I’m very pro-Palestinian. That’s yet another reason why I want Hamas gone. There’s no chance for social justice while terrorists are running the show.

What do you think about the historical evidence of Netanyahu promoting Hamas for this very reason?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Anyway, we can make a similar argument about the Netanyahu regime: it is actively making Jewish, Israeli, and American people around the world less safe. It is almost treasonous that our elected officials are supporting this dangerous regime so uncritically.

> almost treasonous

It's fully treasonous imo. Has been since Biden repeated the "beheaded babies" lie twice, even against the express disapproval of his own staff.

If the conditions in Gaza continue as they have for multiple generations now, the eradication of Hamas will just beget the founding a different group with the same approach, or near to.

The conditions in Gaza are the result of Hamas and similar groups. Israel ended their occupation of Gaza twenty years ago and dragged Israelis out. Israel invested in Gaza infrastructure, but Hamas ripped it out and used it to make weapons. Israel allowed Gazans to work in Israel, who then told Hamas where to attack. Israel tried ceasefire after ceasefire, but Hamas just sent suicide bombers and rockets. And when as a result Israel tightened their border and built the Iron Dome, people say they're in the wrong. Those same people also never think about why Egypt also has a tight border with Gaza.

Israel has a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza. The residents of Gaza are second generation refugees from the cities that Israel ethnically cleansed in Nakba in 1948. Israel also bombed Gaza's only airport. Israel has routinely murdered, sniped, arrested and abused all forms of non-violent protest such as the March of Return.

A blockade? You mean the defenses set up by Israel and Egypt after Hamas started attacking?

Ethnically cleansed in Nakba? You mean when Arab countries declared war on Israel and then lost?

Non-violent protests? You mean using molotov cocktails, rifles, and grenades?

You're describing effects but ignoring the causes.

Yes, a blockade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Yes, Nakba was an ethnic cleansing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Yes, they sniped peaceful protesters at the March of Return: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...

I encourage people to read these links for themselves.

Whatever the reasons for the conditions, you have a large population of people who lack control of their own fate. Historically, those populations don't quiet down and accept it.

Egypt has a tight border because Israel has a history of launching retalitory strikes against neighboring nations from which terrorist cells originated.

How would that explain Egypt not letting Gazan refugees in?

No Arab country wants to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of their own ethnicity.

All three reasons offered are cold and heartless calculus that leave Gazan civilians in immediate need unhelped.

EU nations accepted more than a million Syrians with more or less same issues along with way more Ukrainians.

But suddenly another Arab, another Muslim, immediate neighbor just coldly keeps the border shut.

Presumably, they worry that some of them will commit Egypt --> Israel cross-border attacks.

Hamas will only end along with the Zionist occupation.

How does this work out? Let's say Israel admits defeat and gives Hamas everything it wants. How does this remove Hamas from power?

> Israel admits defeat and gives Hamas everything it wants. How does this remove Hamas from power?

Obviously it does not. There is a difference, however, between giving Hamas everything they want and giving Palestinians absolutely nothing, ever. Pulling back settlements and occupation from the Fatah-dominated West Bank would be a start.

It doesn’t automatically. But it can’t happen until the occupation ends. And ultimately Hamas gained prominence precisely because of the occupation which destroyed all other groups with any influence.

You understand that your illogical and immoral death pact works both ways, right?

Who is dominant militarily? Does it look like the U.N. is going to be able to continue the theater of pulling the reigns on Israel?

There is a logical reason as to why civilians shouldn't be used as pawns in war. It green lights all civilians and tragically opens the door to ethnic cleansing.

And yet here you are arguing that the war can't end until Israel is removed. Literally demanding the terms, and guaranteeing the results, for the removal of Palestinians. Crazy talk, from someone who pretends to have the interests of the Palestinians at heart.

I’m not demanding anything, merely describing the likely future.

As an analogy, the South African apartheid state was dominant militarily. Over time, through internal and external military and political pressure, this state was defeated and abolished. The indigenous resistance that won established a new state, after which the more violent elements withered away.

Currently, Hamas are a part of the Palestinian resistance. When apartheid ends and the resistance wins, Hamas will either change or end.

Respectfully, that prediction is a very general set of events that could be applied to any government.

It will come to pass unless it doesn't.

If you'll forgive the glibness, all good gamblers know that the past does not predict the future.

I'd suggest that the SA State is not allegorical to Israel, except in the minds of those who have an interest of believing that to be the case. Which is fine, for them.

However, what should be pointed out is the difference between a subjective moral analogy and a military-political analogy.

I believe that the only reasonable analogy that could be subjectively held is a moral analogy, for people whose self-interest is aligned with arranging the facts just so.

However, your point correctly rests with the more pertinent political-military analysis. But I think that your analogical analysis and conclusion is off, respectfully.

The SA State was fighting against a Western Media whose general position was determined at the beginning of the American Civil War. Even still, I'd suggest that it is a mistake to believe that such pressure as they exerted on the SA State is not a choice for them. The Media, and the associated political class, can and often do ignore or otherwise force contrarian positions on governments within the context of opposing internal politics.

Second, there is the popular concept of the nature of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and then there is the military geopolitical concept of which the majority oif the population is seemingly mostly unaware.

Which is not at all related to South Africa.

What escapes the awareness of the general population will continue to drive the actions of Western governments.

Last and probably least, the Palestinians aren't indigenous.

There's nothing more dangerous than setting up camp on the most hotly contested piece of land on the planet. As unlike most anywhere else, those fighting for it will be referencing the deepest available histories to internally justify their claim. Even hidden histories, and deeper than one might think.

> Hamas are a part of the Palestinian resistance.

Repeat that POV all that you wish. They will continue to be treated as an opposition military until they no longer exist. And then their replacements will be treated as the same.

Before the Israeli occupation (and thus before the Nakba) there was no need for a resistance.

Israel kept taking more Palestinian land and expelling more Palestinians as internal refugees in an increasingly smaller space, but even then the resistance was secular and largely led by socialists.

Only much later after Israel assassinated many resistance leaders did Hamas finally emerge to fill the gap. In many ways, Hamas is Israel’s chosen enemy.

The causality I presented is correct. It’s entirely natural for indigenous people to resist their occupiers, violently if needed. The entire resistance and Hamas in particular only exist because the occupation existed in the first place.

To be clear, you mean the entire nation of Israel, correct?

The end result is up to the Palestinian people. All demand right of return and ending apartheid. Some want that done through the abolishing of Israel entirely, others through land swaps that allow two states to exist. What actually happens will depend on the relative balance of forces at the time.

The end result isn’t actually up to the Palestinian people because their power is limited. They have the freedom to make choices within limits.

I recommend optimizing for prosperity in the presence of Israel. That would be a very good choice. It’s possible to thrive, as an individual and as a people, if you stay focused on that.

I love the Palestinian people and want them to thrive. The best way to accomplish that is to love God and to love your neighbor.

Broadly speaking, the Jewish people like to be lawful (according to their own conception of the law). It’s possible to work with that system and to be successful.

People often say “It’s complicated” or “It’s intractable.” I don’t believe that at all. It’s only intractable if you dig in your heels.

Perfection doesn’t exist this side of heaven, but it is possible to live and to be happy.

Yup,anyone with a brain and access to internet (non mainstream media) is pretty much against Israel exercising ethnic cleansing on Palestinian people. And you're right, young people tend to be more empathetic and less likely to support a bully.

I definitely have a client who would fire us if I said anything remotely against Israel.

Which is normally a very bad thing, but during a genocide it's a million times worse. I think a lot of people can feel that they're not allowed to say something right now that they should probably say, or at least be allowed to say.