Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: First, you said that I didn't offer a clear argument for why history shouldn't matter. I feel as though I have though. My clear argument for why it shouldn't matter is Hamas's genocidal intentions. The moment genocide is claimed against a group of people and that genocide is acted upon, the group of people for which the genocide is claimed against cannot be told how to handle how they respond to the genocidal acts committed against them. 

Now to clarify again, I mean they get to respond how they want to respond within a certian degree of reason. I don't think they just get to launch nukes over there and anniihlate everyone. I think limits should be applied to their response that has some regard for innocent lives. But that does not mean indefinite ceasefires.

Ok I agree you ARE offering an argument as to why history shouldn't matter. So I am disagreeing with your reasons here.

And "some regard for innocent lives"--no nukes, is still a bit fuzzy. But you are definitely saying less regard for innocent life than
IHL allows. Right? And that's because Hamas said "genocide." I've already responded to that. I'll discussion the "religion" problem now

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Secondly, I take issue with you trying to argue from a historical perspective that if Israel didn't limit 1)the every day lives of the people living in Gaza, then Hamas wouldn't attempt genocide against Israel. It paints Hamas as some "freedom fighter" group when they're not. 2)

The truth is Hamas doesn't want Israel to exist from a religious perspective. The history of Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is secondary to Hamas's primary objective of destroying Israel based on the point that the land Israel occupies is "Holy land". Therefore, the history ultimately doesn't matter. 3)If Israel ended their blockade and let transportation flow freely and gave everyone food and water and electricity and gas, it wouldn't matter because it still doesn't resolve the primary issue, which is Israel is occupying the "holy land" of Palestine.

1. "Limit" rather understates the situation of dispossession, occupation, siege and now utter destruction.

2. If you start with your conclusion and then dismiss controverting evidence, that's just motivated reasoning.
If you want to sideline the history, then explain why dispossession and occupation are not sufficient to motivate Palestinians to resist occupation.
I understand why it is in the interest of the current Israeli government to separate resistance TO occupation FROM the occupation. It's because most
everyone understands and sympathizes with resistance to oppression. 

3. If I understand you, you are saying that religion fully explains the behavior of Hamas. They don't hate Israel because it has driven them from their homes and besieged them in Gaza, where it can kill Palestinians with impunity.  They hate them because they have taken their "Holy Land."

E.g., to offer a counter-factual thought experiment, if Israel had not driven Palestinians off their land in '48, but incorporated them into their new state as citizens, there would still be a Hamas type organization wanting to destroy Israel and kill Jews. The occupation and bombing of civilians in Gaza for years and all that plays no role, or only a "secondary" one, in their desire to destroy the state doing that to them. If you don't think that is the case, then I don't see how you can disregard history.

Seems clear--no Israeli dispossession/occupation=no Hamas. Given that, dispossession cannot be separated from Hamas and its motivations. I see Hamas on the analogy to Hezbollah. They emerge AFTER and Israeli occupation and then express their resistance in religious terms. Their opposition to Israel becomes expressed in religious terms, but that doesn't make religion the CAUSE. A change in power relations and opportunities and the so-called religious motivation will wither.

I agree that Israel ending the siege and providing food and water for the people it is now starving would not end the matter. Israel would still be in control of Gaza and the land from which they expelled Palestinians. It's not clear at all though, that if the Israelis offered some serious path to a two-state solution that wouldn't end the matter. Hamas has already signaled it would be receptive to that. You know there is a more recent statement of Hamas principles, right, one which would "consider" a Palestinian state within the ’67 boundaries? https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf