I would agree that the comparisons of Hamas to Nazi Germany is overblown. In terms of scope and reach Hamas is far behind the threat they the Nazis are. I also feel that many in Gaza are essentially themselves hostage to Hamas as we see that Palestinians fighting back agains them often ends in death too. while Hamas is stated as a liberation movement I wouldn’t say they are the same as ANC, IRA or KDP. All of those groups engaged in terrorism but unlike Hamas they weren’t religious but secular and saw themselves as part of the global Marxist liberation movement of the 70’s and 80’s and not Islamic movements. Most important though they all moderated and negotiated with the powers they opposed. As such apartheid ended, the Good Friday agreement happened, and the Kurds have essentially a de facto state in North Iraq. In the case of the Kurdistan they have even cooperated with Turkey against the PKK and more radical Kurdish groups. Hamas hasn’t moderated and still calls for the complete destruction of Israel. Other than hostage exchanges not negotiated with Israel or even the Palestinian Authority.
Yes the PLO had more of the socialist resistance aspects but due to corruption and the Israeli gov understanding the Palestinians would have more sympathy if the PLO was in charge rather Hamas the PLO aren't the tip of the spear when it comes to resistance and rather a reactionary fundenantalist movement is. That's unfortunate but it also is a bad comparison based on basic principles of causality. Nazis where not an effect of an oppressed stateless people funding outlets for resistance. Nazis were cause of oppressed starless people funding outlets for resistance. Israeli occupation is the cause of Hamas. Hams is an effect unlike the Nazis.
And I agree that is a problem with the comparison of Nazis to Hamas. Hamas though isn’t the only option for Palestinian resistance. If anything their tactics are self defeating and perpetuate the cycle of violence and further oppression of Palestinians. Causality was that once Hamas killed over a 1300 in Israel and kidnapped more than 200 That Israel would respond heavily killing many more Palestinians.
Yes but we all know the world wasn't created in Oct 7th. When people say Israel is the root cause of the violence it isn't people dismissing Hamas as a terrorist organization. It's acknowledging that Hamas wouldn't exist without first the settler colonialism and then the ethnostate practices of Israel.
This is the Minister of Communications in Israel trying to collect foreskins. Man religion fries the brains of people on both sides of this conflict.
Aid money? The type of aid they get is in the form of food pallets not cash... Why do you just buy into random people's tweets? You aren't brain damaged are you?
We cannot know that. This is the rosiest view of jihadism. That these parts of Islam are only activated by certain egregious behavior from other parties. I'm not sure history supports that interpretation. A less rosy view of jihadism says groups like the Islamic State and Hamas simply come with the basic instruction kit. No matter how nice the rest of the planet might be, these groups would exist. I don't know if either of those extreme views have more or less merit. Without a parallel Earth, one in which Israel had never placed settlements in the occupied territories, where various Arab nations had never attacked Israel, from attempted military overruns or scud missiles to ongoing terrorist attacks, and one where Israel had found a more moderate, workable stance to Gaza and the West Bank... we will never know if Hamas would exist or not. You can just speculate. It does seem that the more hardline elements within Israel bluntly promoted orgs like Hamas. That does seem clear (and stupid, and terrible). Quite a "western" tradition here of funding and trying to control the worst elements until that strategy predictably backfires.
I think this is coming from someone who has reductive views of humans where you believe motivations can entirely be signed up by religious identity and scripture. Make no mistake about it, religion is just justification for what is essentially land and resource disputes. If an anti-semetic British PM didn't create the Balfour declaration which created a settler colonial movement carved out by British colonialism resulting in native Palestinian Arabs who lived their for generations either being kicked out of the their childhood villages where entire village names were wiped out of existence their wouldn't be a Hamas. Those who didn't get displaced were being converted into cheap explored labor both of which resulted in sporadic class based riots of exploited native laborers rioting and Jewish militias designated as terror groups by the British government and suppressing those movements advocating resistance with direct violence on Arab civilians to their new conditions of being displaced or forced into exploited labor for the profit interests of others that aren't their own people. Obviously Palestinians Arabs would retaliate to being victims of settler colonialism. This resulted in the Nakba where the newly formed state of Israel accelerated the expelling under the guise of being attacked by those whom they oppress through ethnic cleansing practices where most of the survivers and their decedents are those Gazan residents being ordinance dropped for decades where it's just repeated cycles of experiencing oppression, trauma and violence. That is what created Hamas. Not religious scripture. Don't be so reductive of the complexity of humans to turn this into a reductive religious values battle.
Every country in the world is trying to deal with being overrun by massive muslim immigration and you are calling the red area 'colonialists'.....
from 1948 to 1967 Israel had no settlements in the West Bank, nor was there any "occupation." what happened in 1967 to change that?
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-1967-six-day-war Old and New Narratives of the 1967 Crisis While potential for renewed Arab-Israeli hostility simmered in early 1967, most regional actors neither expected nor sought a new military confrontation. This is particularly true for the leaders of Israel and Egypt: Levi Eshkol and Gamal Abdel Nasser. How, then, did a major war erupt seemingly against the wishes of both sides? The conventional wisdom among historians is that a series of mishaps and missteps —deceptions, miscalculations, misperceptions, and the like—led each party into a war that neither leader planned for nor desired.[2]Israeli-inspired narratives typically cite false Soviet intelligence reports of imminent Israeli attack on Syria as the trigger that launched Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser on a series of miscalculated decisions (massing troops in the Sinai, removing the UN Emergency Force deployed there after the 1956 Suez crisis, and closing the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping) that ultimately made war inevitable. Meanwhile, Arab-inspired narratives assert that Israel’s provocative statements against the Syrian regime induced Nasser’s reaction. Other narratives divide responsibility between various players—Arabs, Soviets, Israelis, and even the United Nations. Yet all these narratives share the fundamental idea that the crisis sprung from a series of miscalculations that ultimately led to the failure of conventional deterrence. …
