Documenting the horror that is Hamas

[Brumbies]

vm.tiktok.com/ZGedgv8DA/

Nor have they said that any ceasefire would be just temporary, in fact they have asked for a permanent ceasefire.

A permanent ceasefire that leaves them in control of Gaza is clearly not a serious suggestion.
They could have not broken the ceasefire on 7 October if they'd wished to retain control of Gaza, but things have changed now.

Yes, this whole conversation could have been avoided if you had not decided to ask me what my point was for adding information to your post about Palestinians joining ISIS. All I said to you was
Hundreds of Britons joined ISIS too.

Then you asked me my thoughts. If you wanted to just eye roll in peace, then don’t tag me and ask me what my point is and my thoughts because I will answer you because I am polite, and this is a conversation.

Sorry you think it has been a waste of your time. In future you don’t have to ask me for my thoughts if they bore you so much.

Hamas cannot keep control of Gaza. That is a sticking point. Just like Israel can’t do another 1 week pause get all the remaining live hostages and then crack on with the carnage. Another sticking point.

There was no ceasefire on 7th October. Time to put that myth to bed.

"without us recognising Israel

This is something they have said all along and continue to say. That even if the go back to the 1967 proposed borders and agree a ceasefire on those terms they still won't recognise Israel's right to exsist. That is why the they say this man spoke out of turn and are correcting what he said. Hence why this deal would only ever last until the next attack etc and I despair at the situation"

You seriously don't understand do you. Plus I did not say they said a temporary ceasefire. That is your lack of compensation of what they have said and are saying. You lack the understanding of what it means long term or the context of it in regard to stuff they have been saying for years. This is how I know your research involves Wikipedia, social media and maybe if we are lucky a handful of articles you read.

There was no ceasefire on 7th October. Time to put that myth to bed.

There wasn't what there is now, though. Who knows, maybe something better will arise from the ashes, not that it'll bring any of the dead back.

Again, you are quoting out of context. Which is necessary to assert they don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist because to make your assertion, you have to delete every other word they said other than the four words you are repeating:

The statement in full was:
Our clear position is not to recognise the legitimacy of the occupation; we took a lesson from the Oslo Accords,” Meshaal said in the text, adding: “In 1993, the PLO leadership recognised Israel, which did not give it anything in return.
Through the 2017 document, Hamas confirmed its position in national consensus with the Palestinian factions regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return and without us recognising Israel. As for the issue of the truce, it is negotiable,

The entire statement is explicit in its recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The 2017 document referenced recognises Israel’s right to exist.

The only thing they do not recognise about Israel is its occupation of Palestinian Territories.

You forget yourself, you did say that Hamas has said that any ceasefire would be temporary, you said
”Hamas is very clear in public speeches and interviews recognising Israels right exsist is literally against everything they believe. That any ceasefire or agreement of borders is a temporary thing until Israel falls.”

^See you said it.

I am reading and understanding your posts.

That is true. It was lower intensity and not continuous. I hope something better will come of this. It’s terrible the situation has been neglected for too long by the international community. I am glad that there are mediators willing to stand up for both Israeli and Palestinian interests and needs.

I love when people come on a thread about hamas atrocities to defend hamas. Such fun.

I've read ex hostage Mia Shem's account of how she was treated. Not just by terrorists but by the "ordinary" gazans keeping her prisoner

Disgusting

I didn't say Hamas says is currently literally saying it is temporary. I was explaining to you because just like this you don't not seem to comprehend things very well, that Hamas is saying in this statement that they still won't accept Israel as a State and acknowledge them. This means they still are sticking to what they have always said during negotiations. That basically they will put up with Israel until such time as they can cause Israel to fall. I really don't know why you don't understand what they are saying or why you can't understand it. Therefore I can only assume you just are choosing to not understand what Hamas refusing to accept the exsists of Israel as a state means long term. It means long term in the future more conflict and no peace.

Yes she had a horrific experience and has been very brave talking about it.

It is just sad that the hostages need to do these interviews to get people to believe what they went through.

I seriously hate all those but where is the proof or the hostages were treated with kindness apologists. It is because of them that some of the hostages have needed to do interviews.

Ok, it would be helpful to my understanding if you would let me know you are jumping tracks from the ceasefire Hamas is asking for now to some other theoreticalceasefire when writing things that do not reflect what Hamas’ has said regarding the current ceasefire under negotiation.

“Hamas is saying in this statement that they still won't accept Israel as a State and acknowledge them”. I respectfully disagree with you that that is what they are saying, and I have stated my reasons why. You should ask yourself why your interpretation of their statement requires you to selectively delete over 90% of it?

“Therefore I can only assume you just are choosing to not understand what Hamas refusing to accept the exsists of Israel as a state means long term.”

Their full statement does not indicate a refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a State because it demands an end to the occupation and the two state solution with 1967 borders- as you know the 1967 borders means that one of the two states is Israel. You can’t demand the 1967 borders without Israel existing as one of the states. Literally.

“It means long term in the future more conflict and no peace.”
It would if they had said it. But that’s not what they said in the full statement.

I’m happy to condemn Hamas all day long, I just am a bit particular and save my condemnation for actual words and actual actions, not snippets quoted out of context or hypotheticals of what they might do.

”“Our clear position is not to recognise the legitimacy of the occupation; we took a lesson from the Oslo Accords,” Meshaal said in the text, adding: “In 1993, the PLO leadership recognised Israel, which did not give it anything in return.”

“Through the 2017 document, Hamas confirmed its position in national consensus with the Palestinian factions regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return and without us recognising Israel. As for the issue of the truce, it is negotiable,”

Literally in the article and the statement plus I have now highlighted it for you several pigging times. You are not reading what they are saying or at least not understanding what they are saying.

On top of that they have made it very clear in interviewing etc that they will never recognise Israel as a State. That any ceasefire/peace is only until Israel will fall. The "only until Israel will fall" is from memory the exact words used several times other the years whenever talk of borders has been discussed.

So what does all that mean. It means to anyone that has been paying attention from years or anyone logical reading just the above article that Hamas may agree borders but they do not recognise Israel's right to exsist. Which means they are long term unlikely to stick to negotiated borders and are still sticking to the until a time when Israel will fall. Which translates to most people as more conflict in the future because that is the only way Israel will fall.

Sorry if you still don't understand what the article means or what Hamas is saying but frankly I am having trouble understanding why you don't get what then not recognising Israel means for the future. You literally don't need to even know the rest of what I have told you. Just the highlighted bit of the statement is enough to understand the situation or it is to most people anyway.

Sorry you do not get it. I am basing my understanding on reading the entirety of their statement instead of reading Just the highlighted bit of the statement is enough to understand the situation or it is to most people anyway. as that is less than 10% of their full statement.

I am not sure if you are correct in saying “most people” have also based their understanding on only 4 words out of two paragraphs. Have you done a poll of people? I’d like to think most people would read all of a statement. You can’t really say So what does all that mean when you are not acknowledging all of the statement, but honing in on 4 words and then proceeding to extrapolate in a way that is illogically out of context.

How can there be 1967 borders without the existence of Israel? There can’t. So Hamas’ statement is explicitly recognising Israel’s right to exist. Their 2017 charter recognises Israel’s right to exist. There are multiple levels of recognition between States. From recognising they exist to recognition as a close ally. So it is not uncommon to see comment like this between states. Like the USA recognises the right for N. Korea to exist, grudgingly after a war, but do not recognise N. Korea as under legitimate leadership, but rather a dictator The only specific Hamas said they did not recognise as legitimate was Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories.

Now, I’m not saying Hamas is being truthful in their statement. But their lack of trustworthiness is a separate discussion from discussion of their published statements and what they say.

I think you are mixing the two things up. You are viewing what they said with a critical eye and are thinking, well they are not likely to stop at the 1967 borders if left in control. I would agree with you that there is risk of this, but it goes too far to then affirm that they are also explicitly stating this when they haven’t.

There is a difference between explicit statements and suspected ulterior motives. It is important to distinguish between the two when discussing such emotive and sensitive matters.

On top of that they have made it very clear in interviewing etc that they will never recognise Israel as a State. That any ceasefire/peace is only until Israel will fall. The "only until Israel will fall" is from memory the exact words used several times other the years whenever talk of borders has been discussed.

I have done a few searches on this and cannot find where/when Hamas has said this or the context in which it was said? It would be helpful if you could link to this. You do seem to remember four/five word sound bites to exclusion of all else, so sorry, but I am questioning your memory on this, as your memory for “without us recognising Israel” didn’t match up to the full context of what Hamas actually said.

"An official source in Hamas yesterday denied statements attributed to the movement’s former head, Khaled Meshaal, on the possibility of recognising Israel."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231229-hamas-meshaal-did-not-say-we-will-recognise-israel/

Yes, this is the statement from MEE we have been discussing. It has been linked a few times:
”Hamas attached the text of Meshaal’s statements.
“Our clear position is not to recognise the legitimacy of the occupation; we took a lesson from the Oslo Accords,” Meshaal said in the text, adding: “In 1993, the PLO leadership recognised Israel, which did not give it anything in return.”
“Through the 2017 document, Hamas confirmed its position in national consensus with the Palestinian factions regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return and without us recognising Israel. As for the issue of the truce, it is negotiable,”

I suppose it doesn't matter any more anyway what Hamas do or don't recognise if they are no longer to be in charge of Gaza.

Following another thread where a poster has made great points for moving forward.

After the two World Wars the people of Europe were able to put aside hatred and moved forward to peace in a generation. Millions of people were killed and injured, many countries suffered huge losses yet now there is peace in Europe and it was rebuilt. It can be done if the terrorists are gone and hatred is put aside.

I've always thought that hatred is more driven by indoctrination, made easier if people's present living situation is hard.

We absolutely didn't see hundreds of thousands of Germans, for instance, fixated on their hatred of the UK or US post second-world war, after their cities had been bombed. They got on with the task of rebuilding.

That being said, there was huge aid and intervention post war, and the same will need to be the case in Gaza.

For reference, the maps. Note that the 1967 borders mean that Israel not only still exists, but is much larger than the hoped for Palestinian State.

I agree indoctrination plays a part, but I have seen first hand and read the studies done that show that trauma is the primary driver of hatred. Living situations that are traumatic breed hatred towards whatever power is causing it, or is thought to cause it.

Yes, once WWII was over, despite the Iron curtain, West Germany focussed on rebuilding and left behind their hatred of the US/UK. This took generations though. It wasn’t really until after the Berlin Wall came down with the collapse of the USSR that Germans as a whole were no longer hated or particularly hateful. This would be the early 1990s. Or when the grandchildren of those who fought in or survived the trauma of WWII reached adulthood. Many of the same generation of East Germans still do hate the USSR/Russia because they grew up within the Soviet bloc. Russia isn’t helping things by their current empire building invasion of Ukraine.

Palestinians also being human, I would think would also lose their hatred and focus on rebuilding. But to make this a reality, blockades/sieges need to be lifted, bombs have to stop falling, tanks need to stop coming in on raids and ground operations, people need freedom for their children and then their grandchildren to grow up and live in peace before hatred becomes a thing of the past.

The current devastation of Gaza will create hatred that will take at least that long to overcome at a minimum. WWII was six years of conflict, the Palestinian/Israel conflict has gone on more than 10x longer so who knows whether that means it will take more generations of peace?

I agree it can be done, but in Europe, peace did not come in a single generation. We had the Cold War during which East Europe was within the Soviet bloc. We also had the collapse of Czechoslovakia resulting in the Bosnian War and Genocide. Within the U.K., we had the Troubles, which is a typically British moniker that minimises what was a civil war focussed on Northern Ireland.

I cannot comprehend how you are vehemently believing Hamas can be reasoned with. They don't want peace, they want death.

Excuse me? How can I be “vehemently believing Hamas can be reasoned with” when I have neither said nor implied any such thing? For the record, I do not believe that either.