Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
25
Itoosurvive · 05/09/2024 09:59

Ellie wrote
"You know Africa is a continent of 54 different states, right? Not a country? "

Thanks Ellie, I googled and in fact you're right, Africa is indeed made up of many different countries. When I looked at that map and saw those faint white lines that subdivided it into a number of discrete, contiguous areas, I just thought that those lines were its postcode boundaries. No wonder my letters weren't getting through., Thanks again. Maybe I should start to believe more of what you write.

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 10:16

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 09:55

I agree but the trouble with violent conflict is, once it has been started, it almost inevitably escalates until one side has been defeated.

And that's why the boundaries of international law and proper oversight of operations are important. So that 'defeat' does not mean genocide, societal devastation and the commission of more atrocities. Military action can be necessary (I don't think many people who have been in conflict zones would disagree with the necessity of self-defence) but needs to be proportionate and justifiable. Incitement to genocide is not proportionate or justifiable. If you look at the map used by Netanyahu - in public, available through mainstream media - the West Bank has been erased - presenting this as a vision to which people are aspiring is not proportionate or justifiable.

OP posts:
Auvergne63 · 05/09/2024 10:37

SharonEllis · 05/09/2024 07:56

But there is a place for armed response to a terrorist act. Any state in the world has that right and would exercise that right. Its not the only response to terrorism (other things have to happen too), and it needs to be proportional and withim the bounds of law. There is a space between the acts of terrorism and the subsuming of the palestinian territories but if you can only see Israel through the lens of colonising oppressor with no legitimate right to defend itsrlf then, you cannot see that space. That position is undoubtedly where too many people on this thread are. And that is apologism for terrorism and you will seemingly never actually accept Israel's legitimacy.

But there is a place for armed response to a terrorist act.
Of course, there is.
it needs to be proportional and withim the bounds of law.
There lies the problem with the response of the Israeli government to the 07/10 terrorist act. Proportionality is a fundamental principle upon which states in the world have agreed via the 1949 Geneva Convention. Proportionality is dishonoured when incidental civilian injury and collateral damage is excessive.I think over 40 000 dead ( so far) and up up 61% of Gaza's buildings destroyed is excessive, don't you?
Israel through the lens of colonising oppressor.
I think that you could argue that what is happening in the West Bank is an act of colonialism.

That position is undoubtedly where too many people on this thread are.
This is your opinion and unless you provide facts to back it up, then it will remain just that.
And that is apologism for terrorism
This is a serious accusation to make. There is a difference between trying to understand why Hamas committed the atrocities of 07/10 and excusing them.

YoYoYoYo12345 · 05/09/2024 11:54

In the 8th and 9th century most Jewish people were driven from the area due to Muslim civil wars. By 11th century very few Jewish people remained.

Many, many years later and the area could have become a 2 state solution but it wasn't agreed. Maybe Jewish and Muslim might have lived in peace side by side. Terrorists don't want that outcome though. They want domination and destruction. Its hard to imagine peace in an area with 2 separate states until hamas goes.

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 12:01

YoYoYoYo12345 · 05/09/2024 11:54

In the 8th and 9th century most Jewish people were driven from the area due to Muslim civil wars. By 11th century very few Jewish people remained.

Many, many years later and the area could have become a 2 state solution but it wasn't agreed. Maybe Jewish and Muslim might have lived in peace side by side. Terrorists don't want that outcome though. They want domination and destruction. Its hard to imagine peace in an area with 2 separate states until hamas goes.

Hamas and the other political leaders inciting genocide and calling for the erasure of entire populations.

They all need to go. But through proportionate means within the boundaries of international law. Not through methods that disproportionately target civilians and refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the existence of civilian populations.

OP posts:
YoYoYoYo12345 · 05/09/2024 12:05

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 12:01

Hamas and the other political leaders inciting genocide and calling for the erasure of entire populations.

They all need to go. But through proportionate means within the boundaries of international law. Not through methods that disproportionately target civilians and refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the existence of civilian populations.

I agree

ScrollingLeaves · 05/09/2024 12:45

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 12:01

Hamas and the other political leaders inciting genocide and calling for the erasure of entire populations.

They all need to go. But through proportionate means within the boundaries of international law. Not through methods that disproportionately target civilians and refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the existence of civilian populations.

I agree.

ScrollingLeaves · 05/09/2024 12:54

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 07:19

I suspect it was deleted because you were implying an equivalence between Native Americans, slaves and the terrorist group Hamas .( I don’t know because I didn’t report the post but I can understand why someone did)

Thanks, for the suggestion. MN wrote back and it was not quite that.

It is quite reassuring in that MN said I had broken talk guidelines where in one sentence I had conflated all Palestinians with terrorism/Hamas. All Palestinians are not Hamas.

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 13:13

ScrollingLeaves · 05/09/2024 12:54

Thanks, for the suggestion. MN wrote back and it was not quite that.

It is quite reassuring in that MN said I had broken talk guidelines where in one sentence I had conflated all Palestinians with terrorism/Hamas. All Palestinians are not Hamas.

No indeed. Neither are all Native Americans or slaves terrorists. Only a small subsection of any group is willing to use terror and atrocity to achieve their aims.

ScrollingLeaves · 05/09/2024 13:27

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 13:13

No indeed. Neither are all Native Americans or slaves terrorists. Only a small subsection of any group is willing to use terror and atrocity to achieve their aims.

My point was that the ‘sovereign’ settlers considered them to be so and acted accordingly, and also opportunistically.

The context was a post by someone who said a terrorist was anyone attacking a sovereign government while not also saying, what I think to be true, that a sovereign government can behave terroristically to non-sovereign groups.

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 13:29

I think the problem with the deleted post is that it appeared to imply all oppressed groups use ( and need to use) terror to achieve their ends. I don’t think that is an acceptable position.

Limesodaagain · 05/09/2024 13:34

I do take the point that sovereign states can also use terror to achieve aims ( Iran is one of many examples)

SababaToo · 05/09/2024 13:41

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

SharonEllis · 05/09/2024 15:57

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 08:01

I'm not sure why you think I'm a terrorist apologist, see no space for a military response or deny Israel's existence?

I guess just read what you wrote again & see if you can find the bit where you said that an armed response to terrorism could be legitimate? That was the gap I was referring to. The rest of my post was referring to the general cumulative effect of many posts, not solely yours.

SharonEllis · 05/09/2024 16:01

Itoosurvive · 05/09/2024 09:59

Ellie wrote
"You know Africa is a continent of 54 different states, right? Not a country? "

Thanks Ellie, I googled and in fact you're right, Africa is indeed made up of many different countries. When I looked at that map and saw those faint white lines that subdivided it into a number of discrete, contiguous areas, I just thought that those lines were its postcode boundaries. No wonder my letters weren't getting through., Thanks again. Maybe I should start to believe more of what you write.

Who is Ellie? If you want letters to get through the correct name is also helpful.

Itoosurvive · 05/09/2024 16:24

SharonEllis · 05/09/2024 16:01

Who is Ellie? If you want letters to get through the correct name is also helpful.

SharonEllis. You're right again, I did indeed misaddress my comment and it was, as you correctly guessed, meant for you. I'm not quite sure how you ended up as Ellie. Sorry.

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 16:32

SharonEllis · 05/09/2024 15:57

I guess just read what you wrote again & see if you can find the bit where you said that an armed response to terrorism could be legitimate? That was the gap I was referring to. The rest of my post was referring to the general cumulative effect of many posts, not solely yours.

Well, in my post of 03/09/2024 at 23:47 I commented on one scenario in which I would have supported military action, even in a scenario in which people I care about would have been at risk. While I've not personally shot any terrorists, I've spent time in conflict zones, worked with serving military forces, and have military family and friends. Including, actually, people who served in the IDF. In the post that you quoted and went on to suggest I'm a terrorist apologist, see no space for a military response and deny Israel's existence, I clearly stated that I believe the terrorists must face justice - I'm not exactly of the opinion that would be achieved by inviting them round for a cup of tea and a chat.

When you say 'not solely' my posts, that implies that you do think I am those things so, where in my posts have I engaged in terrorism apologism, stated I see no space for a military response, or denied Israel's existence?

OP posts:
TheFakeJonSnow · 05/09/2024 17:30

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Itoosurvive · 05/09/2024 19:23

@TheFakeJonSnow
Indeed Switzerland is on the verge and New Zealand has already designated the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Thanks for those corrections.

PeasfullPerson · 06/09/2024 17:17

Scirocco · 05/09/2024 16:32

Well, in my post of 03/09/2024 at 23:47 I commented on one scenario in which I would have supported military action, even in a scenario in which people I care about would have been at risk. While I've not personally shot any terrorists, I've spent time in conflict zones, worked with serving military forces, and have military family and friends. Including, actually, people who served in the IDF. In the post that you quoted and went on to suggest I'm a terrorist apologist, see no space for a military response and deny Israel's existence, I clearly stated that I believe the terrorists must face justice - I'm not exactly of the opinion that would be achieved by inviting them round for a cup of tea and a chat.

When you say 'not solely' my posts, that implies that you do think I am those things so, where in my posts have I engaged in terrorism apologism, stated I see no space for a military response, or denied Israel's existence?

Well done for managing to write such a well structured and coherent post in response to such a tired slight.

ScrollingLeaves · 06/09/2024 20:47

ScrollingLeaves · 04/09/2024 11:32

Time pointed out that "Hamas is not and has never been interested in compromise, unlike their rival, the Palestinian Authority run by Mahmound Abbas which governs much of the West Bank but not in Gaza. Many in the Palestinian Authority were said to welcome a Saudi peace plan as well the offer of financial assistance to improve the lives of Palestinians before Hamas sabotaged those plans Saturday."

Look what happened. Netanyhu did everything in his power to weaken the Palestinian Authority by bolstering Hamas. He did not want a compromise with Palestinians. He did not want a two state solution.

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces
The premier's policy of treating the terror group as a partner, at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood, has resulted in wounds that will take Israel years to heal from
The Times of Israel
www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

This is more information about Netanyahu’s alliance with Hamas in order to prevent a Palestinian state from
Opinion
Haaretz Oct 20 2023
(without links, but this is on archive ph)

A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance
For 14 years, Netanyahu's policy was to keep Hamas in power; the pogrom of October 7, 2023, helps the Israeli prime minister preserve his own rule.

Much ink has been spilled describing the longtime relationship – rather, alliance – between Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. And still, the very fact that there has been close cooperation between the Israeli prime minister (with the support of many on the right) and the fundamentalist organization seemingly evaporated from most of the current analyses – everyone’s talking about “failures,” “mistakes” and “contzeptziot” (fixed conceptions). Given this, there is a need not only to review the history of cooperation but also to conclude unequivocally: The pogrom of October 7, 2023, helps Netanyahu, and not for the first time, to preserve his rule, certainly in the short term.

The MO of Netanyahu’s policy since his return to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2009 has and continues to be, on the one hand, bolstering the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and, on the other, weakening the Palestinian Authority.

His return to power was accompanied by a complete turnaround from the policy of his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, who sought to end the conflict through a peace treaty with the most moderate Palestinian leader – PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

For the last 14 years, while implementing a divide-and-conquer policy vis-a-vis the West Bank and Gaza, “Abu Yair” (“Yair’s father,” in Arabic, as Netanyahu called himself while campaigning in the Arab community before one recent election) has resisted any attempt, military or diplomatic, that might bring an end to the Hamas regime.

In practice, since the Cast Lead operation in late 2008 and early 2009, during the Olmert era, Hamas’ rule has not faced any genuine military threat. On the contrary: The group has been supported by the Israeli prime minister, and funded with his assistance.

When Netanyahu declared in April 2019, as he has after every other round of fighting, that “we have restored deterrence with Hamas” and that “we have blocked the main supply routes,” he was lying through his teeth.

For over a decade, Netanyahu has lent a hand, in various ways, to the growing military and political power of Hamas. Netanyahu is the one who turned Hamas from a terror organization with few resources into a semi-state body.

Releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing cash transfers, as the Qatari envoy comes and goes to Gaza as he pleases, agreeing to the import of a broad array of goods, construction materials in particular, with the knowledge that much of the material will be designated for terrorism and not for building civilian infrastructure, increasing the number of work permits in Israel for Palestinian workers from Gaza, and more. All these developments created symbiosis between the flowering of fundamentalist terrorism and preservation of Netanyahu’s rule.

Take note: It would be a mistake to assume that Netanyahu thought about the well-being of the poor and oppressed Gazans – who are also victims of Hamas – when allowing the transfer of funds (some of which, as noted, didn’t go to building infrastructure but rather military armament). His goal was to hurt Abbas and prevent division of the Land of Israel into two states.

It’s important to remember that without those funds from Qatar (and Iran), Hamas would not have had the money to maintain its reign of terror, and its regime would have been dependent on restraint.

In practice, the injection of cash (as opposed to bank deposits, which are far more accountable) from Qatar, a practice that Netanyahu supported and approved, has served to strengthen the military arm of Hamas since 2012.

Thus, Netanyahu indirectly funded Hamas after Abbas decided to stop providing it with
funds that he knew would end up being used for terrorism against him, his policies and his people. It’s important not to ignore that Hamas used this money to buy the means through which Israelis have been murdered for years.

In parallel, from a security standpoint, since
Operation Protective Edge in 2014, Netanyahu has been guided by a policy that almost completely ignored the terrorism of the rockets and the incendiary kites and balloons. Occasionally, the media has been exposed to a dog-and-pony show, when such weapons were captured, but not more than that.

It’s worth reminding that last year, the
“government of change”
(the short-lived coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid) exercised a different policy, one of whose expressions was the halting of funding for Hamas arriving via suitcases full of cash. When Netanyahu tweeted, on May 30, 2022, that “Hamas is interested in the existence of the weak Bennett government,” he was lying to the public. The government of change was a disaster for Hamas.

Netanyahu’s nightmare was the collapse of the Hamas regime – something that Israel could have expedited, albeit for a difficult price. One of the proofs for this claim was given during Operation Protective Edge.

At the time, Netanyahu leaked to the media the contents of a presentation that the military had made to the security cabinet laying out the potential repercussions of conquering Gaza. The premier knew that the secret document, which noted that occupying Gaza would cost the lives of hundreds of soldiers, would create an atmosphere of opposition to a widespread ground invasion.

In March 2019, Naftali Bennett told the Channel 13 program Hamakor: “Someone took care to leak that to the media to create an excuse for not taking action… it’s one of the gravest leaks in Israeli history.” Of course, the leak was not investigated, despite many demands from members of the Knesset. In closed-door conversations, Benny Gantz said then, when he was the IDF’s chief of staff, “Bibi leaked this.”

Let this sink in. Netanyahu leaked a “top secret” document in order to thwart the military and diplomatic position of the cabinet, which sought to defeat Hamas with various means. We should heed what Avigdor Lieberman told Yedioth Ahronoth, in an interview published just before the October 7 assault that Netanyahu “continuously thwarted all the targeted assassinations.”

It should be stressed that Netanyahu’s policy of keeping Hamas in charge in Gaza didn’t find expression only through opposition to physical occupation of Gaza and to assassinations of key Hamas players, but also in his determination to thwart any political reconciliation between the PA – Fatah in particular – and Hamas. A prominent example is Netanyahu’s behavior in late 2017, when talks between Fatah and Hamas were actually taking place.

A fundamental disagreement between Abbas and Hamas concerned the question of the Islamist group’s military being subordinate to to the PA. Hamas agreed that the PA would return to running all civilian matters in Gaza but refused to yield its arms.

Egypt and the United States supported reconciliation and worked to achieve it. Netanyahu totally opposed the idea, asserting repeatedly that “reconciliation between Hamas and the PLO makes achieving peace harder.” Of course, Netanyahu didn’t pursue peace, which wasn’t on the agenda in any way back then. His position only served Hamas.

Over the years, from time to time, various figures on both sides of the political spectrum repeatedly pointed to the axis of cooperation between Netanyahu and Hamas. On the one hand, for example, Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet security service from 2005 to 2011, told Yedioth Ahronoth in January 2013, “If we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas’s strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister.”

In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio that people who believed that Netanyahu had no strategy were mistaken. “His strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking… even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the PA in Ramallah.”

And former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot told Maariv in January 2022 that Netanyahu acted “in total opposition to the national assessment of the National Security Council, which determined that there was a need to disconnect from the Palestinians and establish two states.” Israel moved in the exact opposition direction, weakening the PA and strengthening Hamas.

Shin Bet head Nadav Argaman spoke about this when he finished his term in 2021. He warned explicitly that the lack of dialogue between Israel and the PA had the effect of weakening the latter while bolstering Hamas.

He warned that the relative quiet in the West Bank at the time was deceptive, and that “Israel must find a way to cooperate with the PA and to strengthen it.” Eisenkot commented, in that same 2022 interview, that Argaman was right. “This is what’s happening, and it’s dangerous,” he added.

People on the right said similar things. One of the mantras being repeated was that of newly elected MK Bezalel Smotrich who in 2015 told the Knesset Channel that “Hamas is an asset and Abu Mazen is a burden,” referring to Abbas by his nom de guerre.

In April 2019, Jonatan Urich, one of Netanyahu’s media advisers and a Likud spokesman, told Makor Rishon that one of Netanyahu’s achievements was separating Gaza (both politically and conceptually) from the West Bank. Netanyahu “basically smashed the vision of the Palestinian state in these two places,” he boasted. “Some of the achievement is related to the Qatari money reaching Hamas each month.”

Around the same time in 2019, Likud MK Galit Distel Atbaryan wrote in an effusively complimentary Facebook post: “We must say this honestly – Netanyahu wants Hamas on its feet, and he is ready to pay almost any incomprehensible price for this. Half the country is paralyzed, children and parents are suffering from post-trauma, homes are blown up, people are killed, a street cat holds a nuclear tiger by the balls.” Read it but don’t believe it? It’s worth believing, because this is exactly the policy by which Netanyahu comported himself.

The prime minister himself spoke briefly at times about his position regarding Hamas. In March 2019, he said during a meeting of Likud MKs, at which the subject of transfer of funds to Hamas was under discussion, that, “Whoever opposes a Palestinian state must support delivery of funds to Gaza because maintaining separation between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

In a tweet two months later, Channel 13 quoted former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as telling a Kuwaiti newspaper: “Netanyahu isn’t interested in a two-state solution. Rather, he wants to separate Gaza from the West Bank, as he told me at the end of 2010.”

Gen. (Res.) Gershon Hacohen, a prominent right winger, made things crystal clear in an interview with the online magazine Mida in May 2019. “When Netanyahu didn’t go to war in Gaza to defeat the Hamas regime, he basically prevented Abu Mazen from establishing a united Palestinian state,” he recalled at the time. “We need to exploit the situation of separation created between Gaza and Ramallah. It’s an Israeli interest of the highest level, and you can’t understand the situation in Gaza without understanding this context.”

Netanyahu’s entire policy since 2009 has sought to destroy any possibility of a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians. It’s the theme of his rule, which depends on the continuation of the conflict. Destroying democracy is an additional aspect of his continuing rule, something that has brought many of us out to the streets during the past year.

In that same 2019 interview with Army Radio, Barak said that Netanyahu was keeping the south “on a constant low flame.” One should pay particular attention to his assertion that the security establishment laid on the cabinet table several times plans “to drain the swamp” of Hamas in Gaza, but the cabinet never discussed them.

Netanyahu knew, Barak added, “that it’s easier with Hamas to explain to Israelis that there is no one to sit with and no one to talk to. If the PA strengthens… then there will be someone to talk to.”

Back to Distel Atbaryan: “Mark my words – Benjamin Netanyahu keeps Hamas on its feet so that the entire State of Israel won’t become the ‘Gaza envelope.’” She warned of disaster “if Hamas collapses,” in which case, “Abu Mazen is liable to control Gaza. If he will control it, voices from the left will arise advocating negotiations and a diplomatic settlement and a Palestinian state, including in Judea and Samaria.” Netanyahu’s mouthpieces are incessantly pumping out such messages.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas have an unspoken political alliance against their common enemy – the Palestinian Authority. In other words, Netanyahu has cooperation and agreement with a group whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the
murder of Jews.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was on the mark when he wrote in May 2021, at the time of the establishment of the government of change, that Netanyahu and Hamas were scared of the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough. He wrote that the premier and Hamas both “wanted to destroy the possibility of political change before it could destroy them politically.”

He then explained that they didn’t need to talk or have an agreement between them. “They each understand what the other needs to stay in power and consciously or unconsciously behave in ways to ensure that they deliver it.”

I could go on and on expanding on the subject of this cooperation, but the preceding examples speak for themselves. The 2023 pogrom is a result of Netanyahu’s policy. It is not “a failure of the concept” – rather, this is the concept: Netanyahu and Hamas are political partners, and both sides have fulfilled their side of the bargain.

In the future, more details will emerge that will shed additional light on that mutual understanding. Don’t make the mistake of thinking – even now – that as long as Netanyahu and his present government are responsible for making decisions, the Hamas regime will collapse. There will be a lot of talk and pyrotechnics about the current “war against terror,” but sustaining Hamas is more important to Netanyahu than a few dead kibbutzniks.

Adam Raz is a historian, and author, most recently, of “The Demagogue: The Mechanics of Political Power” (in Hebrew).

PeasfullPerson · 06/09/2024 21:33

Thanks for that info @ScrollingLeaves

In my opinion, the evidence of how Netanyahu used a strategy of destabilisation, helps to make sense of the timing of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination. Which as I mentioned before, was very shortly after Palestinian factions signed an agreement to work together, and while he was in Iran to celebrate the appointment of a (relatively) more moderate president. Not the actions of someone who seeks peace, but the actions of someone who seeks control at all costs.

SababaToo · 06/09/2024 21:41

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.

PeasfullPerson · 06/09/2024 21:50

@SababaToo

The opinion piece @ScrollingLeaves pasted contained quotes from people closely involved in these matters, which I think is good evidence for their interpretation of events.

SababaToo · 06/09/2024 21:53

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines - previously banned poster.