day of parenting so I'm massively sleep deprived...

”Far right” is simply a slur, and my comments on Northern Ireland can be read discretely from those on Israel-Palestine. Indeed, my point was that conflicts are different and it would be wrong to compare Hamas with the IRA as a party you can recognise and talk to, as many people do.

I would actually go further and say that we shouldn’t have negotiated with any terrorists. But Hamas are much, much worse than the IRA because their goals are genocidal.

The GFA was the result of a relentless campaign of terror by the IRA and other republican groups that forced the UK Government to the table. It bought peace (a far more fragile and unstable peace than is often assumed - just have some conversations with people out there) but at a cost to unionist objectives.

The GFA is widely popular across the UK because we don’t see the cycle of violence we saw in the Troubles but also, frankly, because many people don’t know and don’t care about Northern Ireland (it is different in many respects to the rest of the country). But you won’t necessarily find the London dinner-party enthusiasm for the GFA among those who actually know a bit about the conflict.

The goal of a united Ireland is a reasonable, even a noble one, but for those who don’t share this position, who believe that Northern Ireland is the same as London as a sovereign part of the UK, then the deal was a very bad one.

After the Second World War Germany was allowed to develop but remember there was a process of de-Nazification that took place. Similarly, Gaza needs de-Hamasification.

@CaterhamReconstituted
Yes, I don’t think we should have negotiated with republican terrorists and I agree that is an unusual position to take as the Good Friday Agreement is much praised in my country. I believe it was an act of surrender that makes the break-up of the Union even more likely. But this is risking going off-topic somewhat and is probably one for another thread!

A very far right pov, which tbh does tally with your views on Gaza/IDF.

If Paisley and Emma Small Pengelly can sit down and talk, in deed govern with Sein Fein, then i'll take their judgement over yours.

If NI votes to leave the UK and become part of the ROI, thats their democratic choice, the UK is a supposed to be voluntary isn't it?

IF reunification happens, it will be down to demographic changes & a desire to be part of the EU, not as a result of the GFA or IRA bombs.

All conflicts eventually end with compromise, even WW2, Germany was not permanently occupied, Germany allowed to develop industries, huge numbers of war criminals allowed to go free.

Doubtless Palestine/Israel will end in a compromise too, if it doesn't the death and bloodshed will continue and no one "wins"

Oh and Under these circumstances 'supporting Hamas' is simply self-preservation and a lack of other options? seemed to be suggesting that I was using the poll as a gotcha that Palestinians support Hamas.

Huh? I read your post as saying that Gazans aren't thinking about anything other than survival just now so there's no point in wondering what they think. And you can't blame them for supporting Hamas when they need them for survival now and see them as their only hope.

I think that people still have opinions even whilst struggling for survival, and they certainly had opinions before the war, which they will still have after the war.

@Scirocco gave an opinion on a previous post which I'd appreciate her expanding on.

I do sometimes answer several posts at the same time, even though quoting one for context. These threads move fast!

You've not responded to anything I wrote - just ticked me off and told me that another poster knows more than me

Therefore it was a bit of a waste of time my responding so won't bother again

.

It's a genuine question, not a gotcha. @Scirocco has lived and worked in Gaza with medical teams in several hospitals. Whilst it's impossible to really know what anyone else thinks (especially about controversial subjects which friends and colleagues might be cagey about if they suspect you don't think the same way) I think she probably has good insight.

I know you were concerned about the legitimacy of a poll during wartime @Dulra but the first poll was taken before the war, and many polls do consistently show strong support for armed resistance over time. I'm not saying this to blame. If we don't understand the situation clearly - as it truly is, not through the lens of how we think it should be - then we won't correctly guess the consequences of different international interventions.

I remember the article you are referring to and I posted it more to make a point to another poster who was suggesting the majority still support hamas. I queried the relevance of polls in a war zone and how people were questioned and what questions were they asked. That poll you mention only questioned about 700 people. I personally don't read too much into them when people are more preoccupied with staying alive and wondering where their next meal is coming from.

I do hope that some way is found to have a demilitarised, neutral government and peacekeeping in Gaza which protects Gazans whilst also preventing terrorism. I think everyone wants that.
Yes I agree with this and I want Gaza to be free completely of the IDF they do not respect them as equal human beings and I would not trust them to do anything in the interests of Gazans or to protect Gazan lives.

What do you think they support, if not Hamas fighting?

Having read quite a few articles about how people in Gaza feel about their lives atm their 2 main overwhelming pre-occupations are surviving the next 24 hours [an end to the bombardment and getting food/water] and a strong sense of having been abandoned by the world. Often they talk about having 'no future'

Whether it's a realistic expectation or not Hamas are the only people 'on their side' at the negotiating table who give them a voice and can bring about a ceasefire ?relieve their immediate suffering

Under these circumstances 'supporting Hamas' is simply self-preservation and a lack of other options?

Plus I'm not sure how valid it is polling traumatised people in crisis and what the results actually mean

@Scirocco your friends' deaths at the hands of the IDF is terrible. And I'm certainly not saying that being unarmed protects you in Gaza, as it generally would here in the UK. This is an incident which I'm sure will be examined by the ICJ, if that gives you any comfort.

I do hope that some way is found to have a demilitarised, neutral government and peacekeeping in Gaza which protects Gazans whilst also preventing terrorism. I think everyone wants that.

It's interesting that you don't view Hamas as being a legitimate army engaging in armed resistance, and instead a proscribed terrorist organisation with an armed wing of fighters, who have engaged in terrorism rather than armed resistance. Do you think that view is widely shared in Gaza? A few days ago, @Dulra posted an article which included a poll showing support for armed struggle (in Gaza and West Bank combined) has dropped from 63% to 46%, driven largely by Palestinians in Gaza. Even 46% is still incredibly high. What do you think they support, if not Hamas fighting?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183

@statsfun I don't actually view Hamas as being a legitimate army engaging in armed resistance. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation with an armed wing of fighters, who have engaged in terrorism rather than armed resistance.

I've seen some pretty horrible examples of what has happened to unarmed civilians at the hands of IDF soldiers, and it was IDF soldiers rather than Hamas who executed my civilian friends and colleagues recently. There's also a long history of unarmed Palestinians being killed by IDF soldiers and 'settlers'. So being unarmed and not defending oneself isn't a particularly protective strategy.

Do I think Hamas leadership will be busily trying to protect civilians? Probably not. Do I think individual people or smaller groups may have fought to protect people they care about? Quite possibly. Do I think they would have been effective? Almost certainly not, given the vast asymmetry in this conflict.

Palestinians are almost certainly not going to be safe without some legitimate protective/peace-keeping force in place. I don't think that needs to be a Palestinian military at this point. De-militarisation, an international peace-keeping force and a commitment to neutrality (similar to other countries around the world) could be part of the creation of a Palestinian state.

Pp have described scary scenarios which would happen if Gaza had no army to protect them against Israel. BUT I don't think that the Hamas army actually protects Gazans in any way. I don't think they can. And I suspect they don't even try. Am I wrong about that? If so, tell me examples.

When Hamas made a stand and engaged in protracted firefights over several weeks outside an infrastructure facility, did it actually prevent anyone there from being killed? Or did it in fact result in more innocent Gazans being killed?

So if having Hamas army doesn't protect Gazans - and in fact puts them in more danger - AND it's an obstacle to peace then don't you agree that it would be better if the Palestinians didn't have an army?

No, I mean specifically the Hamas army. Do you think that their armed resistance over the last 6 months has saved any Palestinian lives (any Palestinians who are not themselves Hamas soldiers).

If you're asking about whether there are times when use of force is necessary to preserve life, that's quite context-dependent. If someone has armed men shooting their neighbours and family, is there an argument for use of force as self-defence? That's different from terrorism though. Self-defence, non-violent resistance, armed resistance and terrorism are all different things.

That made me chuckle! Not to understand how bloody difficult it must have been for all parties to actually be in the same room, let alone come to agreement and decide to work together towards peace is well ignorant.

You really appear not to understand how different cultures react to oppression, you just lump everyone together.
For the umpteenth time, Hamas terrorism is not explained by occupation, or settlements, or the question of statehood.
Please provide facts to support your opinion. I am waiting.

I know even the language "surrender" it wasn't a war!

I think you're right, but I'm not really asking whether Hamas actions triggered the war.

More whether there is any way in which military resistance actually helps the Palestinians.

Do you think it is the existence of the Hamas army which prevents this?

Netanyahu has never agreed to any of those proposals.
He wants an Israeli state only.
He and his followers also believe everyone is Hamas, even small children. So this idea is not about Hamas leaving it’s about everyone leaving.

For the umpteenth time, Hamas terrorism is not explained by occupation, or settlements, or the question of statehood. It won’t be solved by a two-state solution. It won’t be solved by some Kristalnachtey policy of boycotting trade with Israel. It is explained by jihadism.

Jihadism is a global problem. Boko Haram behave in the same way in Nigeria - they have nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. And other oppressed peoples, such as Tibetan Buddhists, don’t practice terrorism. They only hope is that the Islamic world recognise the problem of its fundamentalism and have some kind of reformation where the extremists are isolated.

Once Israel don’t have such serious security concerns because of genocidal fanatics then a path to statehood for the Palestinians can be realised.