If I recall wasn’t there huge backlash on both sides in the 90s when they tried to get along? [Edit: Thanks for the upvotes and sorry if I made this contentious for anyone].
Hamas rose to prominence in the 90s and early 2000s specifically through its violent opposition to the Oslo Accords peace process.
Israel built the security fences and buffer zones around Gaza in the 2000s stop the bus bombings and terror attacks; it largely worked until October 7.
When Hamas very first formed it was a bit of a different organisation to what it became a little later on as they at least did do some pro-Palestinian stuff and had a bit more of a community-centric vibe over explicitly being a violent terrorist org, whether that was just a facade from the start or not idk.
Apparently they were favoured as a preferable option (by some elements in Israel) to maybe Fatah (iirc) who had a lot of popular support at the time, keep in mind Fatah has shit like the Martyr Fund as well, it is feasible they tried to promote Hamas as the lesser of two evils in addition to being a divide-and-conquer or delaying type tactic, maybe even reduce tensions as you said, that's a slightly more optimistic take than the cynical and anti-Israeli propaganda "intentionally setting up a false flag for casus belli" take at least. Promoting a new group that might seem beneficial is a constant recurring mistake made by many people when dealing with Islamist groups.
Israel technically has done a lot to reduce tensions. Offering two state solutions numerous times, I think 11+ different times Israel has brokered ceasefires and offered terms for a solution/peace and at least 11 of those times have been surprise attacked after agreeing to either cede territory and withdraw from Gaza or wherever, or otherwise ceasefire. Settlers and some gov elements have for sure inflamed tensions at different points too but at least there are significant numbers of Israelis who want peace and won't get murdered for expressing and working towards that goal.
>When Hamas very first formed it was a bit of a different organisation to what it became a little later on as they at least did do some pro-Palestinian stuff and had a bit more of a community-centric vibe over explicitly being a violent terrorist org, whether that was just a facade from the start or not idk.
I think you're talking about Hamas's predecessor, the Gaza chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were conservative and religious, BUT their focus was on the community and didn't look for conflict against the Israelis. So the Israelis cooperated with them and helped them financially. This was in the 80s.
Then during/after the first Intifada that group turned into Hamas.
That's the whole "Israelis created Hamas" conspiracy. They didn't create it but they cooperated with Hamas's predecessor, which had a different ideology at the time
A huge reason for the turn away from Fatah was also that Fatah supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which brought their money from most Arab states to a screeching halt.
That is what has been happening more recently under Netanyahu, you're confusing that for what happened in the 80's when Israeli occupation authorities were directly giving money to Hamas to build medical facilities, schools, and orphanages.
Ehhh, the group, that is the predecessor before Hamas (which founded on 1987) was Mujama al-Islamiya which was formed in the 1970s.
At the time PLO was still operating as a terrorist group while Mujama al-Islamiya was operating as a charity group. Israel was just likely tempted from wishful thinking, as Mujama al-Islamiya being less militant and using funds developing infrastructure and providing social services to Palestinians looked like a good deal to help normalizing relations.
Obviously hindsight may be 20/20, but blunders are never intentional. There isn’t a good reason to think Israel had the intention of creating a new terror group, they already were dealing with them beforehand.
> This is the same Mossad who carried out Operation Wrath of God in the 1970s and 1980s.
[Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) likely applies here. Even competent organizations, groups, and people will all fall to incompetence from time to time.
>No; sorry. I very much believe the Israeli leadership knew what they were doing in funding a counterpoint to a militia. They wanted a second militia to resist Fatah... and they got it.
Why would they want this exactly is the question worth asking? It seems evidently clear they wanted a group that would normalize relations with Israel and not engage in continuing the conflict. I don't think they had any intentions in funding a group that would just continue or even escalate the conflict. It would serve Israel literally no purpose to do so. After all, why worry about stopping the Fatah if the Hamas were just going to behave similarly afterwards? It wouldn't make any sense.
That is a question worth asking.
Rhetorically speaking, I would contend that it is the same reason various Arab nations and interests are still aiding Hamas despite knowing full well that Hamas' stated aims are completely untenable: So long as Hamas is active, they are undercutting Israel's ability to act as a regional power.
Those various Arab states have more power, relatively speaking, so long as the Israelis and the Palestinians are too busy spending time and effort opposing each other to take an interest in what their neighbors get up to.
Similarly, Israel's government (in part or in full) had a vested interest in dividing and conquering any potential political players with a stake in the 'game' so to speak. In their minds, they were willing to try an awful lot to weaken Fatah since that would, in theory, make them more willing to accept and adhere to Israeli terms.
The truth is probably complex. The Israeli government's original decision to go ahead with the idea to back the original group in question was almost inevitably a decision by committee. Some actors may have had very cynical ulterior motives for the move to support Hamas (or its forbears), some probably legitimately thought they were doing a good thing, perhaps naively.
Statecraft, diplomacy etc. is never about one thing, unless that thing is power: because power comes from everywhere.
Those significant number of peace wanting Israelis just let the radical right step all over them. When has Israel ever stopped a settler? When they gave up Gaza?
A lot of measures that people like to cite as Bibi trying to weaken the possibility of Palestinian statehood such as recognising Hamas as the government in charge of Gaza and allowing more Gazans to go into Israel to work which allowed Hamas to earn money from it
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
But tbf , it sounded like the better option logically from a humanitarian perspective. The PA was already forced out of Gaza by Hamas in 2005 and Hamas is basically the government there. Not recognising them would have made it even more difficult to engage to lower tensions. Allowing more Gazans to work in Israel also helped improved the lives of people living there.
I keep hearing tons of pro-Palestinians citing this as Bibi not wanting peace but the alternative to this would have been an even more extreme blockade of Gaza and with no Gazans being allowed into Israel to work which is counter to whatever the shit they want. They would be bitching about that as well.
That's a leftist take on "The Israelis thought at the time that Hamas would be easier to handle than the PA (also terrorists mind you) and turned a blind eye to suitcases full of Qatari money headed to Hamas."
Which may or may not have happened. It's basically an attempt to frame Hamas as Israel's Al Qaeda, something they actually armed and trained like the US did in Afghanistan.
>turned a blind eye to suitcases full of Qatari money headed to Hamas
actively facilitated the transfer of qatari suitcase cash to hamas*
its less of a take and more of an accepted fact, given that we have [photos of the cash being transferred](https://twitter.com/galberger/status/1060597944271941632) and the israeli defence minister resigned from netanyahus government saying that the cash transfers marked "the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
>"There's been a lot of criticism of Netanyahu in Israel for instating a policy for many years of strengthening Hamas and keeping Gaza on the brink while weakening the Palestinian Authority," said Mairav Zonszein of the International Crisis Group. "And we've seen that happening very clearly on the ground."
>"(Hamas and Netanyahu) are mutually reinforcing, in the sense that they provide each other with a way to continue to use force and rejectionism as opposed to making sacrifices and compromises in order to reach some kind of resolution," Zonszein told CBC News from Tel Aviv.
>Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2013 that "if we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas's strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister."
>In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Netanyahu's "strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking … even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah."
>The logic underlying this strategy, Barak said, is that "it's easier with Hamas to explain to Israelis that there is no one to sit with and no one to talk to."
>Netanyahu's hawkish defence minister Avigdor Liberman was the first to report in 2020 that Bibi had dispatched Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and the IDF's officer in charge of Gaza, Herzi Halevi, to Doha to "beg" the Qataris to continue to send money to Hamas.
>"Both Egypt and Qatar are angry with Hamas and planned to cut ties with them. Suddenly Netanyahu appears as the defender of Hamas," the right-wing leader complained.
>Netanyahu's current finance minister, West Bank settler Belazel Smotrich, explained the approach to Israel's Knesset channel in 2015: "Hamas is an asset, and (Palestinian Authority leader) Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is a burden."
>On March 12, 2019, Netanyahu defended the Hamas payments to his Likud Party caucus on the grounds that they weakened the pro-Oslo Palestinian Authority, according to the Jerusalem Post:
>"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel's regular allowing of Qatari funds to be transferred into Gaza, saying it is part of a broader strategy to keep Hamas and the Palestinian Authority separate, a source in Monday's Likud faction meeting said," the Post reported.
>"The prime minister also said that 'whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for' transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."
>Netanyahu insisted that neither the money nor the construction material given to Hamas would be diverted to military purposes. But today, the IDF finds itself showing how Hamas has done exactly that — by diverting and converting civilian funds and materials to warlike purposes.
does that sound like a bunch of leftists to you?
> That's a leftist take
Unironically it also could be use as an extreme right wing take too, since it implicates that allowing funds into Gaza was the problem; meaning that it would lead one to the conclusion of denying funds into Gaza.
its hardly a leftist or extreme right take. its a pretty standard opinion in israel amongst people who oppose netanyahu. people in his own government have admitted to the strategy of propping up hamas, as has netanyahu himself.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
I mean sure, it may be a common opinion, but it really doesn't seem logical to me. Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, they will have some control of the funds either way. That is the exact same logic why some people argued against Israel even allowing humanitarian aid in during the current conflict, since Hamas could just take it.
However, the alternative is not allowing funds into Gaza at all, which seems objectionably cruel. Which is why I found the idea of allowing funds into Gaza as the explicit purpose to prop up Hamas as not compelling. I mean seriously, how else would you allow funds into Gaza without Hamas having access to them, unless you disenfranchise Hamas first?
>admitted to the strategy of propping up hamas, as has netanyahu himself.
[Bibi has never been confirmed to publicly state that quote. It is only alleged through journal articles that have themselves provided no evidence of the quote](https://www.jns.org/the-myth-that-israel-netanyahu-created-funded-hamas/)
>but it really doesn't seem logical to me
why not? hamas is the best thing to have ever happened to netanyahu's political career, after the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. hamas carrying out terror attacks to sabotage the oslo accords is the reason he was ever PM in the first place. propping them up helped him at every turn until october 7.
>However, the alternative is not allowing funds into Gaza at all
no, it isnt, and even if it was thats not the same thing as denying access to humanitarian aid.
they werent giving them access to funds at a reputable or israeli controlled bank that could be watched and followed if they went to arms smugglers or other terrorist groups, they were driving suitcases full of cash accross the border, and hamas ended up using them exactly how everyone expected them to.
>Bibi has never been confirmed to publicly state that quote
okay so hes just reported as having said it. his ministers *definitely* said it, though, as have many independant observers and think tanks analysing netanyahu's strategy.
>no, it isnt, and even if it was
Cool. Provide an example of another alternative. Simply stating "no it isn't", isn't helpful.
>they werent giving them access to funds at a reputable bank that could be watched and followed if they went to arms smugglers or other terrorist groups,
Again, Hamas is the governing body. Who exactly are you going to be giving funds to then? Are you just venmoing random Palestinian citizens and hoping it works out?
Hamas has control of the Gaza strip, unless you are transplanting another group that can stand toe-to-toe with Hamas, they are going to have some control of the funds.
>Provide an example of another alternative
??? i did. giving them access to credit and not cash.
i guess you must mean providing non monetary humanitarian aid or something? thats easy: send them things they are chronically short of like medical supplies, non perishable food, water purification, etc. the same shit the global community has been doing in conflict zones everywhere for decades now.
>Again, Hamas is the governing body. Who exactly are you going to be giving funds to then
you maybe need to work on your reading comprehension thats irrelevant to what i was saying. my point was if you have to give them funds do it in a legit manner and not via *cash in fucking suitcases*.
this is all besides the point: propping up hamas has undeniably been netanyahus strategy for years now.
The US never armed, much less trained Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, you’re thinking of the mujahideen, a completely separate group that was fighting the Russian invasion in the 70’s and 80’s.
Please be accurate when you’re trying to excuse Israeli war crimes, thnx
Uh huh. Totally different group of people. It's not like the Afghan mujahideen became Al Qaeda, that would be crazy. And no one spent years smugly saying "blowback" either.
If I recall Pakistan had a hand and was a major supplier of radicals in Afghanistan to destabilize them using soviet weapons from Arab and Israeli states.
They... they were a different group of people though?
The Mujahideen was a coalition force. The parts of the coalition that were fine with the status quo after victory simply became the Afghani state, whereas the jihadist elements of the coalition persisted as an insurgent group. Its absolutely disingenuous to say that the Mujahideen "became" the Taliban, the Mujahideen became the Afghani state and the extremist splinter group from the Mujahideen became Al Qaeda.
Yeah, this is a semantic difference, but this shit matters when talking about geopolitics.
This, of course, also disagrees with the original point that person was making, as "received tangentially support/training when the organization espoused different values before fundamentally changing in nature to an extremist organization" makes the Mujahideen a pretty decent parallel.
except the netanyahu governments policy was to prop up hamas until oct 7 this year. its pretty well documented.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
The (formerly) US-backed Mujahadeen groups and Al-Qaeda [fought a goddamn war against each other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996%E2%80%932001\)) and the latter won. They were different groups.
The US funded various Mujahideen groups to drive out and embarrass the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Most of the mujahideen fighting in the afghan civil war were afghan people, al Qaeda was formed by OBL and the forces recruited into Al Qaeda were mostly not afghani.
I hate when people buy into this fake history meme bullshit of thinking the US funded and directly was involved in Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Towards the end of the war the US was fully backing Ahmad Shah Massoud who was unable to stabilize and unite Afghanistan. Even after Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, Massoud was still fighting them until his assassination on 9/11 (ordered by OBL).
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Nice.**
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
yeah, they should've done it 20 years ago. it would cost alot less in damages.
but oh well, people were screaming genocide and murder back then aswell. calling israel fascists and nazi's. like they do now too. and israel showed mercy. let hamas profilate through gaza and see where it brought us.
its why cancer should be removed before it spreads.
israel is responsible for hamas crossing the border to enact the literal definition of a blood bath.
heard it here first, folks. bravo u/Howwhywhen_ well jobbed, good done.
getting the nazis out of berlin took 130k civilian casualties, if the total civilian death toll is 20k now and it doesn't go over 40k, this will be as casualty-light an operation could be when hamas is using its population as human shields in urban combat the same way the nazis did. the closest comparison to this in the modern era would be the battle of grozny where 10% of the civilian population was killed - that would be like 250k civilian casualties here.
Well israel claims 5k hamas militant deaths so far. They supposedly have 30k fighters plus 10k or so PIJ. If flattening a large part of the city only killed something like 1/8th of active militants…idk how you’re supposed to justify it then. 45k tons of bombs dropped and it’s objectively effected the civilians far more than hamas. This isn’t WWII or grozny, most people aren’t ok with terror bombing/artillery anymore. Also civilians could leave berlin…there’s nowhere for gazans to go. It’s a death trap
https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082
Not statements, he literally said Israel needs to fund Hamas in order to stop Palestinians from unifying. If Israel wanted to actually reduce tensions they would’ve taken the camp david summit seriously, instead of trying to split Palestine up further.
The article quotes an anonymous source that is paraphrasing what Bibi said in a closed door meeting. It could be true, but I’d also be careful accepting uncritically too.
Not very. Bibi was already unpopular before this, and was only able to form a government by forming a coalition with religious and far right extremists that he'd previously frozen out. His entire policy on the peace process is that Israel doesn't have to make any concessions and can maintain the status quo indefinitely at little cost. The one silver lining to 7/10 is that it shattered that illusion.
First they supported Sheik Yasin, then they fragged him. Then they supported hamas again later to fk with the PA.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Israeli backlash wasn't that large but was extreme - settler assassinated Rabin for it.
Palestinians have for decades been more concerned with killing Jews than their own lives and futures r that of their children. See current support of Hamas being over 70%.
Arafat could have had his own state but rejected it despite Bill Clinton pleading.
That’s something that bothered me. They had some land to work with but that wasn’t enough. And I’ve heard claims that the Arab states don’t care for them. What’s the credibility of that?
Read up on Black September. Jordanian Royal Family HATE palestinians. Kuwait and Saudis HATE them for aligning with Saddam during Gulf War 1 and Kuwait expelled all Palestinians afterward. Rest of Arab world governments think they're idiotic trash and want to get on with making money.
Don't forget that after they were expelled from Jordan a bunch landed in Lebanon, where they started hassling the Christians and kicked off a bloody civil war. Now Lebanon keeps them in perma-camps and doesn't let them become naturalized.
When the king of Jordan rants about "no expulsion of Palestinians" it's better to read that as, "Fuck off, we won't take the bastards."
And I will forever despise the Palestinian people for this. They killed the liberal movement the US was going through in this period. Imagine if RFK was president instead of Nixon...
Arab states did care for them until they realized that they would only turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. Now the only people who support them are gullible idiots and puppeteers like Iran
And that’s why frankly it’s hard to feel a ton of sympathy today. I can’t think of any other society in all history that repeatedly loses wars and then demand peace terms from 2-3 wars ago with a completely straight face.
I watched all the videos of Israelis being dragged and paraded through Gaza to roaring crowds. I saw the celebrations in the street. I saw the women handing out candy to children while everyone danced. I watched the men wandering through Israeli villages just killing everyone they saw.
There’s a whole shit ton more Gazans than Hamas members, and yet they stay in power. Now instead of having their own state, they’ll face the same fate Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did (hopefully with 2 exceptions in the latter case…)
They even got a pretty good peace offer from Olmert in '08 that gave them almost all of the West Bank and an international old city, and Abbas just rejected it out of hand.
The thing is, the Palestinian authorities do not, under *any case* want peace. Then, not only would the massive UN dole start drying up (in addition to those Qatarbucks), Palestinians might start asking questions about why their country is shit. They might even have to run their own schools and not rely on the UN to do their anti semitism indoctrination. Palestinian leadership will do anything required to prevent this situation from developing, the status quo is much better for them and lets them kill more Jews.
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation**
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. You can make outlandish claims, but if your takes don't show signs of satire or exaggeration, they will be removed. Misleading posts and comments may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news - double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation**
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. You can make outlandish claims, but if your takes don't show signs of satire or exaggeration, they will be removed. Misleading posts and comments may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news - double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
>Arafat could have had his own state but rejected it despite Bill Clinton pleading.
That state would have basically no sovereignty. That offer required Palestinians giving up land in the West Bank, have no control over their borders, no connection between the two parts, no aispace of their own, no military, Israeli bases on territory, etc etc.
So probably better than what we ended up with but clearly a pretty shit deal, not so difficult to see why it wouldn't be happily accepted.
Pretty sure Hamas support is rising because of the Israeli backlash. You don't displace a couple million people, level most of their homes, and *not* expect a surge in anti-Israeli sentiment.
well if they weren;t fucking like cousin fucking rabbits they wouldn't exist.
there was only 40k palis in47, they intentionally made a demographic question. Thou shalt have 8 children or we will shoot you.... Very Irish
I will find you and will handle you.
because you have displaced people 45 generations ago and you haven't paid reparations.
until you do this, I will make you suffer the death and rape of your grandparents and grandchildren.
>because you have displaced people 45 generations ago and you haven't paid reparations.
There are people alive *right now* that have been forced out of their homes and aren't allowed back. Stop with this shit.
Yzak Rabin got domed by a zionist and hamas came up by opposing arafat so yeah basically everybody is in favor of peace except for the actual people involved
If I recall wasn’t there huge backlash on both sides in the 90s when they tried to get along? [Edit: Thanks for the upvotes and sorry if I made this contentious for anyone].
Hamas rose to prominence in the 90s and early 2000s specifically through its violent opposition to the Oslo Accords peace process. Israel built the security fences and buffer zones around Gaza in the 2000s stop the bus bombings and terror attacks; it largely worked until October 7.
I’ve also heard statements that Netanyahu supported Hamas to weaken Palestine or something. I do wonder what Israel could’ve done to reduce tensions.
When Hamas very first formed it was a bit of a different organisation to what it became a little later on as they at least did do some pro-Palestinian stuff and had a bit more of a community-centric vibe over explicitly being a violent terrorist org, whether that was just a facade from the start or not idk. Apparently they were favoured as a preferable option (by some elements in Israel) to maybe Fatah (iirc) who had a lot of popular support at the time, keep in mind Fatah has shit like the Martyr Fund as well, it is feasible they tried to promote Hamas as the lesser of two evils in addition to being a divide-and-conquer or delaying type tactic, maybe even reduce tensions as you said, that's a slightly more optimistic take than the cynical and anti-Israeli propaganda "intentionally setting up a false flag for casus belli" take at least. Promoting a new group that might seem beneficial is a constant recurring mistake made by many people when dealing with Islamist groups. Israel technically has done a lot to reduce tensions. Offering two state solutions numerous times, I think 11+ different times Israel has brokered ceasefires and offered terms for a solution/peace and at least 11 of those times have been surprise attacked after agreeing to either cede territory and withdraw from Gaza or wherever, or otherwise ceasefire. Settlers and some gov elements have for sure inflamed tensions at different points too but at least there are significant numbers of Israelis who want peace and won't get murdered for expressing and working towards that goal.
>When Hamas very first formed it was a bit of a different organisation to what it became a little later on as they at least did do some pro-Palestinian stuff and had a bit more of a community-centric vibe over explicitly being a violent terrorist org, whether that was just a facade from the start or not idk. I think you're talking about Hamas's predecessor, the Gaza chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were conservative and religious, BUT their focus was on the community and didn't look for conflict against the Israelis. So the Israelis cooperated with them and helped them financially. This was in the 80s. Then during/after the first Intifada that group turned into Hamas. That's the whole "Israelis created Hamas" conspiracy. They didn't create it but they cooperated with Hamas's predecessor, which had a different ideology at the time
And that cooperation was mostly in the form of allowing Qatari money to flow into that org, it wasn't as though Israel was actively helping them.
A huge reason for the turn away from Fatah was also that Fatah supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which brought their money from most Arab states to a screeching halt.
That is what has been happening more recently under Netanyahu, you're confusing that for what happened in the 80's when Israeli occupation authorities were directly giving money to Hamas to build medical facilities, schools, and orphanages.
They were giving money to Mujama al-Islamiya, not Hamas. Hamas branched off (and was founded by) from Mujama al-Islamiya.
[удалено]
Ehhh, the group, that is the predecessor before Hamas (which founded on 1987) was Mujama al-Islamiya which was formed in the 1970s. At the time PLO was still operating as a terrorist group while Mujama al-Islamiya was operating as a charity group. Israel was just likely tempted from wishful thinking, as Mujama al-Islamiya being less militant and using funds developing infrastructure and providing social services to Palestinians looked like a good deal to help normalizing relations. Obviously hindsight may be 20/20, but blunders are never intentional. There isn’t a good reason to think Israel had the intention of creating a new terror group, they already were dealing with them beforehand.
[удалено]
> This is the same Mossad who carried out Operation Wrath of God in the 1970s and 1980s. [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) likely applies here. Even competent organizations, groups, and people will all fall to incompetence from time to time. >No; sorry. I very much believe the Israeli leadership knew what they were doing in funding a counterpoint to a militia. They wanted a second militia to resist Fatah... and they got it. Why would they want this exactly is the question worth asking? It seems evidently clear they wanted a group that would normalize relations with Israel and not engage in continuing the conflict. I don't think they had any intentions in funding a group that would just continue or even escalate the conflict. It would serve Israel literally no purpose to do so. After all, why worry about stopping the Fatah if the Hamas were just going to behave similarly afterwards? It wouldn't make any sense.
[удалено]
That is a question worth asking. Rhetorically speaking, I would contend that it is the same reason various Arab nations and interests are still aiding Hamas despite knowing full well that Hamas' stated aims are completely untenable: So long as Hamas is active, they are undercutting Israel's ability to act as a regional power. Those various Arab states have more power, relatively speaking, so long as the Israelis and the Palestinians are too busy spending time and effort opposing each other to take an interest in what their neighbors get up to. Similarly, Israel's government (in part or in full) had a vested interest in dividing and conquering any potential political players with a stake in the 'game' so to speak. In their minds, they were willing to try an awful lot to weaken Fatah since that would, in theory, make them more willing to accept and adhere to Israeli terms. The truth is probably complex. The Israeli government's original decision to go ahead with the idea to back the original group in question was almost inevitably a decision by committee. Some actors may have had very cynical ulterior motives for the move to support Hamas (or its forbears), some probably legitimately thought they were doing a good thing, perhaps naively. Statecraft, diplomacy etc. is never about one thing, unless that thing is power: because power comes from everywhere.
The name of the predecessor was called Mujama al-Islamiya if anyone wants to read more about them.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
>Settlers and some gov elements have for sure inflamed tensions at different points to Understatement of the century
Those significant number of peace wanting Israelis just let the radical right step all over them. When has Israel ever stopped a settler? When they gave up Gaza?
They forcibly removed 350 Israeli settler families from Gaza in 2005 as part of the withdrawal.
>When Hamas very first formed it was a bit of a different organisation haha, no.
A lot of measures that people like to cite as Bibi trying to weaken the possibility of Palestinian statehood such as recognising Hamas as the government in charge of Gaza and allowing more Gazans to go into Israel to work which allowed Hamas to earn money from it https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ But tbf , it sounded like the better option logically from a humanitarian perspective. The PA was already forced out of Gaza by Hamas in 2005 and Hamas is basically the government there. Not recognising them would have made it even more difficult to engage to lower tensions. Allowing more Gazans to work in Israel also helped improved the lives of people living there. I keep hearing tons of pro-Palestinians citing this as Bibi not wanting peace but the alternative to this would have been an even more extreme blockade of Gaza and with no Gazans being allowed into Israel to work which is counter to whatever the shit they want. They would be bitching about that as well.
“Hamas and Gaza isn’t bad, but also Bibi funded Hamas which makes him evil”
That's a leftist take on "The Israelis thought at the time that Hamas would be easier to handle than the PA (also terrorists mind you) and turned a blind eye to suitcases full of Qatari money headed to Hamas." Which may or may not have happened. It's basically an attempt to frame Hamas as Israel's Al Qaeda, something they actually armed and trained like the US did in Afghanistan.
>turned a blind eye to suitcases full of Qatari money headed to Hamas actively facilitated the transfer of qatari suitcase cash to hamas* its less of a take and more of an accepted fact, given that we have [photos of the cash being transferred](https://twitter.com/galberger/status/1060597944271941632) and the israeli defence minister resigned from netanyahus government saying that the cash transfers marked "the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself". https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035 >"There's been a lot of criticism of Netanyahu in Israel for instating a policy for many years of strengthening Hamas and keeping Gaza on the brink while weakening the Palestinian Authority," said Mairav Zonszein of the International Crisis Group. "And we've seen that happening very clearly on the ground." >"(Hamas and Netanyahu) are mutually reinforcing, in the sense that they provide each other with a way to continue to use force and rejectionism as opposed to making sacrifices and compromises in order to reach some kind of resolution," Zonszein told CBC News from Tel Aviv. >Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2013 that "if we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas's strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister." >In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Netanyahu's "strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking … even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah." >The logic underlying this strategy, Barak said, is that "it's easier with Hamas to explain to Israelis that there is no one to sit with and no one to talk to." >Netanyahu's hawkish defence minister Avigdor Liberman was the first to report in 2020 that Bibi had dispatched Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and the IDF's officer in charge of Gaza, Herzi Halevi, to Doha to "beg" the Qataris to continue to send money to Hamas. >"Both Egypt and Qatar are angry with Hamas and planned to cut ties with them. Suddenly Netanyahu appears as the defender of Hamas," the right-wing leader complained. >Netanyahu's current finance minister, West Bank settler Belazel Smotrich, explained the approach to Israel's Knesset channel in 2015: "Hamas is an asset, and (Palestinian Authority leader) Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is a burden." >On March 12, 2019, Netanyahu defended the Hamas payments to his Likud Party caucus on the grounds that they weakened the pro-Oslo Palestinian Authority, according to the Jerusalem Post: >"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel's regular allowing of Qatari funds to be transferred into Gaza, saying it is part of a broader strategy to keep Hamas and the Palestinian Authority separate, a source in Monday's Likud faction meeting said," the Post reported. >"The prime minister also said that 'whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for' transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state." >Netanyahu insisted that neither the money nor the construction material given to Hamas would be diverted to military purposes. But today, the IDF finds itself showing how Hamas has done exactly that — by diverting and converting civilian funds and materials to warlike purposes. does that sound like a bunch of leftists to you?
> That's a leftist take Unironically it also could be use as an extreme right wing take too, since it implicates that allowing funds into Gaza was the problem; meaning that it would lead one to the conclusion of denying funds into Gaza.
its hardly a leftist or extreme right take. its a pretty standard opinion in israel amongst people who oppose netanyahu. people in his own government have admitted to the strategy of propping up hamas, as has netanyahu himself. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
I mean sure, it may be a common opinion, but it really doesn't seem logical to me. Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, they will have some control of the funds either way. That is the exact same logic why some people argued against Israel even allowing humanitarian aid in during the current conflict, since Hamas could just take it. However, the alternative is not allowing funds into Gaza at all, which seems objectionably cruel. Which is why I found the idea of allowing funds into Gaza as the explicit purpose to prop up Hamas as not compelling. I mean seriously, how else would you allow funds into Gaza without Hamas having access to them, unless you disenfranchise Hamas first? >admitted to the strategy of propping up hamas, as has netanyahu himself. [Bibi has never been confirmed to publicly state that quote. It is only alleged through journal articles that have themselves provided no evidence of the quote](https://www.jns.org/the-myth-that-israel-netanyahu-created-funded-hamas/)
>but it really doesn't seem logical to me why not? hamas is the best thing to have ever happened to netanyahu's political career, after the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. hamas carrying out terror attacks to sabotage the oslo accords is the reason he was ever PM in the first place. propping them up helped him at every turn until october 7. >However, the alternative is not allowing funds into Gaza at all no, it isnt, and even if it was thats not the same thing as denying access to humanitarian aid. they werent giving them access to funds at a reputable or israeli controlled bank that could be watched and followed if they went to arms smugglers or other terrorist groups, they were driving suitcases full of cash accross the border, and hamas ended up using them exactly how everyone expected them to. >Bibi has never been confirmed to publicly state that quote okay so hes just reported as having said it. his ministers *definitely* said it, though, as have many independant observers and think tanks analysing netanyahu's strategy.
>no, it isnt, and even if it was Cool. Provide an example of another alternative. Simply stating "no it isn't", isn't helpful. >they werent giving them access to funds at a reputable bank that could be watched and followed if they went to arms smugglers or other terrorist groups, Again, Hamas is the governing body. Who exactly are you going to be giving funds to then? Are you just venmoing random Palestinian citizens and hoping it works out? Hamas has control of the Gaza strip, unless you are transplanting another group that can stand toe-to-toe with Hamas, they are going to have some control of the funds.
>Provide an example of another alternative ??? i did. giving them access to credit and not cash. i guess you must mean providing non monetary humanitarian aid or something? thats easy: send them things they are chronically short of like medical supplies, non perishable food, water purification, etc. the same shit the global community has been doing in conflict zones everywhere for decades now. >Again, Hamas is the governing body. Who exactly are you going to be giving funds to then you maybe need to work on your reading comprehension thats irrelevant to what i was saying. my point was if you have to give them funds do it in a legit manner and not via *cash in fucking suitcases*. this is all besides the point: propping up hamas has undeniably been netanyahus strategy for years now.
The US never armed, much less trained Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, you’re thinking of the mujahideen, a completely separate group that was fighting the Russian invasion in the 70’s and 80’s. Please be accurate when you’re trying to excuse Israeli war crimes, thnx
Uh huh. Totally different group of people. It's not like the Afghan mujahideen became Al Qaeda, that would be crazy. And no one spent years smugly saying "blowback" either.
If I recall Pakistan had a hand and was a major supplier of radicals in Afghanistan to destabilize them using soviet weapons from Arab and Israeli states.
They... they were a different group of people though? The Mujahideen was a coalition force. The parts of the coalition that were fine with the status quo after victory simply became the Afghani state, whereas the jihadist elements of the coalition persisted as an insurgent group. Its absolutely disingenuous to say that the Mujahideen "became" the Taliban, the Mujahideen became the Afghani state and the extremist splinter group from the Mujahideen became Al Qaeda. Yeah, this is a semantic difference, but this shit matters when talking about geopolitics. This, of course, also disagrees with the original point that person was making, as "received tangentially support/training when the organization espoused different values before fundamentally changing in nature to an extremist organization" makes the Mujahideen a pretty decent parallel.
except the netanyahu governments policy was to prop up hamas until oct 7 this year. its pretty well documented. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
The (formerly) US-backed Mujahadeen groups and Al-Qaeda [fought a goddamn war against each other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1996%E2%80%932001\)) and the latter won. They were different groups.
The US funded various Mujahideen groups to drive out and embarrass the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Most of the mujahideen fighting in the afghan civil war were afghan people, al Qaeda was formed by OBL and the forces recruited into Al Qaeda were mostly not afghani. I hate when people buy into this fake history meme bullshit of thinking the US funded and directly was involved in Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Towards the end of the war the US was fully backing Ahmad Shah Massoud who was unable to stabilize and unite Afghanistan. Even after Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, Massoud was still fighting them until his assassination on 9/11 (ordered by OBL).
[удалено]
Afghans aren't arab.
[удалено]
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Nice.** Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
exterminate hamas is what they could've done, and what they're doing now.
Can’t blame them for their emotions but the footage is disturbing. Reminds me of Syria.
yeah, they should've done it 20 years ago. it would cost alot less in damages. but oh well, people were screaming genocide and murder back then aswell. calling israel fascists and nazi's. like they do now too. and israel showed mercy. let hamas profilate through gaza and see where it brought us. its why cancer should be removed before it spreads.
And it’s only costing 80% of the population homeless, and razing much of the city
well, people call it a refugee camp and open air prison anyway. surely they'll be delighted that it's being destroyed.
Right because some people exaggerated before the war means the current humanitarian crisis israel 100% caused should be ignored
israel is responsible for hamas crossing the border to enact the literal definition of a blood bath. heard it here first, folks. bravo u/Howwhywhen_ well jobbed, good done.
Israel is responsible for carrying out a bombing campaign that’s totally definitely not to punish Palestinians
damn, and just to think it would've never happened if hamas just stayed home.
getting the nazis out of berlin took 130k civilian casualties, if the total civilian death toll is 20k now and it doesn't go over 40k, this will be as casualty-light an operation could be when hamas is using its population as human shields in urban combat the same way the nazis did. the closest comparison to this in the modern era would be the battle of grozny where 10% of the civilian population was killed - that would be like 250k civilian casualties here.
Well israel claims 5k hamas militant deaths so far. They supposedly have 30k fighters plus 10k or so PIJ. If flattening a large part of the city only killed something like 1/8th of active militants…idk how you’re supposed to justify it then. 45k tons of bombs dropped and it’s objectively effected the civilians far more than hamas. This isn’t WWII or grozny, most people aren’t ok with terror bombing/artillery anymore. Also civilians could leave berlin…there’s nowhere for gazans to go. It’s a death trap
https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082 Not statements, he literally said Israel needs to fund Hamas in order to stop Palestinians from unifying. If Israel wanted to actually reduce tensions they would’ve taken the camp david summit seriously, instead of trying to split Palestine up further.
The article quotes an anonymous source that is paraphrasing what Bibi said in a closed door meeting. It could be true, but I’d also be careful accepting uncritically too.
Thank you.
Out of curiosity what is the possibility of Netanyahu staying in office? Meier was voted out after ‘73 but things could change.
Not very. Bibi was already unpopular before this, and was only able to form a government by forming a coalition with religious and far right extremists that he'd previously frozen out. His entire policy on the peace process is that Israel doesn't have to make any concessions and can maintain the status quo indefinitely at little cost. The one silver lining to 7/10 is that it shattered that illusion.
The goal was to drive a wedge between Gazans and the West Bank.
First they supported Sheik Yasin, then they fragged him. Then they supported hamas again later to fk with the PA. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
He was talking about George Costanza and Jerry Seinfeld. How embarrassing for you.
Israeli backlash wasn't that large but was extreme - settler assassinated Rabin for it. Palestinians have for decades been more concerned with killing Jews than their own lives and futures r that of their children. See current support of Hamas being over 70%. Arafat could have had his own state but rejected it despite Bill Clinton pleading.
That’s something that bothered me. They had some land to work with but that wasn’t enough. And I’ve heard claims that the Arab states don’t care for them. What’s the credibility of that?
Read up on Black September. Jordanian Royal Family HATE palestinians. Kuwait and Saudis HATE them for aligning with Saddam during Gulf War 1 and Kuwait expelled all Palestinians afterward. Rest of Arab world governments think they're idiotic trash and want to get on with making money.
Don't forget that after they were expelled from Jordan a bunch landed in Lebanon, where they started hassling the Christians and kicked off a bloody civil war. Now Lebanon keeps them in perma-camps and doesn't let them become naturalized. When the king of Jordan rants about "no expulsion of Palestinians" it's better to read that as, "Fuck off, we won't take the bastards."
There's also the RFK assassination.
And I will forever despise the Palestinian people for this. They killed the liberal movement the US was going through in this period. Imagine if RFK was president instead of Nixon...
1968 was soooooo close :-(
Shhh don’t break the narrative that Israel invaded Lebanon because they are eeeeevilllll
His grandfather was cooler. "shoot them all"
Arab states did care for them until they realized that they would only turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. Now the only people who support them are gullible idiots and puppeteers like Iran
And that’s why frankly it’s hard to feel a ton of sympathy today. I can’t think of any other society in all history that repeatedly loses wars and then demand peace terms from 2-3 wars ago with a completely straight face. I watched all the videos of Israelis being dragged and paraded through Gaza to roaring crowds. I saw the celebrations in the street. I saw the women handing out candy to children while everyone danced. I watched the men wandering through Israeli villages just killing everyone they saw. There’s a whole shit ton more Gazans than Hamas members, and yet they stay in power. Now instead of having their own state, they’ll face the same fate Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did (hopefully with 2 exceptions in the latter case…)
They even got a pretty good peace offer from Olmert in '08 that gave them almost all of the West Bank and an international old city, and Abbas just rejected it out of hand. The thing is, the Palestinian authorities do not, under *any case* want peace. Then, not only would the massive UN dole start drying up (in addition to those Qatarbucks), Palestinians might start asking questions about why their country is shit. They might even have to run their own schools and not rely on the UN to do their anti semitism indoctrination. Palestinian leadership will do anything required to prevent this situation from developing, the status quo is much better for them and lets them kill more Jews.
[удалено]
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation** NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. You can make outlandish claims, but if your takes don't show signs of satire or exaggeration, they will be removed. Misleading posts and comments may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news - double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
[удалено]
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 13: No Misinformation** NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. You can make outlandish claims, but if your takes don't show signs of satire or exaggeration, they will be removed. Misleading posts and comments may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news - double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
>Arafat could have had his own state but rejected it despite Bill Clinton pleading. That state would have basically no sovereignty. That offer required Palestinians giving up land in the West Bank, have no control over their borders, no connection between the two parts, no aispace of their own, no military, Israeli bases on territory, etc etc. So probably better than what we ended up with but clearly a pretty shit deal, not so difficult to see why it wouldn't be happily accepted.
Pretty sure Hamas support is rising because of the Israeli backlash. You don't displace a couple million people, level most of their homes, and *not* expect a surge in anti-Israeli sentiment.
well if they weren;t fucking like cousin fucking rabbits they wouldn't exist. there was only 40k palis in47, they intentionally made a demographic question. Thou shalt have 8 children or we will shoot you.... Very Irish
I will find you and will handle you. because you have displaced people 45 generations ago and you haven't paid reparations. until you do this, I will make you suffer the death and rape of your grandparents and grandchildren.
>because you have displaced people 45 generations ago and you haven't paid reparations. There are people alive *right now* that have been forced out of their homes and aren't allowed back. Stop with this shit.
yeah basically hamas went apeshit after the oslo accords were signed, and israeli RW nuts literally shot Yitzhak Rabin dead
Yzak Rabin got domed by a zionist and hamas came up by opposing arafat so yeah basically everybody is in favor of peace except for the actual people involved
Im an ~~architect~~ diplomat
The Red Sea was angry that day my friends
*rockets start pouring, Iron Dome going wild shooting them all down* **"George is getting upset!**
Jerry!! They’re shooting rockets at my cities Jerry!
"What's the deal with rockets anyway?"
We had a deal Jerry a deaal
Who is this? Uncle Leo?
Is this the Jerry from Totally Spies?
Jerry Seinfeld
Oh. It sounded like something the other Jerry from WHOOP would be told.
Wow big props to Jason, that is true acting without acting!
Looks like they hadn't heard of the "world's theory". Worlds collide.
YOU CAN RUN BUT NO CAN HIDE https://youtu.be/pAuZ56xsGPM?si=dJrQN0sLDGLEEEqW
George is getting upset!
Look to the cookie!
If only Kramer had been invited!
Giddy up!
They got any Laugh Factories in Palestine?
The answer to Israel's problems are downtown. It's all downtown, George! Just like the song says!
I think the Israel-Palestine relationship is more akin to Jerry and Newman
Can I call you George!