boyi @ boyi @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

2

Comments

345

Joined

2 yr. ago

Israel's government used the argument that Hamas exist -and so the National Authority isn't talking for all Palestinians

Have you got a source to back them up?

As far as I know, last negotiation (2014) collapse because of the announcement of reconciliation between the 'good' guy and the 'bad' guy.

Source (1)

Israel has hit back hard following an agreement on Palestinian unity by suspending already faltering peace negotiations just days before the expiry of a deadline for the US-brokered process.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, accused the western-backed Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, of forming an alliance with Hamas, which he called "a terrorist organisation that calls for the destruction of Israel" – and hinted at further retaliatory measures.

Source (2)

On April 23, Fatah and Hamas announced a new reconciliation agreement to form a technocratic government of independents and to begin a process to hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel responded by officially calling off the negotiations.

BTW, what I mean when I say 'negotiation' is not in the literal sense. Loosely, I mean 'to engage diplomatically'.

You got downvoted but I have to upvote it as I perceive you got the underlying message . It works exactly as intended by Israel, although not favorable to the outcome of the real people they suppose to represent.

Thats the point. Israel needs to have Hamas exist, so that they can have Hamas as the bad guy - the non-trusted entity that can never be welcomed into negotiation. As a result of that, they will only negotiate with the good guy - The Palestinian Authority - the only so-called legitimate representative of Palestinian people. They problem is, the good guy is not doing anything favorable for the people that they represent, and instead they become a tool to the the Israel gov itself, so that at the end of the day instead of achieving their goal of 'building a state on 1967 borders', they are actually loosing more land to the illegal settlers. Israel is of course happy with the outcome.

EDIT: I'll add below some more 'perceived' insight to this as I got more free time now

The Palestinian Authority - the only so-called legitimate representative of Palestinian people.

Why do I label the as the 'so-called representative? Because they are not legitimate Palestinian representative. Fatah lose 2006 election. They should relieve their power and transfer them to Hamas that won the Election. But they didn't. Technically they illegitimately grabbed the power given by the people to Hamas.

And how long has Palestinian Authority (Fatah) governs? Since 2006, that's about 17 years. 17 years without election. If that happens in other countries, we will call them dictator. But the West won't say anything because that will disrupt the status quo. The funny thing is, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) postponed the election in 2021 by giving a ridiculous reason: Israel has failed to confirm it will allow voting in East Jerusalem (source). The truth was, Mahmoud Abbas was afraid Fatah would lose (again) or even he would lose to others in his own party [source: Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday called off next month's parliamentary elections after challengers from his own party threatened to weaken his hold on power.].

What I put forward here is to discuss what I think relevant to the article, the internal power struggle, at domestic level, that in some way led to what happened on the 7th.

I don't mind being proven wrong but I appreciate more replied that discussed on the internal issues instead of staying to the external issues (the world is to blame, ask them to stop bombing then etc). And please read the article before giving your views as the article is interesting because it was written not by a typical journalist, instead by a senior fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy who used to hold various position in the Palestinian Authority.

You need to ask Israel for that. That not the point of this article. The point is when Palestinian Authority fails, it creates a power vacuum - that's when the Hamas comes in.

Yeah. But when your own leader fails you, where can you go for help?

EDIT: My answer: They go to Hamas, because they can no longer trust the Palestinian Authority.

I am answering this based on the internal politics that leads to what happens now, and why the PA very slow in mitigating the crisis. The way how the world react, although relevant, is not the issue as per discussed by the news article.

Archived Site

It is a service, but you aren't the consumer, and you're the product.

if you use VPN and someone abuses the IPs, then you'll likely get captchas.

No. They want the people to stay not because they want to use the Palestinians as human shields. The Palestinians, women and children, were already there and they are bombed anyway. They are no such thing as 'Palestinian human shields' in the Israel government dictionary. So it doesn't make sense Hamas wants them to stay just to be human shields.

They are many reasons. One of the main reason, I think because once the Palestinians leave the place, they'll never get it back. They'll be no more Palestinians' Gaza Strip. Israel is going to make a stern example of the Palestinians for humiliating them. They'll never be allowed to come back.

Here is an post (translated to English using Google Translate) that I got from a very popular Israeli Telegram channel that can summarise the sentiment of what should be done.

Am; Lek: The Israeli response should include the expulsion of Arab settlements (in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria), and resettlement by Israelis. And not just bombing offices and eliminating terrorists.

In detail:

The situation in the country is very disturbing, it seems that the Israeli response is going to be: again bombings of offices, banks, warehouses, etc. in Gaza + several assassinations (perhaps even senior officials) + maybe also a ground entry into Gaza to hit other targets, etc., and finally exit back. And maybe there was a deal at the end of releasing prisoners in exchange for releasing terrorists, and maybe not.

This is dangerous for Israel and a historical miss:

1. This will end the campaign that Hamas and all the other enemies around realize that it is possible to harm Israel even with crimes against humanity, and even come out with a "profit".
2. Therefore, this will cause more such actions against Israel (and in the future we will also get used to it, just as we got used to terrorist attacks in Israel, just as we got used to rockets from the Gaza Strip, etc.).
3. There is no revenge for Arab violence.
4. There is a historic opportunity here to turn the situation around, and for Israel to leave in a much stronger state than it entered, and to avoid deaths, etc. in the future. In the future it will be difficult to get legitimacy from the world again.
5. This action (especially if it includes ground entry) could cost Israel a heavy price, and in vain.
6. If IDF are also released from terrorists, then this will cause more and more acts of terrorism against Israel (also because it shows that the action against Israel pays off. And also releases more terrorists who continue to harm Israel. By the way, this event is also because of the Shalit deal freedmen)
7. Defining a goal such as "destroying Hamas" is a non-measurable and not so realistic goal: even if 90% of the Hamas terrorists are eliminated, the rest can rise through the ranks, and new recruits can also join. And there is no "victory picture" and no clear evidence of who won the battle (just as it is not clear who won in any of the previous rounds in Gaza)

What, for example, should be the Israeli response:

1. To carry out an action of deporting Arab villages (for example deporting the residents of Hawara to Sinai) to declare that every murdered Israeli will be deported to a village or neighborhood in an Arab city, and henceforth this is Israel's war policy. You can even call these settlements after the names of the murdered. That both illustrates the revenge, and will also help the housing crisis and the financing of the war... For example - if Israel evicts dozens of Arab villages, and sells to the Israelis (at a "price for a settler?") 100,000 houses + land at an average price of NIS 500,000, this is 50 billion NIS in revenue (it is possible to transfer part of the amount to the owners of the land if they vacate willingly and were not involved in terrorist activity against Israel)
2. Deport the residents of Gaza to Sinai (it is possible without land entry, for example, open the crossing to Sinai, ensure that there is no water, etc. in Gaza, and start bombing from north to south, and smuggle the Arab population to Sinai. You can even declare that this is the goal. You can also declare that every Arab who rescues prisoners Jews/bringing bodies of terrorists, etc., can enter Israel and obtain citizenship). It is even possible to imply that Israel is going to bomb the Gaza Strip with a nuclear bomb, also to scare and drive away the residents of Gaza. Another advantage: if the most militant side of the government demands it, and there are discussions about whether Israel is going to use nuclear weapons, and at the end of the Israeli action there will be "only" a "disengagement 2" plan in which all the residents of Gaza are deported to Sinai, it will not seem so extreme...

Advantages:

1. Only a loss of territory is a loss as far as the Arabs are concerned, and therefore they will not want to initiate any more such actions - if they knew that for every Israeli killed they lose territory. By the way, in Israel's wars, the Arabs refer to the war of liberation and the six-day war as their loss - because they lost territory in those wars, compared to the Yohak war, for example, even though Egypt lost, they refer to it as a victory, because there was no Israeli occupation of territory.
2. Revenge for the murderous act.
3. Even before the last action, we got used to there being terrorist incidents against Jews every day, and sometimes also seriously wounded and murdered. In this way, it is finally possible to get rid of the nests of murders such as Hvara who are swallowed up inside Israel, and this will save a lot of deaths and security resources in the future.
4. There is now a short window of opportunity to do this: also in terms of the legitimacy of the action, in Israel and in the world.
5. If the result of the war is that the Gaza Strip is emptied by the West, and they begin to establish an Israeli city there, and in addition, in Judea and Samaria only Ramallah and Taiba remain Arab, and all the rest become Israeli settlements, no one will argue who won and who lost the battle.

good luck!

( Dan Assolin )

it's not weak actually. I don't get it as don't realize it's a common knowledge there.

this is a good one for. a meme.

I (a non-US) watched Hillary in a documentary about her saying Bernie has never worked (in corporate/professional settings) all his life. If that's true, I don't think it matters to him.

that's the spirit. have a nice day.

They are not going to declare independence from the whole Palestin, very unlikely so. Even though they are separated from the West Bank, they have a lot of supporters there. People in the West Bank even voted in majority for them in 2006. The only reason they can't rule the West Bank is because Fatah has greater number of henchmen there and Fatah got the support from Israel and the West to cling to power.

Currently if you study the maps of their movements, their forces is moving towards the West Bank, at one time just 10km from it. And they have been making many pleas in the social media to invite those in the west bank to join them. So, they've been quite a number of incidence of attacks in the areas around the west bank, indicating that they are gaining more supports.

So the trend now is for them to unite instead of separated into different entity.

You can say that but that won't really help because it has emotional element in it. It would be best if we can analyze their actions objectively, and to see how it impacts geopolitical events.

This is not a premature attack. it has been planned for more than a year (based on the interrogation of those captured). [And I am still dumbfounded how the best intelligence agency in the world were not able to smell it]. The goals and objectives most likely have been set by the higher-level parties. So they most likely has certain guidelines on what to do on certain situation so that their overall goals can be achieved. To just kill indiscriminately like animals is very unlikely part of that.

but why were they shooting at civilian cars then

Strategical when they were on the offence offense, they want to capture easy and high value targets.

So the best place is at civilian homes - the least resistance. But those that on the run, like civilian in cars, is no longer easy target. So for those that are on the run, the attackers will default to another main goal - which is to instill fears to other Israeli civilians who will be watching the news that they are no longer safe and the gov are not capable of protecting them - by killing the non-easy targets, to set an example/precedence of terror.

So what is the goal? Is this just an expression of pent up anger? Because it seems a poor strategy to me.

I am trying to think of the answer objectively. Here is what I can think of the possibility would be:

I think their main goal is to abduct as many Israeli as possible and bring them to Gaza. Why?

1. So they can negotiate on prisoner exchange. You can already come across news of negotiate being held in Qatar as of now.
2. To use those captured Israelis as human shields. The Israeli is very protective of their citizens and will go to great length to make sure that they'stay safe and alive. You can refer to many instances in the past where the Israeli government have conducted many rescues of Israeli hostages. This is why, in the long run, an alive Israeli is worth lots more than them being dead. To add to this, if Hamas use their own women or children as human shields, it won't work as the Israeli won't care and will blow them anyway. So having Israeli civilians with them will mitigate the act of Israeli bombing Gaza indisminately. They are already statement by Netanyahu that the war will be long because of hostage situation.
3. To use them as safety collateral in other ways that I can't think of. Hamas simply has no say. They have nothing of any value to nego with the Israeli gov whatsoever. So the only thing that can help them is by bringing the subject of hostages into the negotiation. That's why they need as many hostage as possible. after some time they won't get the chance once the Israeli military deployments are underway.

[EDIT: A statement has been circulating (on telegram for my case) that Hamas will kill each civilians one by one and made the video/audio public if the Israeli gov don't stop bombing civilian homes. This is part of the 'collateral' that I mean.]

When they attack the military camps, it seems that would just kill as many military personnel as they can, even those unarmed. Those not killed are bonus prizes for them - as good as having civilian hostages - but having civilians is much easier.

So, specifically for the situation at the music festival: why did many civillians got killed if Hamas wanted them alive? I speculate it was due to crowd control gone wrong. There are security personnel with fire arms at the music festival, so there were some shooting going on between them. Or it could be that through the chaos they just decided to kill until they can manage the crowd. Or they were just evil and decide to exert revenge. There could be many other possibilities. Hamas have claimed that those civilian that were killed were actually military personnel, but that's very unlikely.

Anyway, I could be totally wrong. This is what I can thing of to get some senses of what going on.

Hamas took power in 2007 and hasn't left ever since.

Not accurate. Hamas was denied power when they won 2006 election, voted by the people off course. Fatah still wanted to cling to power even though they lost. And The West wanted Fatah to remain even though they lost democratically because Fatah can be brought into nego and Hamas is a designated as a terrorist org by them, off course. At the end, Hamas was only able to administer Gaza as that's where Fatah wasn't able to exert their control.

We are trying to analyze and make sense of the situation, and all you can add to the discussion is by attacking me ad hominem? Thanks.

Not surprisingly, I do agree with your perspective: They want Israeli to attack. They want to chance change the status quo.

They want other people to feel the same way, but too many Palestinians are just trying to live their lives and survive day-to-day.

When you say 'many Palestinians', I would say those are the ones who live in the West Bank, controlled by Fatah. Fatah made acceptable deals with Israeli, and somenow their live are getting better, more survivable. But Hamas doesnt agree with these deals. They have a very narrow mindset which is: No deals with the Israel, period. And the people of Gaza supported this POV and they elected Hamas in the first place, which means they are ready to suffer the consequences when giving the support.

Palestinians are divided into two fractions. In some ways, the attack could be an attempt to reunite and change it back to one.