I guess I did. Our response to 9/11 was a sweeping overhaul of our foreign policy and intelligence gathering institutions. It wasn’t a single military operation with a specific target. So, I don’t accept that our history in the region and relationships with Islamic militant groups was irrelevant to our wider response. Does that apply only to Israeli complicity in that funding, or to complicity of other parties as well (Iran, Qatar, etc.)? I understand that for the people who are narrowly tasked with going in and eliminating Hamas as a military threat, the question of how Hamas obtained all this power in Gaza need not be their concern. But why should that fact constrain our discussion of that question in this thread?
I don't recall a lot of hand wringing and concern about prior payments to the mujahideen. Maybe I missed it. I know that right after 9/11 the US responded with quick and overwhelming military force directed at al Qaeda. Insofar as the war in Gaza, I would say it applies to all parties. There may be a reckoning for others' involvement, but that is a concern for another day. Nothing should constrain your discussion of anything in any thread. Talk about whatever seems relevant to you. To me, this thread is about Israel Going to War with Hamas in 2023 and Likud funding Hamas to weaken Fatah is not incredibly relevant to my views on that topic.
I've not seen anyone praise Hamas in this forum. So I don't know why you need to make this point to people here.
Hamas attacks Israel: Yom Kippur War, 50 years on | Page 151 | ClutchFans Homey the Clown sure seems to be praising Hamas here.
While I disagree with him, I don't see what he is doing as praising Hamas. Are you sure you know what praise is?
He never accused you of breaking a law... He accused you of hypocrisy because in the past you have attacked wokeness for doing what you are doing right now. In fact, you have made it one of your core tenets of what not to do: AroundTheWorld or just AnoTherWokester?
The expression of approval or admiration for someone or something. Did you not pick up that he was expressing approval of Hamas? When he compared Hamas to Nat Turner's Rebellion, John Brown's raid, the Haitain Revolution, what was the intent? To denigrate? When he said they are not terrorists, but a resistance group fighting against white supremacy, was he not expressing approval or admiration? Isn't fighting white supremacy generally considered good by leftists (a group with which he expressly identified)? Maybe you have a much different understanding of these words than I do.
It’s basically what the Right has frequently complained of as “cancel culture”. By saying that calling people “racists” or “fascists” is meant to shut them down. He is doing the same thing by calling others “antismetic”.
It is relevant because it matters how Hamas got so powerful enough to attack Israel. Whether Hamas has gotten aid from Iran or From Likud does matter in terms of strategy in dealing with them.
The reports that doctors at Al Shifa Are cooperating with the IDF to get aid like incubators is one of the few Hopeful spots in this conflict.
He never stated he approved of Hamas, only that they were not a terrorist group. That can be an academic argument. Warping that into "approval" is a way to label him has morally bankrupt - cancel culture - so that you don't have to have a debate with him and can just label him a monster which is what you are trying to do. You don't know whether he approves of Hamas until he states so. There's an argument to be made that if whether what Hamas did was a act of terrorism or a war crime as a fighting unit. Both are pretty bad. There have been many instance in history where armies, including the IDF have targeted women and children. The US has done this, as have many many other countries both in the past and currently. Just look at Africa where in their wars children are often rounded up an executed. Why aren't they labeled terrorists? I would classify Hamas as a terrorist group over a resistance army - because I don't believe they actually want a country. They aren't fighting for a cause or for land, but rather fighting for political power - which makes them a terrorist group, not a resistance movement. But I can see why some people woul argue differently. But no where does he state that he approves of Hamas's tactics. That's a leap and a dangerous one to make.
After you posted the link, I read it the same as you. “Praise” is maybe a touch more than what the post was doing, but clearly he was trying to defend their legitimacy as part of the Palestinian resistance. Your characterization is fair. Where a group like Hamas seems to differ from other Islamic terrorist groups is that it is focused locally on the conflict with Israel. They don’t appear to have grander plans to create a civilizational war (like Al Qaeda or ISIS). But that doesn’t mean they aren’t embracing terrorism. That doesn’t mean they aren’t ideologically committed (by their own words, which they refuse to recant) to clearing out Jews from Palestine and using all means of violence available to them to that end. I believe people should call things as they are, and not use different words to fit a particular good guys vs bad guys narrative they want to advance. Hamas is simultaneously part of the “resistance” as well as fully embraces the use of terrorism (the purposeful targeting of civilians) as a military tactic. Their tactics, particularly given their stated end goal (ethnic cleansing of Jews), should be condemned by anyone who professes humanitarian concerns.
What makes them a terrorist group to me is their commanders give orders to target civilians as a means to a political end. The political end appears to be the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Holy Land and establishment of an Islamic state in its place. But even if the political end was more just — putting an end to Israeli oppression over Palestinian people and creating a path for Palestinians to realize their own nationalist aspirations — that shouldn’t change their designation as a terrorist group. Terrorism remains terrorism whether one can rationalize it or not. I think it would be more honest for people to just say “yeah, these guys here are terrorists and I support them for XYZ reasons” instead of using euphemisms like “freedom fighters” or “resistance fighters”.
