Some officials say the agreement is a “vindication,” while others insist it was just the necessary move at this point in the war.
Some officials say the agreement is a “vindication,” while others insist it was just the necessary move at this point in the war.
The fact that Hamas continues to hold hostages makes me question this point. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” could mean that Israelis and Palestinians can live in harmony (and yes, many people are calling for that) but to extremists they interpret that as ridding themselves of the other nation.
An official, Ghazi Hammad told a Lebanese news channel that they would repeat attacks similar to the al-Aqsa Flood until Isreal is finished. Unless it’s a major translation error in which case I’d like a correct version for.
It’d be nice to believe Hamas are goody-two-shoes that just want to defend their land against Israeli aggression and don’t want to remove Israelis, but there’s at least one person who verifiably puts Hamas in the offensive stance.
For the record, Israel is aggressive as hell and I do believe they are hurting innocent Palestinians disproportionately. I have to be initially skeptical of any information that purposely intends to paint IDF or Hamas in a good light.
How so? Since Israel never takes peaceful discussion seriously, negotiating for the release of hostages is one of the only ways Hamas can get any concessions out of Israel. Compare to the PNA which just can’t get any concessions out of Israel. Believing that the Israeli attack on Gaza is meant to free the hostages is playing right into Israel’s hands; if it was they’d have negotiated for a ceasefire and ended the whole thing within a week.
It is a sort of vague statement even in Arabic, but Israel being finished (the Arabic word is literally “removed”) doesn’t necessarily mean genocide of Israelis. While he’s mostly unrelated to Hamas, Yasser Arafat used the same rhetoric, with the clarification that he meant Israel as a state not Israelis, in the 90s so it’s not unprecedented.
Anyway that aside, Hamas’s vague stated motivations aside, their actions aren’t the actions of someone who wants to remain an aggressor. I’ve mentioned this before, but they’ve participated in ceasefires in good faith, so they’ve got that going for them. While it doesn’t excuse the leadership if they’re actually talking about genocide (I don’t believe so because of their updated 2017 charter, but that aside), it does mean the idea that Hamas rejects peace as much as Israel does is wrong. Hamas hasn’t rejected peace offers from Israel since at least 2005 (I’m not sure of their positions before 2005, but I doubt any offers were directed at Hamas). See also: the 2013 attempt at a united government.
If Israel came tomorrow and said they’d represent lift the blockade if Hamas stopped attacking it it’d happen within the same week. I’m repeating myself, but this isn’t my guess; this has happened twice before.
I absolutely get that Netanyahu’s government is constantly trying to set up a narrative to justify violence against Palestinians… and I already said Israel’s retaliation is disproportionate. They are absolutely playing dirty and not being held to account for it. I’m not taking sides for it and Palestines all over the world have been calling for peace since forever.
The rhetoric, however vague or a minority a view it may be, is still difficult to ignore. With the US mainly backing one horse though it’s nigh impossible for this rhetoric to pan out for the other.
Yeah that makes sense… I’m mostly saying this because there’s a view that even if Israel wanted they can’t get it because of Hamas, or worse, that Israel wants peace but can’t get it because of Hamas.