Quote (Handcuffs @ 16 Oct 2023 00:58)
I think you're reading something in my post that isn't there. I'm not invoking the continued existence of Hamas to justify anything.
The reality is that Hamas would continue to exist even if Israel took every step that you and I would agree to. What is to be done about that, either by Israel and/or (preferably) an international response? Is Hamas an existential threat to Israel? No. Can they (and have they) done some massive fucking damage such that they need to be dealt with? Yes.
and i agreed they need to be dealt with, for practical reasons. and do you know what'd be an incredibly potent way to do that? just take away
their number one recruiting tool: the unjust suffering of the palestinian people at the hands of a brutal and illegal occupation. this might not be common knowledge, but people living in relative freedom and prosperity tend to be a lot less radical and hateful than those suffering from hunger and oppression. (this snark is not directed at you, i know you understand that, it's a comment for the pro-occupation crowd)
and again, when it comes to hamas, or radical voices within palestine in general, israel's conservatives need to stop propping them up for political reasons, and more moderate voices will rise to the forefront again - like they did before.
but we all know netanyahu won't do that. he has vowed to never allow a palestinian state. he has sworn to maintain the illegal occupation for as long as he's in charge. he has treated hamas as an asset for his cause.
so maybe we need to start asking how to remove THOSE radicals in the way of a lasting peace as well? because they are the ones calling the shots on the side that has all the power.
yet for some reason only the occupied, only the palestinians are expected to de-radicalise...
to be clear, i was NOT trying to suggest or read into your post that you uncritically subscribe to it yourself, i can see that you are asking genuine questions about aspects that interest you - i'm just letting you know that to me, your approach of treating it like the only or at least the main obstacle to peace, inherently bolsters the "
hamas and any potential radical has to be completely dealt with before we even consider stopping our blatant human rights violations" line of argument. however, it crucially leaves the other side of the equation completely unaddressed, and frames the conversation in a way that portrays the occupiers as the victims, desperately looking for a reasonable solution, while in reality they have supported hardliners for decades, and are currently not even moving an inch in order to address their own opposition to a peaceful resolution that doesn't involve a systemic violation of human rights...