Can Hamas remain in charge?

[mids2019]

So we have a ceasefire but will it last with Hamas remaining in charge of Gaza? There may be attempts for more moderate governance such as the. PA to take over but will they succeed?

The problem with Hamas still existing as a governing power is that Gaza may not attract international. investment for reconstruction and surely that is required for the Palestinian people to live reasonable lives?

More worryingly is that Hamas still has a great deal of support in Gaza and I think the media has glossed over the Palestinians who still feel the war needs to continue and Hamas represent some kind of righteous cause (which is bizarre). The media have had plenty of quotes from Palestinains wanting peace but for balance I think there should be acknowledgment there will be many who wish revenge on Israel and there is still the latent possibility of another October 7th st some point. As Blinken pointed out there are more Hamas fighters now than at the start and this does indicate there is a section of Paelstinain society who at heart out their hatred of Israelis above a lasting prosperous peace.

That is a false equivalence. Hamas is committed to the destruction of the 'Zionist Entity'; Israel is committed to the existence of Israel. There are certainly those in Israel, and even in the Knesset, that would like to see a greater Israel that encompassed the currently OPT, but it is not official policy from the government.

There we have it. Minimising the terrorist actions of the settlers who commit 4 attacks per day on Palestinians, who chant 'death to Arabs' and who want the whole of the OPT to be Israel. It isn't official policy but actions speak louder than words don't they. Do you think that to Palestinians it feels 'different' because Israel haven't written it down somewhere and just let it happen instead?

The settler population has grown more than 200 percent since 2000. The Israeli government encourages these moves, paying for the military to guard them, and funding public services like buses and schools.

20million dollars from the Israeli government to 'young settlers' in 2023?

How is this not encouraging it? Because it isn't official policy and they are just doing it instead it doesn't count? Do you really think that this feels different to Palestinians?

Hamas are terrible and have committed atrocities. But would you surrender if someone decided to make you homeless and take over your land?

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

They withdrew leaving infrastructure behind, for example, greenhouses, which were plundered for scrap rather than preserved to grow food.

And Gaza received billions and billions of dollars from the international community. Wonder what happened to it all? 🤔

Did you see how much cash Sinwar had when they got him?

And yet under International Law its still considered occupied

After WW2 although Israel was meant to get 30% of the land (based on 1/3 of the population was Jewish) but the Arabs didn't want that so Jordan was given 70% of the land, and 30% was shared between Israel and Palestine.
Israel said yes OK, Palestine said no and then attacked Israel. And has spent the last 85 years doing so.

Israel didn't want to give everyone in the West Bank and Gaza citizenship. Quite understandably so considering the Anti-semitism and the whole point of Israel's existence.

Also people seem to forget that under the Geneva Conventions "civilians should never be taken hostage. If they are, that may be characterized as a war crime". Never seems to get mentioned.

Facts seem to be the enemy of most of the posters on this board.

@SpunkyCritic

Hamas have committed war crimes. Taking the hostages is a war crime.

Also, Israel is considered to be illegally occupying the occupied territories by pretty much everyone except Israel.

Both those things are facts.

@SpunkyCritic doesn't it say something about fighting wars in uniforms and not making civilians human shields too?

And yet out they all popped in freshly laundered uniform for the handover of the hostages. Odd that?

It's still a fact that under International Law Gaza is still considered occupied, what you've said above makes no difference to that fact

And yet under International Law its still considered occupied

There's a lack of consensus there, in fact:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/

In practice, yes Israel maintained very tight control of the Gazan borders (gradually loosened in the last few years, before October 2023). But one can understand why, having seen what occures when Hamas and their supporters do manage to cross the border.

Yup.
As are the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel.

You're 100% correct. Although they are a terrorist organisation and not an internationally recognised government, and not signed up to the Geneva convention - it is still the case that they have committed war crimes. That's why the ICC has issued a warrant for the arrest of their leadership. Something we could potentially all agree with?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say though. Israel can commit war crimes because Hamss has committed war crimes? Is that what you are saying?

Where were you when Jordan and Egypt occupied 'Palestinian land' for 20 odd years?
Why is it the second Israel is involved, it is wrong?

It's just a bit of occupation! Everybody is doing it

Not at all. Just pointing it out. Israel tried to get rid of the West Bank and Gaza. After Palestine attacked again, they were unsurprisingly against giving Gazans Israeli citizenship.

All your posts show a clear lack of history knowledge about the area, a completely blinkered view and sympathy for a terrorist organisation where Palestinian actions are totally justified.
I shall no longer be responding to you.

Sadly there is a political bandwagon many jumped on but didn't read the history of both sides to understand the complexity of the problems.

It's frustrating and frankly pointless.

Why is Palestinian land in inverted commas? Its Palestinian land like it or not and whoever occupies it is wrong, unless you think its not?

Apparently so 🙄

Well, because people deliberately use the naming to muddle things. Are you referring to 'Palestinian' in terms of geography, ethnic identity, political state?

Before 1948, 'Palestinian' was only a geographical term, and referred to everyone who lived in the region, whether Arab, Jewish or Christian.

Then Israel declared themselves a nation, and Jewish Palestinians took 'Israeli' as their identity as well as political nationality.

There was no Palestinian political state. Not before 1948. And not after 1948, because they chose not to. Because they wanted the whole land, and couldn't accept the 1/3 of the population who were Jewish having self-determination.

'Palestinian' still wasn't a particular Arab identity at that point either. Still just geographic.

Then in late 1960s, Arafat coined 'Palestinian' as a political identity for Arab Palestinians only - ie defined in opposition to the Israelis (who had been Jewish Palestinians until 1948). And started seeking a political state. But there had been enough war by then that Israel was no longer keen (had previously been fine with it, in 1948)

So it's a bit meaningless to call it 'Palestinian land'. The geographical term isn't linked to the new political identity. The geographical term applies to both Jewish Palestinians (who are now Israeli) and Arab Palestinians (who are now 'Palestinian', but have no state.. But are no more geographically Palestinian than Israelis are).

It would be like saying that 'Northern' land in the UK belongs to 'Northerners'.

But then saying that 'Northerners' excludes 'Geordies' from Newcastle...simply because they have their own identity (like 'Palestinians' seek to exclude Palestinian Jews, because they have a separate identity as Israeli)

And then stretching that to say that Newcastle is 'Northern land'. And 'Northern land' belongs to 'Northerners' (which we've now said excludes Geordies). So Geordies aren't allowed to live in Newcastle

Ah, here you are again with your baseless accusations and insults. I can't say I will miss you resorting to calling me a dumb, terrorist sympathiser every second post in lieu of actual debate.

Indeed.
King Hussein of Jordan said that the PLO attracted the worst kind of people from all over the world looking for a cause to fight.
Ironically, because Israelis have to stand together to survive, their enemies have created a more cohesive society than many countries that have the luxury of a peaceful existence.

I'm confused what we are all even arguing about. The question was should Hamas remain in charge - nobody seems to agree they should.

So we should all be in agreement.

History provides context and lessons. But with this, like everywhere, each side has their own narrative of the history, that they use this as justification for continued oppression/conflict/revenge. That's why Peace Processes have to be about looking forward too not getting trapped in a cycle of violence basically.

If offering Palestinians a viable, peaceful, political path to their own state is part of a peace process (and experts seem to think that it should be) that could achieve safety for Israel and justice for Palestine well I don't really understand why anyone would be against it. Even if you think their identity is "made up"