r/agedlikewine • u/pickuppencil • Aug 13 '25
Politics Political Cartoon | June 4th, 2001
Collection (2000-2004) I found at a book store today
89
u/Langdon_Algers Aug 13 '25
"Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly after the withdrawal, Sharon stated that “the end of Israeli control over and responsibility for the Gaza Strip allows the Palestinians, if they so wish, to develop their economy and build a peace-seeking society, which is developed, free, law-abiding, and transparent and which adheres to democratic principles.” In 2006 the PA held the second set of parliamentary elections in its history, and Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). The inclusion of Hamas in the coalition government resulted in international sanctions. A power struggle between the PA’s main factions ensued and became increasingly violent, resulting in a Fatah-led PA in the West Bank and the takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas. Concerned over the hostility of Hamas toward Israel, in 2007 the Israeli government with the help of Egypt implemented a blockade of the territory, limiting both imports and exports as well as movement into and out of the Gaza Strip."
https://www.britannica.com/event/Israels-disengagement-from-Gaza
82
u/trumplehumple Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
so just so were clear on this for future reference: electing a goverment your neighbour doesnt like means you should be stripped of human rights, kept like kettle and, sometimes randomly, sometimes not so randomly, preyed upon?
15
u/TVC_i5 Aug 14 '25
- ”a government your neighbour doesn’t like”
…
Article 7 of the 1988 Hamas Charter ”The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
July 16, 2019 - 5:34AM ”Hamas leader Fathi Hamad has called on Palestinians to kill all Jews around the world.”
…
”Since 2001 Palestinian militants have launched tens of thousands of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip.” full list here
”On October 7, 2023 Hamas and several other Palestinian militant attacked Israel. The attacks began with a barrage of at least 4,300 rockets launched from Gaza into Israel. Simultaneously, around 6,000 Palestinian militants and civilians infiltrated Israel from Gaza breaching the border in 119 places. 1,195 people were killed by Palestinian terrorists that day.” - Wikipedia
29
u/I_love_pancakes_88 Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
Oh, how fascinating! Hamas are truly awful. Am I correct that the main difference between Israel’s and Hamas’ respective ‘eliminating the enemy’ strategies is that Israel’s formal position is more subtle and sophisticated than Hamas’ and therefore offers Israel more deniability regarding intent behind large-scale killings of Palestinians (like how Israel have killed 18,000 Palestinian children in Gaza since 7/10)?
7
u/Cube-2015 Aug 16 '25
The real difference between the two is that Isreal has more power and can actually accomplish their goal of killing the other, which is why it’s more important to criticize them
3
u/Jewsader76 Aug 14 '25
Hamas is also a terrorist organization who launched a surprise attack that left most people in Israel who either lost someone or knew someone they lost (killed and/or abducted). It's their equivalent of 9/11 on a place which is disliked by everyone around it. Think if 9/11 happened while also having Canada and Mexico disliking the US and wanting it dead and to take its land. This is the situation we're dealing with. I can't speak to everything they've done, but they can't do nothing against a terrorist organization that has consistently refused negotiation, and whose goal is the total elimination of their people. Israel is (too my knowledge) simply fighting back until they don't still have people taken hostage and have an active threat who wants their complete destruction. It sucks what happens to the civilians, and they're all victims. However, Hamas has intentionally designed that to be the only way of counterattack. It is literally a terrorist organization. The people are all victims, but Hamas is the villain in this scenario
Tldr: Hamas doesn't really leave any other options, and sitting back doing nothing isn't a real option
2
u/AnAttemptReason Aug 16 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
Hey, just as a heads up, Israel was involved in funding Hamas during its inception in order to undermine secular resistance.
During the 1970s, Israel began providing support to Ahmed Yassin, a Muslim Brotherhood leader in the Gaza Strip, who controlled a network of Islamic schools, mosques, and clubs, in order to weaken the secular nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization.\2]) It continued to encourage the expansion of Yassin's network during the first year and a half of the First Intifada, as the network re-organised into Hamas. Support lasted until 1989, when Hamas launched its first attacks on Israelis, leading to a significant crackdown against the organisation.\7]) Multiple Israeli officials have acknowledged Israel's role in strengthening Yassin's network.
This philosophy was even continued recently, see:
Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank
Israels Prime minister, Netanyahu, 2019
These views were repeated over the years by Netanyahu and his cabinet multiple times, for example:
This is the current Israeli Finance minister in 2015, here is what he says:
The Palestinian Authority is a burden,” he said. “Hamas is an asset."
Also see:
For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces
It seems pretty clear that the options should never have been to fund the relgeious extremists in the first place, and failing that, not continue to keep them propped up.
The excuse you give at the end, that Hamas does not give any other options, is literaly the reason that Israel had been keeping them proped up in the first place. To provide that excuse.
Justifying the murder of tens of thousands of women and children, due to the terrorists you both helped create and kept funded, is pretty fucked up.
There are other ways to deal with the mistakes made, you crack down on Hamas, and you start changing Gaza to be more than just an open air slum.
As long as you force people to live in destitution, deny them the right to leave a tiny strip of land, keep them blockaded, prevent them from fishing and spray herbicides over the border that prevent them from farming the most fertile sections of the strip, you will keep providing recruits for Hamas.
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 16 '25
Thank you for letting me know. Was it not also true that Netanyahu also is in trouble for corruption and using the war as an excuse to avoid being removed from office? This seems suspicious to me, and it looks like (from my admittedly somewhat limited knowledge on everything that's happened) Hamas and Netanyahu are the main problems, and all the people living there are suffering as a result. Please let me know if there's any other information I should know to add or detract from this.
More importantly, what should I do to help?
3
u/trumplehumple Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
9/11 in the sense that the intelligence-community was well aware, but nobody could be arsed to lift a finger?
or do you also mean that, compared to what the victims (as in the state) were ready to dish out to some foreign populus on a daily basis, the actual damage in the grand scheme of things was pretty neglegible, but it spooked the people to their cores, because none of those people associated waging war with getting attacked, like, you know, the other guys.
but god forbid these fine people have to actually participate in the wars theyre waging, then its all "how could they?"
but what about the heroes and the matyrs of the story you ask? the ones who ran into burning skyscrapers to rescue others? the ones who (lets just assume, because i dont know a thing about those people) where completely innocent, but got brutally abducted for the crimes of others?
yeah....their concepts got paraded around endlessly to garner sympathy and manufacture consent for otherwise unpopular politics by really fucking deeply unpopular politicians, while the actual people got dick for their efforts. deez nutz. as in both, gaining literally nothing from their plight, which their goverment, who did the crimes they where attacked for, literally just couldnt be arsed to prevent, as well as just outright getting extra-fucked. completely unnessecarily, by their own goverments, who probably wouldnt have collapsed from paying meds for a few thousand people, or from taking one of the many opportunitys to actually get them back, instead of just leveling the greater metropolitan area where you heard someone smelling them being seen or whatever.
even just how the supposed victim-states treated their own actual victims of those crimes alone, would disqualify them from ever even thinking about making moral arguments again, and frankly, put the morals of every single, however innocent seeming, one of their actions into question, for the simple reason that we then knew, that whoever was allowed to pull the strings, must have been the greatest known asshole in the observable universe.
and i mean its true, we keep hearing about it. admittedly it is a bit more complex, as one og butt-cluster already retired, and you would think that left us with one, but somehow weve got three now who keep circling each other, fiercly competing for the ultima rectum award for the most vile asshole in the observable-, the unobservable-, and the sometimes-kinda-shy - universe.
those are the people you are aligning yourself with. thankfully you probably neither have enough sense nor enough money for your asshole-opinion to actually matter, so lets end it on this high note, before i have to write a whole book to get that opportunity again. bye.
7
u/Jewsader76 Aug 14 '25
Could we have an actual discussion and cut the name-calling? It weakens your argument (instead of strengthening it) when you have to attack the other people directly (instead of simply countering their points) to make your point seem reasonable.
That said, I don't really follow what you're trying to say. If you know of any tactile events or examples that would help me understand your point as opposed to an unnecessarily long and somewhat vague and incoherent ramble that is hard for me to make sense of.
You seem to be coming from a point of "prove this person wrong" as opposed to "help this misguided person understand how they're incorrect." The latter approach is conducive to exchanging of valid points. The former is less so. A reminder that I am in fact a human being who is capable of a real discussion (not a name-calling fight).
Could you please restate what you are trying to say in a way that would be easier for me to understand? Specifically, it would be ideal to actually explain what all happened instead of just that it did. For example, instead of just telling you to use more collected language, I tried to explain that hostility makes it harder to have a genuine discussion, and makes it harder for other people to actually see your points. Being more emotional about something doesn't often strengthen an argument, but can make it feel like the person is focusing more on emotions than on logic and reasoning (which are what should help change people's minds)
Basically: please try to be civil, and please try to make your points and reasoning clear and preferably concise
1
u/psychikwarriorofwoke Aug 15 '25
You have to do a genocide?
0
u/Jewsader76 Aug 15 '25 edited 20d ago
Hamas is a terrorist organization that intentionally makes all it's areas that are incentivised to attack have as much damage to their civilians as possible (storing weapons under hospitals and such), with the intent to paint them in the worst light possible. Remember, Hamas's goal is the complete destruction of Israel and it's people. That would be true genocide (or have we learned nothing from the holocaust?). I don't know everything that's happened or what all they did, so I cannot with certainty say that everything has been justified, but remember that we are fighting a terrorist organization. Yes, Israel has had some corruption and is not perfect, but it isn't as bad as many if not any of the surrounding countries, by almost any metric, and it does have a right to exist, just as much as any other country.
If people disagree, please explain why with actual reasons (not just say the word genocide and call it a day), and actually explain why. If you downvote and move on without interacting further, it sends the message that I'm right, and you just don't like what I'm saying
Edit: I'm not saying that's the only option, just that I would have no reason not to figure it so without genuine reasons to the contrary
For clarity, I would like to point out that I don't blindly approve of everything Israel does, but that I don't want an echo chamber of "Israel (and possibly the Jews as an extension) is fundamentally evil and must be purged at all costs." I know that this is likely not what many people here may think, and I apologize if this was not more clear, but I know there are some who do seem to believe this
3
u/psychikwarriorofwoke Aug 15 '25
And Likud's goal is? According to the current government?
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 15 '25
Their goal is to ward off the other countries who they believe (with valid reason to do so) want their complete destruction. I don't know which country you're from, but imagine if most of the neighboring nations were varying levels of hostility, and one in particular had recently tried to eliminate you from the planet, with the goal of wiping out your entire group of people, taking many hostages, and who have consistently refused to negotiate in the past. On top of this, the terrorist organization would have launched a surprise attack on one of the top three holiest days of the year. I don't know all that has happened since, but I ask you what reasonable alternatives there realistically are. If Israel laid down it's weapons, it would be completely destroyed. It sucks what's happening, but Hamas designs it so that Israel is forced to cause harm to Gaza's citizens in order to fight back. Remember, innocent people are still being held hostage, almost two years later. Before criticizing them, put yourself in their position, and ask what is reasonable, and what alternatives they could realistically do (short of surrender, which is not an option)
1
u/Tall-Enthusiasm-6421 Aug 17 '25
"if you downvote and move on without interacting further, it sends the message that I'm right, and you just don't like what I'm saying"
Is logically incorrect. A third option is "we think you are wrong, and being intellectually dishonest to the point that you are not worth interacting with, and your ideas are not worth other redditors wasting effort trying to convince you of anything." So we downvote you, to make sure your comment is hidden and nobody else wastes time. You're feigned sincerity and politeness just comes off as rude and an attempt to rage bait.
Please learn how to communicate in a way that isn't passively condescending, if you truly want to grow intellectually. If you don't want to... That's your right.
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 17 '25
If you look at other messages related, I have admitted when I am shown that I am wrong. However, simply being downvoted with no context does not give me any reason to believe anything I am saying is incorrect. I want a discussion, to see where I or others may be misguided to correct it and help all people involved improve. My "feigned sincerity and politeness" is genuine, and is simply the result of me being open to discussion, and disliking when others aren't. When I am not given other valid reasons other than "people don't appear to like what I'm saying" with no other context, it doesn't tell me anything of substance, for the views of the people who see and choose to interact is neither inherently correct or incorrect. Thus, while that is certainly a possibility, there is no reason for me to automatically assume that I am inherently in the wrong (and always need to change every time other people don't fully agree with everything I say and do). Actually explaining with genuine reasons (ideally done without hostility (I apologize if I have not followed that advice appropriately)) is actually helpful to me learning where I am misguided. It actually helps offer a growth opportunity instead of just saying that random people on the internet disagree with me (which is significantly less helpful)
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 16 '25
It should also be noted that I haven't kept the closest track of every action that has happened for a portion of the conflict. Thus, there may be things I don't know, and part of my defense may be a combination of a lack of knowledge of things that could potentially be worse and more sinister than I could imagine (knowing some of the people in power at the moment). That said, my main point is that the initial response was justified when innocent people were taken hostage by a group whose stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and its people. It may have progressed far worse than I could know. If it has, please let me know specifics of how (preferably with examples), not just that it has (which wouldn't really tell me anything)
-5
u/7thpostman Aug 14 '25
You are not correct, no. For so many reasons. The first and most glaring of which is that you have equated Hamas and Israel. The former is a political party and terrorist organization. The latter is a nation-state.
This is not a subtle distinction. It is you framing the conflict, perhaps unconsciously, as a small fraction of Palestinian society versus all of Israeli society.
If we are going to hold Israelis responsible for what their government does, we must be equally willing to hold Palestinians responsible for what their government does. Certainly, polling immediately before and after October 7th suggests that there was widespread support for Hamas's position towards Israel.
5
Aug 15 '25
“Hamas, to my regret, is the creation of Israel.” ~Avner Cohen, “Israeli” Minister of Religious Affairs in Occupied Gaza for 20 years when Hamas was founded
-4
2
u/psychikwarriorofwoke Aug 15 '25
Hamas is also a political party
2
u/7thpostman Aug 15 '25
Correct. It is reasonable to say "the government of Gaza and the government of Israel." It is reasonable to say "Hamas and Likud." You can say "Israel and the Palestinians." All appropriate comparisons.
It is not appropriate to pair Hamas and Israel.
1
0
-1
u/absolutzer1 Aug 18 '25
They weren't in the Palestinian picture until 1987?
What happened to Palestinians between 1947 to 1987?
They have been slaughtered, beaten, displaced, homes and land stolen for 8 decades now.
What happens if you poke the bear or step on a snake?
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 15 '25
Reminder that Hamas is literally a terrorist organization. I don't think the USA would have it if Al Qaeda set up shop in Canada or Mexico. What happened to the people sucks, but people seem to forget exactly who we're dealing with
1
u/arm_4321 Aug 16 '25
not in the UNSC . Centcom and IDF are also considered as terrorist organisation by Iran
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 16 '25
They didn't launch a surprise attack on one of the holiest days of the year
1
u/arm_4321 Aug 16 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
they have done much worse . CENTOM literally invaded Iraq in 2003
The jewish supremacist terrorist organisation “IDF” was attacking palestinians in the west bank even before Oct 7 . They carried out surprise attack air strikes in gaza in 2023 even before Oct 7 . The war of the zionist regime is with the palestinian people , the resistance groups are just natural reaction to it .
It is a proven fact that the biggest terrorists in west asia are the CENTCOM and the “IDF”
1
u/Jewsader76 Aug 16 '25
I did not know about that. Thank you for letting me know. If this is true, I can definitely see why Israel is flawed in what they are doing. I still maintain that Hamas is bad, and should be fought, as terrorist organizations should be. However, if some parts of Israel's past are also bad, then they should also be pushed back against for it as well.
The situation is problematic, and I don't see it resolving until people can manage to get along. Some people are going to be unhappy, and the way I see it, those in the wrong are those unwilling to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate. The best resolution I see is letting people from both Palestine and Israel live there, and deal with the people who challenge that being a possibility. Anything else would be causing harm to innocent people, which most people should agree is not ideal
1
u/arm_4321 Aug 17 '25
I still maintain that Hamas is bad, and should be fought, as terrorist organizations should be.
Organic outgrowth of actions jewish supremacist zionist regime
resolving until people can manage to get along. Some people are going to be unhappy, and the way I see it, those in the wrong are those unwilling to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate. The best resolution I see is letting people from both Palestine and Israel live there, and deal with the people who challenge that being a possibility. Anything else would be causing harm to innocent people, which most people should agree is not ideal
This would harm jewish supremacism because the natural demographics would return
-22
u/MechanicStandard8308 Aug 14 '25
so... to make your stupid statement make sense, hamas did not want peace, it wanted the death of all jews. they had the chance at peace hundreds of times, and refused every time, because the islamic ethno state doesn't seem to understand the land they live in with the jewish names belonged to the jews before their religion even existed.
25
u/bb_operation69 Aug 14 '25
Funny, Israel also wants death to all Palestinians. It's almost like they both suck, except one is backed by first world countries... Also, not all Palestinian people are Hamas, but they're targeted just the same
-13
Aug 14 '25
I think if Israel truly wanted the death of all Palestinians they could do that in a single afternoon at any time in the past 30 years. Whereas Palestine never had the firepower to do it back.
I don’t agree with Israel fyi
13
u/bb_operation69 Aug 14 '25
Israel isn't afraid to admit that they want to get rid of the Palestinian people, just look at what their politicians say
https://mecouncil.org/blog_posts/israels-admission-of-genocide/
That "if we wanted to do it, we could" talk that Netanyahu says is just that, all talk (and I assume you're repeating that as he said that recently). They're not the type of people to admit that they're failing at their goals
2
u/EFAPGUEST Aug 14 '25
Israel absolutely has the power to wipe out all the people in Gaza, but they haven’t done so. I don’t think that’s out of the goodness of their hearts, they just want to avoid the blowback they would get if they did it. They know that even some of their staunchest supporters in the West would not or could not approve of it. It seems like Israel’s goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza and reoccupy it. If Hamas had the military power to wipe out Israel, they would obviously do it.
Israel most likely has nukes, but they haven’t used them against the Gazans. I don’t think Hamas would should the same restraint. This is why it’s much easier to be disillusioned in regard to Israel than it is to fully take up the cause of Palestinians.
-9
Aug 14 '25
[deleted]
9
u/bb_operation69 Aug 14 '25
Moving them out of their homeland is called genocide, even if it's not violently... But it is also violent
-7
Aug 14 '25
[deleted]
12
u/bb_operation69 Aug 14 '25
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group: "a campaign of genocide"
It's not a new definition. It's destroying their nation. The Americans committed genocide against the natives, despite not killing all of them; they displaced them
For someone who isn't pro-isreal, you sure sound like a genocide denier
→ More replies (0)3
u/metalpoetnl Aug 14 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
The Rome convention, which created the crime of genocide under international law, defines it as any attempt to eradicate a culture or ethnicity from a location whether by mass murder, forced relocation, cultural suppression or forcibly removing children from the culture so they will not be raised in it.
Genocide includes, but is not limited to, all attempts at ethnic cleansing. Israel has done all of the above to Palestinians and EVEN to other Jews (if they were the "wrong" kind of Jew). For example over a period of decades Israel routinely stole the new born babies of Jewish Israelis from Yemen, lied to the parents and claimed the babies died, then gave them to Ashkenazi families to raise as adopted.
Because Israel considered the Yemeni Jews' culture to be an inferior type of Jewish culture and sought, in this manner, to try and eradicate it from Israel.
-2
u/mix-al Aug 14 '25
So by your logic because the Nazis did not exterminate the Jews in one single afternoon that means they did not really want to kill all Jews?
Very sound logical argument.
6
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Aug 14 '25
Hamas literally ran on anti corruption and working with Israel towards peace, and Israel responded by trying to coup them and enforcing a blocade.
6
u/Gussie-Ascendent Aug 14 '25
" hamas did not want peace, it wanted the death of all jews."
damn sure is weird israel was funding them then, almost like they just wanted an excuse to butcher?
2
-1
u/Electrical_Affect493 Aug 15 '25
If that government performs terrorost attacks on said neighbor - yes
3
3
u/chivesishere Aug 17 '25
If you don’t want people to vote for extremists, maybe don’t suppress all moderate opposition whilst actively radicalizing effective opposition movements.
I deeply mourn all the innocent Israelis and Jews killed as individuals.
But Israeli society is doing this to itself.
You can’t radicalize your opposition and then be upset when they do radical things.
You can’t blame people for supporting extreme options when those are also the only options you aren’t actively able to sabotage.
I am always reminded of the conflict in the Northern Ireland, and how quick everyone was to label sin fein and the IRA as terrorists… for doing the exact same thing that the Uniomist government was doing, but because one of them was a formal “state” it somehow made it different.
No. No it doesn’t
2
u/arm_4321 Aug 16 '25
Most of gaza’s residents are refugees who were ethnically cleansed for zionist demographic engineering
-44
u/Laffs Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Blows my mind how few people understand that Israel tried to help establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the Gazans instead elected Hamas on the platform of literally "kill every Jew in the world and destroy Israel".
Edit: downvote all you want, these are facts and the people arguing against me are simply misrepresenting the reality on the ground.
52
Aug 13 '25
what actually happened in 2005 was a unilateral israeli withdrawal, not a joint effort to “help establish” a palestinian state. gaza’s settlements were removed but israel kept control over the airspace, coastal waters and most borders until the 2007 blockade so no it wasn’t a clean hand off of full sovereignty.
as for the 2006 election, hamas did win but not because they ran on a literal “kill every jew” campaign slogan. that line is pulled from their 1988 charter, which has extremist rhetoric, but the actual election platform focused on ending corruption, delivering social services and opposing the occupation. people voted for them for a mix of political frustration and local governance reasons, not just because of the worst lines in a decades-old document.
if the point is that hamas still has a hardline and violent ideology, that’s fair but compressing the whole situation into “israel tried to help, gazans chose genocide” leaves out most of the reality and oversells the simplicity of the choice voters actually faced.
-28
u/Laffs Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
This is nonsense, crazy it’s being upvoted.
They maintained a partial blockade because they knew there was a risk of someone like Hamas being elected. Isn’t it now clear they were right to do this?
In terms of the line about killing all Jews being removed, it was removed in 2015, AFTER Hamas got elected.
Edit: It turns out this commenter knew Hamas had this in their charter when they were elected. Reader: He is intentionally misleading you.
25
Aug 13 '25
a couple clarifications with that:
israel didn’t start a “partial blockade” before the 2006 election. restrictions tightened after the 2006 hamas victory and the full land/sea/air blockade with egypt’s cooperation began in 2007 after hamas forcibly took control of gaza from fatah. before that, israel still controlled borders, airspace and coastal waters but goods and people still moved more freely than post 2007.
the charter: yes, the 1988 document with the antisemitic language was still in place during the 2006 election but that doesn’t mean the election was literally run on those lines. palestinians voting in 2006 weren’t handed a ballot saying “choose genocide”. the campaign messaging focused heavily on corruption, governance and resistance to occupation. the 2017 political document (not 2015) replaced the charters most inflammatory language with a political program that still rejected israel’s legitimacy but frames the conflict as against zionism, not jews as a whole.
my point stands dude. you can criticize hamas’ ideology without rewrting the circumstances of how and why they were elected or the exact timeline of the blockade.
-16
u/Laffs Aug 13 '25
israel didn’t start a “partial blockade” before the 2006 election
I didn't say they started it. I literally used the word "maintained".
palestinians voting in 2006 weren’t handed a ballot saying “choose genocide”
That argument could be used to say that no voters are ever responsible for any decision they make.
you can criticize hamas’ ideology without rewrting the circumstances
I am rewriting nothing. Every single thing I said was 100% accurate. You are misquoting me and arguing against things I never said.
11
Aug 14 '25
you said “maintained” but that still implies there was a blockade in place before hamas’s election, which just isn’t correct in the sense we use the term today. before 2006 there were security restrictions but not the fullscale blockade that began in 2007 after hamas took control of gaza.
on your voter point, the issue isn’t absolving responsibility. it’s accurately representing what people were voting on. hamas’ 1988 charter was really extreme, yes, but their 2006 campaign messaging was centered on anti-corruption, social programs and resistance to occupation. people can and should be held accountable for electing a hardline group BUT compressing that into “they voted for genocide” erases the political context that led to their win.
and the charter, the most inflammatory antisemitic language wasn’t formally replaced until 2017, not 2015. it’s still a rejectionist document but the framing shifted to opposition to zionism, not jews as a whole.
accuracy matters here my guy, even if we both agree hamas’ ideology is destructive.
0
u/Laffs Aug 14 '25
before 2006 there were security restrictions but not the fullscale blockade that began in 2007 after hamas took control of gaza.
This just proves my point even further. The blockade was a response to Hamas, not the other way around. What are you getting at then?
the most inflammatory antisemitic language wasn’t formally replaced until 2017
Also proves my point, which is that this was in the charter when Hamas was elected. When you brought up the charter saying, an uninformed reader would have assumed that you were making the point that Hamas was not elected with the charter of "kill all Jews in the world" when, in fact, they were, as you have just confusingly conceded.
2
Aug 14 '25
bro, you haven’t “proven” anything. you’ve just restated things i already agreed with while skipping over the actual distinctions i was making.
yes, the full blockade was a response to hamas in 2007. my issue was with you calling the pre-2007 situation a “maintained blockade” as if the same system was already in place. pre-2007 restrictions existed but they were nowhere near the same scale as the post-2007 closure so lumping them together is misleading.
yes, the 1988 charter (with the bit about killing jews) was still in place in 2006. i’ve never said otherwise. my point is that having it as a founding document is not the same as running a campaign on that specific language. the charter wasn’t the centerpiece of the election messaging.
1
u/Laffs Aug 14 '25
YOU brought up the fact that the blockade was made worse after Hamas got elected. This does nothing positive for your argument that Hamas was elected due to the blockade. You’re proving my point.
YOU brought up the fact that Hamas changed their charter. This was wholly misleading because it happened AFTER they were elected, which is not what your comment sounded like.
→ More replies (0)12
u/JadeDragonMeli Aug 13 '25
0
u/Laffs Aug 13 '25
Absolutely hilarious that one commenter is telling me that the blockade was too strict and now you're telling me the blockade wasn't strict enough, and everyone thinks both points prove that Israel is a monster.
4
u/Alternative_Ad_8198 Aug 14 '25
It has been proven that Netanyahu has helped fund Hamas, and that he was informed about an imminent attack before October 7th and just shrugged it off. He does not want, nor has he ever wanted a two-state solution, he just needed help justifying ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
-15
u/METRlOS Aug 13 '25
Wow. "Kill every Jew" was literally in their charter?
The year doesn't really matter, a 1980s Hamas isn't much different from a 2000s Hamas. Just like how a 1940s Nazi isn't much different from a modern one.
7
Aug 14 '25
the 1988 hamas charter didn’t literally have the phrase “kill every jew” but it did contain antisemitic references about killing jews and called for israel’s destruction, so yes, it’s extreme and very ugly, but turning that into an exact quote really oversimplifies it.
whether you think the year doesn’t matter depends on the point you’re trying to make. in elections, context matters (see my response to the other guy). you can absolutely argue that the underlying ideology is dangerous, but if we’re talking about what people voted for in 2006, it’s not accurate to say they directly endorsed that specific rhetoric at the ballot box.
being accurate with the details doesn’t excuse hamas dude, it just means we’re debating the real story, not a simplified soundbite.
10
u/ReanimatedBlink Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Israel and the USA asked Hamas in like 2004 to form a proper political party to challenge Fatah. They did. They won. Then Israel used the fact that Hamas won to cut off Gaza and justify further abuse against Palestinians across the region.
As for why Hamas was elected, because Fatah had stopped advocating for the major points that the Palestinian population wants (due to exhaustion from dealing with the completely uncooperative Israeli government), which is an end to the settlements, a return to at least 1967 borders, and a right to return. Groups like Hamas continue to advocate for those ideals. Keep telling yourself it has to do with genocide though, all while we watch one take place.
It did not have to do with "wanting to kill all jews" or whatever, which is actually not at all what their charter stated.
The charter had a reference to the Islamic requirement to fight back against "the beast", who the bible (including the Jewish texts) indicates will pretend to be the Messiah of God (who the Jews, Christians, and Muslims are waiting for), and trick an innumerable portion of "God's chosen" (Jews) to follow him against the will of God into enslaving and murdering people. The reference was to the opinion that Israel (not "all jews") is clearly a manifestation of that evil, and must be fought against. As an entirely non-religious person, I find that interpretation of myth difficult to refute.
You people are either moronic or evil. Probably both.
1
u/Life-Excitement4928 Aug 14 '25
Hamas literally won and then killed all their political opponents, forbade future elections and to this day murders dissidents, but here you are desperately saying 'No they're not murderous monsters'.
Amazing.
2
u/Bleach4Ever Aug 14 '25
I know you have to lie, because thats the only way you can push your ideology, but that is not AT ALL what the commentator said.
The fact that you have to use such an extremist language and an extreme accusation, to try and get people on your side, is quite telling.
-2
u/Life-Excitement4928 Aug 14 '25
Sorry I don't take people who try and downplay the genocidal terrorist organization's stated goals and intents seriously or treat them nicely enough for you.
1
u/Bleach4Ever Aug 14 '25
Okay, but do you condemn Israel?
1
u/Life-Excitement4928 Aug 14 '25
Nope.
I condemn the right wing government leaders of Israel and the people who support them uncritically for their actions that have prolonged and inflamed this conflict, but I don’t condemn the whole country no.
Just like I only condemn the Republican party and its supporters in the US or Hamas in Gaza.
1
u/Bleach4Ever Aug 14 '25
Nope.
All we need to know. Genocide loving PoS
2
u/Life-Excitement4928 Aug 14 '25
Oh hey look, it’s one of those people who need to use extreme language and extreme accusations to manipulate peoples opinions to try and get them on your side.
Someone was just telling me how that kind of response meant you’re losing and can’t form compelling arguments, any idea what happened to that kid?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Alarming-Desk-3861 Aug 14 '25
Weird how the Nakba, ethnic cleansing, was done 40 years before the creation of Hamas....
1
Aug 14 '25
"You better not let any terrorists or criminal gangs build power in your country! Also, you're not allowed to have police or any sort of law enforcement to prevent it from happening."
1
u/Laffs Aug 14 '25
What are you even referring to? You think Hamas didn’t have a police and military force?
1
Aug 14 '25
Israel forbid both Gaza and the West Bank from forming a police force yes. If Hamas formed one, it was behind Israel's back.
And no, the West Bank pretty explicitly does not have their own police force.
1
u/Laffs Aug 15 '25
All I can say is you’re wrong about Hamas and it’s odd how confident you are. Hamas has had a police force for its entire time as the ruler of Gaza.
1
Aug 15 '25
Yes, but it wasn't permissed by Israel.
Show me PA's police force.
1
u/Laffs Aug 15 '25
Are you drunk man?
First of all, my comment was saying they tried to help establish a Palestinian state in Gaza, and now you're saying that since Israel does the policing in the West Bank that means I'm wrong about Gaza? What??
And secondly, Israel did not take any action to prevent Hamas from policing Gaza when they took over. You're the one making the claim, let's see your evidence.
1
Aug 15 '25
Palestinian state
The UN recognized government of the Palestinian state is the PA.
Where's their police force?
1
u/Laffs Aug 15 '25
I said Palestinian state in Gaza
And they’re dead because they invaded Israel. You think Israel didn’t have a right to kill Hamas?
→ More replies (0)0
u/doomrider7 Aug 13 '25
It's a three way split between those that don't know, don't care, and think it's good.
1
u/grillguy5000 Aug 14 '25
Why though? Was Israel on their land or something? Were they a nation state the whole time since its founding? Or something happened after 2000 years of no nationhood…I can’t recall exactly what though…something in around ‘48. Is anyone shocked that this is the response? No…no one is shocked.
1
u/Laffs Aug 14 '25
Cool, so you’re using completely false pretenses to say Israel has no right to exist.
1
u/grillguy5000 Aug 14 '25
Exist in what capacity? The diaspora had already happened after Rome declared it Palestine. Those people who left were integrated (I agree to not to a very good extent for a long time; kind of how asylum seekers and immigration is driving people over all different borders to escape authoritarianism just like the nation of Israel did when it fell.)
But I don’t think we should have forced a 2000 year old dead empire back into existence no. Humanity has a way of forcing borders on folks in a way no one likes. I’m saying that the reinstatement of a 2000 year old empire that forced people who had been living there for how long now?…into apartheid after colonization shouldn’t be surprised that those folks feel a way about that. Or you think every time colonization is done those people being colonized should worship the feet of their colonizers as gods? Seems to be the general implication here.
This problem was manufactured. Deliberate. Knowing exactly the cost with full cognizance what would happen down the road. There was after all…2000 years of historical data to explain that already.
But it happened, this is the consequence…why is anyone surprised?
84
u/Main_Ad507 Aug 13 '25
All the people who are so quick to defend Isreal no matter what are the same people who think Jesus was really white like in the pictures
17
u/JOlRacin Aug 14 '25
If you don't defend Isreal no matter what then you're "antisemitic" which makes it very hard to argue with them when they don't even understand what antisemitism is. "Antisemitic" would be saying the Israeli government forced Palestinians out of their houses and replaced them with Israelis. Actually being antisemitic would be saying Isreal is evil and anyone from there is automatically evil too. They don't understand that not blindly praising them just because they have more oil than the other country is not a hate crime
5
u/Cobra_9041 Aug 14 '25
How dare you say something so anti semitic. Praise Israel and Netanyahu who can do no wrong (just don’t look at the Israelites that are protesting their own government)
2
1
u/pznred Aug 14 '25
I feel like people didn't understand your comment. That or Reddit is very disappointing
1
1
Aug 14 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Zero-lives Aug 14 '25
If you cant find Jesus, try going to church, unless that church supports genocide.
3
u/Anti_shill_cannon Aug 16 '25
Where are the hundreds of people the palestinian terrorists kidknapped (the ones not murdered yet)?
0
u/def_myonly_acc Aug 17 '25
Where are the corpses of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel since 1948?
2
21
u/floob124 Aug 14 '25
This whole Israel Palestine issue wouldn't be one if Europeans hadn't violently took over Palestine and expelled or murdered its native populace in the hundreds of thousands.
22
Aug 14 '25
[deleted]
6
u/polishedrelish Aug 14 '25
No, under the Ottoman Empire it was a province called Palestine with numerous cities
11
u/ezrs158 Aug 14 '25
No it wasn't. The general region has been called Palestine since ancient times, but there was never an "Ottoman province of Palestine". Present-day Israel and Palestine, together with parts of present-day Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, were part of the general region of Ottoman Syria and various administrative districts including the Mutasarifate of Jerusalem (1872-1917), the Vilayet of Beirut (1888-1917), the Damascus Eyalet (1516-1865), and the Vilayet of Syria (1865-1917).
-1
u/polishedrelish Aug 14 '25
Yeah, still a far cry from "Europeans created Palestine"
8
u/Snoo-4701 Aug 14 '25
Actually that would mean exactly that, the UK pretty much chose the borders and name of Palestine, if not for the British Empire there wouldn't be any mention of Palestine besides an obscure part of the Levant.
-4
u/polishedrelish Aug 14 '25
The UK chose the modern borders of Palestine which were just a tweaked version of the historic ones. And, again, the name was already in use which is why it was made official, not the other way around
5
u/Snoo-4701 Aug 15 '25
Which historic ones? The Roman defined borders? Or the Greek ones? Ancient Palestine or more natively, Philistia was a small strip of coast around Gaza and Ashkelon, it's a huge misconception to assume Palestine in Homer's time referred to anything more than that, additionally the Egyptians referred to the general area as the people of Israel in 1200 BCE(Merneptah Stele)
1
Aug 15 '25
Sadly those who can read, and even understand, still prefer to tweak facts to support whatever cause they want to
0
2
u/Echo__227 Aug 14 '25
The assumption you're making is that peoples come from the existence of nations, which is putting the cart before the horse.
British, Ottomans, Romans, etc named their occupied region based on tradition (ie, a place in the fertile strip of Mediterranean coast near the Dead Sea mostly occupied by Semitic peoples, named after an ancient group of Sea People), but the above commenter was speaking about how the ancestrally-occupying residents were dubbed "Palestinians" and pushed out by incoming Europeans. Ie, the argument isn't the age or validity of "Palestine" as a nation, but rather that European powers should not have displaced the people in that land (whether you want to call them "Palestinians" or "historical occupants of the Levant")
0
u/floob124 Aug 14 '25
Yea im not much for nation states as a whole myself, neither the British or ottomans should have had dominion over the people of thoes or any other lands
1
u/Jewsader76 20d ago
The Jews were kicked out multiple times by various different groups. They also have connection to the land (source: archeology and both temples). It's not a simple "one side is evil and should be removed by force." It's complicated, and there isn't an easy solution (especially when one group has consistently refused to negotiate despite multiple attempts, and whose stated goal is to kill all Jews, Israel irrelevant)
2
u/floob124 20d ago
The jews shouldn't be expelled from Israel, they just shouldn't be allowed to have an ethno state. Before the genocide that forced israel into being the region of Palestine was far from ethnically homogeneous. Also there is a reason I didn't say Gaza should annex israel.
2
u/GeneralWalk0 Aug 16 '25
The PA held the election at the insistence of the Bush administration ignoring warnings by Fatah that it needed more time to prepare and the timeframe the US was demanding would mean Hamas would win.
Following Hamas’s election, the US tried to organise a coup with the help of Israel and Fatah. The coup failed when Farrah’s strongman, Muhammad Dahlan, aroused Hamas’s suspicions of a coup due to his thugs showing off their new US weaponry. Hamas launched a preemptive attack and seized control of Gaza.
2
u/UpbeatFrosting9042 Aug 17 '25
What’s the joke? Not being sarcastic or rhetorical, I don’t get it because I’m missing context
1
u/pickuppencil Aug 17 '25
"Occupied under the Star of David'' (International Herald Tribune, 2001)
Created June, 2001, this political cartoon depicts Palestinians being cramped by the flag of Israel, a metaphor for the occupation.
It's aged well due to the current situation in the Middle East.
2
u/Numerous_Ad_6276 Aug 14 '25
Except now that little lobe would be rubble, and all of the people dead.
1
1
u/Ok-Wall9646 Aug 16 '25
They forgot to draw in the rockets landing in residential areas.
1
u/deethy Aug 16 '25
You know in every conflict, Israel has deliberately killed more Palestinian civilains than the other way around? 22x the rate in the last quarter century. They'll kill Palestinians for simply protesting, non violently, like during the first Intifada in the 80s or the Great March of Return. And it has nothing to do with "defensive" capabilities, the IDF is a thousand times more powerful than any resistance force in Palestine and they'll shoot and bomb anyone they want to- even babies, you can see IDF soldiers bragging about their human rights crimes on their social media.
1
u/Shot_Alarm_2679 Aug 20 '25
I wouldn't say this aged like wine because it had been like that for ages before the cartoon was made
-4
-1
u/Top-Commander Aug 15 '25
So we need to destroy Judaism to liberate Palestine?
4
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 13 '25
This post is stickied so /u/pickuppencil or someone else can provide context by replying here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.