I would describe this as a motte and bailey: using the failure of peace processes to advance the claim that any call for Palestinian freedom is genocidal. Although even the “motte” in this case is tenuous, since preventing the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an explicit goal of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy.
Honestly not even sure what to say about the second paragraph, other than that “implacable religious and ethnic hatred” is definitely a deeply held Western value. We don’t have a monopoly on it, but the idea that we are the uniquely moral ones, while all those other people are just motivated by hatred… sheesh.
In 2005, the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza meant the IDF leaving and taking all Jews from the area with them. That's about as pro-peace as you can get. Israel saying in essence "Here you go, Palestinians. Take all of Gaza in peace. No strings attached. We will supply you with water and electricity too!"
Gazans elected Hamas and then fired so many rockets at Israelis that they had to invent a new technology to protect themselves. Gazans dug tunnels under the border with Israel for no other purpose than to kill Israelis.
Yeah, like most humans, we Westerners have experience of hate, but no, Westerners do not have living experience of that level of hate. Well, Jews do.
This is dishonest. Try again, please. Why was "access to the rest of the world", by which I guess you mean the Egypt-Israeli blockade, put in place? When?
For someone who thinks the rest of us are so ignorant on this...
Gaza's (only) Airport, which had its radar station and control tower bombed in 2001, and its runways cut up by IDF bulldozers in 2002.
Gaza's port has been intermittently blockaded by the Israeli Navy since 2005, and permanently since 2007.
> Exit and entry into Gaza by sea or air is prohibited. There are only three crossings in and out of Gaza, two of them controlled by Israel and one by Egypt. Israel heavily regulates Palestinians' movement through Erez, with applications considered only for a small number of laborers (less than 5% of the number considered in 2000) and for limited medical and humanitarian reasons.[6] Israel's military cooperation with Egypt and its control of the population registry (through which it controls who can obtain the necessary travel documents) gives it influence over movement through Rafah.
Certainly sounds like "access to the rest of the world" is being prohibited.
I think you mean "In response to Hamas, funded in part by the Likud administration, because the PLA was being increasingly seen as conciliatory and willing to seek diplomacy (who knows why, tiredness of conflict, Arafat growing more philosophical in his late life), which caused awkward questions of "if they are willing to negotiate, why isn't Israel?"."
Hamas was propped up by the hard right wing because they made a more visible enemy.
So, if Hamas is dedicated to "exterminating Jews" as you say, then why would Israel give them funding and support against the PLA?
Hamas is ~38,000 of 2.5M people. And thanks to those embargoes and blockades, they're the only ones who are really armed in Palestine.
You're contorting the answer in order not to answer. The blockade was put in place in response to what, when?
2005, unilateral withdrawal from Gaza
2006, Gazans peacefully went about their lives, setting up - and minding their own - businesses, made trade contacts, geared up a booming tourist industry...? No. That's not what happened, is it. I'm sure you can find a way to blame Israel for Palestinian choices, but that helps no one.
2007, blockade, out of the blue with no rhyme or reason. Just to flex, and watch the world burn.
If you care about peace, you won't do these weird contortions to explain Israel's actions. As with Hamas, Israel explains the reasons for its actions very clearly but largely boils down to "leave us alone or FAFO".
The PLO had ordered its military/paramilitary to not antagonize Israel, and they weren't. That was one of the keys to sitting at the negotiation table. And there had been a few false starts. Israel, in response to those false starts, entirely reasonably, left the table. But then there was a period of reasonable calm.
Palestinians are not attacking Israel - this isn't a war.
Hamas continued to have a militant and extremist position, which included attacking Israel.
^ There, answering your question, acknowledging that Hamas had and continues to attack Israel.
Now answer mine:
Why did Israel fund and prop up Hamas rather than the PLO who was working towards a peaceable situation?
Like you said, Hamas are attacking Israel. But the Likud administration sent them money and supported them.
Come on, you're actively avoiding anything that paints Israel as less than saintly.
> For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them.
> Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue?
> Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes.
> 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
> For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.
> The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I suppose the Times of Israel is anti-semitic, too?
> And I ask again: there were no reasonable security concerns behind the blockade according to you? Just for evil funsies?
There's no room for conversation here. You doggedly hang on to issues even after they've been answered.
I literally said "Hamas was actively attacking Israel".
> "Yes, Hamas was financed by the government of Israel in an attempt to weaken the Palestinian Authority led by Fatah," Borrell said in a speech in the University of Valladolid in Spain without elaborating.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell.
> "Blowback: How Israel Went from Creating Hamas to Bombing It"
And what do you have? "Some guy on HN says Israel (and the US) supported the PLO against Hamas".
Huh. US involvement: "The US committed $59 million for training and non-lethal equipment for the Presidential Guard".
Fun fact, the amount that was sent to Hamas with Netanyahu's -specific and explicit- approval was around that much... every month... for near two decades.
But, as mentioned, I cannot see fruitful outcomes from further discussion here.
I regret the phrasing “U.S. and Israel backed coup”, since it makes them sound like equal participants and the discussion is now marginalizing the U.S.’s involvement. But like I said elsewhere, both the coup attempt and Israel’s support for Hamas at other points in time are well documented.
I think your contributions on this have been useful and valuable.
Parent keeps harping about Hamas coming to power in 2006 and that that is when the blockades started and that people should "figure out why those dates align", steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that the airport had been bombed in 1999 and runways dug up in 2001.
Oh, and any claim about Hamas being supported by Israel is apparently anti-semitic.
> I literally said "Hamas was actively attacking Israel".
You did? It was buried under lots of anti-Israel rhetoric that it was hard to see.
The blockade was introduced to the discussion as yet but one more example of Israel oppressing the poor Gazans, presented as if it were some kind of arbitrary evil simply to control Gazans with no other rhyme or reason. It turns out that there was a reason, actually. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40271323
So, without cruft:
2005: Israel withdrew from Gaza
2007: Israel blockades Gaza
we have "Hamas actively attacked Israel"
It seems a very straightforward cause and effect.
> Come on, you're actively avoiding anything that paints Israel as less than saintly.
Not at all. However, I do note with sadness that you and the other guy could not simply answer the question. Lots of diversion into how awful Israel is before at last a grudging admission that the blockade was in response to attacks.
Do you think it's at least possible that your firm and unwavering anti-Israel stance is informed itself by this kind of rhetoric? Just a thought.
Ok, now that that's established, I'll dig into this allegation of Netenyahu funding Hamas in order to deny Palestinians a state. And while I'm at it the other guy's allegation that at the same time Israel funded a coup against Hamas. Sounds suss out of the gate but who knows? Maybe this is the smoking gun that Israel is led by demons.
I find that most anti-Israel rhetoric is like that. Israel builds a wall in response to a wave of attacks: "Israel is building an open air prison". Israel blockades Gaza in response to tunnels: "Israel just wants to control Gazans lives" and so forth. Israel destroying an airport? Gee, I wonder why they did that? What possible reason could those monsters have for doing such a despicable act? Any ideas?
Did you know that Finland is building a wall on her border with Russia? In response to what, would you guess?
Is one of these walls ok but the other not? If not, why not? A wall is the most passive thing one can do to protect one's national borders, and yet, somehow you present it as yet another example of Israeli evil. Why Palestinians should have the right to stroll onto Israeli grounds anytime they please remains unexplained.
There certainly is a theme here of imputing malevolence even to Israel's most mild, passive response to actual violence by Palestinians. Are you infuriated by the Iron Dome as well?
No strings attached… except the lack of an airport (Israel destroyed it in 2001), a sea blockade, tightly controlled land border crossings and periodic attacks on Gaza power and water facilities. You only need to look at the past six months to see that Israel is not “supplying” Gaza with water and electricity out of the goodness of their hearts.
While you’re looking at the last six months, perhaps also look at what Israeli government officials have been saying for years. Just last week Bezalel Smotrich called for the “complete destruction” of Gaza — far more explicitly genocidal than “from the river to the sea” — and for the annexation of the West Bank if the UN were to recognize a Palestinian state. That level of hate is, at the very least, heartily reciprocated.
I am Jewish, by the way. So inasmuch as this affects Jews as a whole — rather than Israelis specifically — it’s not abstract for me.
There are two colliding views here - one is that Israel is acting in good faith, and the other - that Israel is on a campaign of cruelty. For the believers in the former, i want to bring two facts:
> tightly controlled land border
for people who think border is there for security, you should be aware that Israel has, for years, blocked imports of essential sanitary products and food items into Gaza, i.e. toilet paper, soap, and humus. Many of the tunnels under gaza were built for smuggling in these items. United states has long protested this policy:
in 1995 Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated by Israeli religious extremist to sabotage the peace process
> The perpetrator was Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old former Hesder student and far-right law student at Bar-Ilan University. Amir had strenuously opposed Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords, because he felt that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would deny Jews their "biblical heritage which they had reclaimed by establishing settlements".
> should be aware that Israel has, for years, blocked imports of essential sanitary products and food items into Gaza, i.e. toilet paper, soap, and humus. Many of the tunnels under gaza were built for smuggling in these items
Oh, now I understand! This is but a simple misunderstanding! How silly, but easy to clear up.
You see, the tunnels came first - into Israel in order to kill Israelis. Only then did Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza. Had nothing to do with smuggling. Now that that is cleared up, you can distrust Hamas and trust Israel. Unless, of course, there's another misunderstanding in your way that I can clear up for us all?
But also, that Ynet article is just stenography for the IDF! The only sources are IDF officers and the Israeli defense minister. Why would anyone believe this is not just manufacturing a pretext for escalation?
I’ll add one more, which I alluded to in my first comment.
Netanyahu has been supporting and funding Hamas for years, specifically and explicitly to prevent recognition of a Palestinian state. Direct quote: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.”
This is dishonest. Why were these measures put in place? If any part of your answer is "to oppress Palestinians" the answer is wrong and you should update your information.
You simplify of course, because my actual argument is harder to counter. I understand if the choice choice is "Palestinians attack Israel as a righteous resistance to oppression" or "Palestinians attack Israel because the idea of living peacefully next to a Jewish state is abhorrent." why a reasonable person would think the first is more likely. It's counter intuitive to our expectations.
And you never answered the question. Why were those measures put in place?
I don’t think “they hate Jews” is a meaningful simplification from “the idea of living peacefully next to a Jewish state is abhorrent.” If your argument is more nuanced, you are doing a poor job communicating it.
Anyway, I’ll play ball. First of all, Israel controlled Palestinian movement into and out of the Gaza strip for years before Hamas came into power.
In 2000, during the Second Intifada, Israel closed Yasser Arafat International Airport — the only international airport in Gaza. The next year they destroyed it.
In 2005, Israel withdrew all settlements from Gaza out of concern that if the Palestinian population kept growing, it would threaten Israel’s ability to be a Jewish state.
In 2006, Hamas was elected in Gaza with a plurality of the vote. After the U.S. and Israel backed the previous incumbents Fatah in an attempted coup, Hamas seized full control of the Gaza strip. This is about when Israel imposed the full blockade.
> This is about when Israel imposed the full blockade.
about is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Let's walk through more slowly.
Israel withdrew from Gaza when? Then imposed a blockade when and in response to what?
I'm hearing that Netanyahu supported Hamas, now I'm hearing from you Israel supported Fatah. Which is it? Either way, or both, it sounds pretty nefarious of these wiley, shifty Israelis. They do this simply because they are evil or is there a charitable interpretation that they are addressing a a specific concern?
This is all well documented. But it seems like you are intent on finding charitable interpretations for Israel’s actions while not searching further than “they hate Jews” for Palestine’s. So unless that stance changes, I don’t really see any point in further discussion.
You: Did you know that Israel supported a coup against Fatah?
What would get me interested:
You: The blockade came in response to a serious of tunnel attacks and is an attempt to limit materials that could be used to attack Israel. But there is important context that's missing. Hamas came to power after an attempted coup, and...
I'll check into your 2 allegations and report back.
Ok. I read the first part of the Vanity Fair article and of the Times article and I think I get the gists. Asking if I have them right:
Regarding "the Israeli government supported Hamas", from the NYT:
For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them.
... Allowing the payments — billions of dollars over roughly a decade — was a gamble by Mr. Netanyahu that a steady flow of money would maintain peace in Gaza, the eventual launching point of the Oct. 7 attacks, and keep Hamas focused on governing, not fighting.
...Mr. Netanyahu’s critics disparage them as part of a strategy of “buying quiet,” and the policy is in the middle of a ruthless reassessment following the attacks.
Is that a fair excerpt?
Regarding "Israel and the US attempted a coup against Hamas" the gist appears to be that Bush the younger (really, as an aside, the worst President the US has had in my lifetime and I'm old enough to have been alive during the Nixon administration) supported a coup against Hamas in an incompetent attempt to create conditions for a the formation of a Palestinian state during his Presidency.
Is that fair? Probably not, because I don't have much patience for Bush shenanigans and it was hard to read.
One of the attached strings is that they aren't allowed to have a meaningful airport or seaport. It's a misrepresentation to suggest that Gaza has been free to self-realize given that it's basically been under a light-touch siege for decades.
That was not an original "string". The question is, and be honest: why was there a blockade? How long did Palestinians have Gaza and no blockade? What happened then?
I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.