that's like saying Obama was justified in drone bombing Americans as collateral damage from an attack on a sovereign foreign government in their own territory
it is not. there are quasi no parallels. in the article paragraph 6 ('that's why you never see me criticizing hamas. ...') kinda explains this. by promoting this narrative, i feel you're aiding the western red line of hamas disarming, disssolving and being no part of the palestinian government when this is over. the 'moderate' western oligarchs' only somewhat acceptable 'two state solution' is that which currently exists on the west-bank: the same concentration camp only with palestinian 'capo's' subservient to western masters.
it's funny how not specifying that one is "against" a particular position is often misinterpreted as being "for" the other half of a binary supposition.
I don't think the "state" of Israel is legitimate in the first place, considering it was violently installed in Palestine (officially in 1948) on behalf of Rothschild and the UN with zero consideration for the inhabitants and their centuries of land title.
I definitely don't think a militant government which hasn't held an election since 2006 and was reported to be installed by (and is reported to still receive facilitation from) the very state they're "fighting" can be considered heroes.
especially when the state that formed them shouldn't ever have existed in the first place.
no two state solution will fix this situation, Israel has made it extremely clear over and over since 1948 that they will proceed to steal Palestinian (and Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, etc) land by violent terrorism and military action. allowing their fake state to exist will perpetuate the problem until they've stomped flat every surrounding civilization and taken over completely.
the system indeed has a way of drawing lines in which 'staying neutral' amounts to supporting the position of the ruling status quo.
from the position you are in now, you would probably not object to the disarmement, dissolution and exclusion of government of hamas as tptb work towards their 'two state solution'.
compared to what most westerners (and the un, arab league, the pa) do, i don't fully grasp the quotation marks on fighting (nor the stubborn reluctance to recognize hamas as 'heroes', be it only for counter-propaganda purposes).
although i strongly support democratic principles (in an equally informed populace), as a marxist-leninist, i do not attribute the same holiness to the procedure in current circumstances as you do. and i understand why hamas has some serious reservations about it since the 2006 elections (also considering the seriously ramping up of the occupational pressure, but someone probably asked the question 'what else were the pa, israel and other international actors supposed to do after the hamas victory?' + on 'was reported': who is reporting this and why?).
i agree the fake zionist entity as such must go. i think hamas' optional way to lawfare the israeli ethnostate out of existence after a sovereign palestinian state has been established (with an independent economy and army that is capable of defending its advocates and lawyers) is as viable as hoping for some enlightened third military power to step in and make it go away by force.
I'm not sure how denying the legitimacy of both Israel and Hamas or pointing out the extended length of time without even the sham of democracy to justify continued Hamas rule counts as assigning holiness to any particular procedure. here in the West the misleading sacred cow is democracy via voting (even though we in America are supposed to have a republic.)
so I used the last election as a reference for the power grab of Hamas over Palestine.
you speak of forcible disarmament, but by who? which non-Palestinian state is to tromp into the fenced concentration camp with military force next? because the illegitimate genocidal state of Israel certainly shouldn't be allowed to take all their weaponry.
allowing the few remaining civilians control over their trimmed down 1948 territorial lines and removing Israeli control over Palestinian borders and territory is what I'm suggesting. that might require dissolution of BOTH involved militant governments and war crimes prosecutions. otherwise Israel will just accelerate their genocide with their US funded military cleansing the rest of a fully disarmed Palestine.
my bad, i probably read too much in 'which hasn't held an election since 2006'.
the official story (beware!) is that the hamas power grab was legit, that is a majority of palestinians endorsed it. this legitimacy was (strategically ?) enforced by the seemingly (?) panicked backpedaling (on how democracy works) of all other actors after the facts.
if i earlier spoke about 'forcible disarmament', that would've been a mistake. in their fantasy of a two state solution, they demand that hamas 'voluntarily' disarms (and recognises israel, and denounces 'violence' - kinda relinquish palestinian right to resist occupation and self-defense, and ... - yeah sure, hamas is the one with 'unreasonable' demands) before any negotiations begin.
i'm in no way inclined to 'both-side' this situation. hamas will agree with a palestinian state within the 1967 borders. it would therefor not require the dissolution of the hamas government, as for the israeli government ... it probably would not agree. hamas would probably also agree to equal war crimes prosecutions, but also including widening the justice-seeking to the wide world (responsible politicians and analysts) not living up to the genocide convention.
hAmAs ArE hErOeS 🤡😜😆
that's like saying Obama was justified in drone bombing Americans as collateral damage from an attack on a sovereign foreign government in their own territory
it is not. there are quasi no parallels. in the article paragraph 6 ('that's why you never see me criticizing hamas. ...') kinda explains this. by promoting this narrative, i feel you're aiding the western red line of hamas disarming, disssolving and being no part of the palestinian government when this is over. the 'moderate' western oligarchs' only somewhat acceptable 'two state solution' is that which currently exists on the west-bank: the same concentration camp only with palestinian 'capo's' subservient to western masters.
it's funny how not specifying that one is "against" a particular position is often misinterpreted as being "for" the other half of a binary supposition.
I don't think the "state" of Israel is legitimate in the first place, considering it was violently installed in Palestine (officially in 1948) on behalf of Rothschild and the UN with zero consideration for the inhabitants and their centuries of land title.
I definitely don't think a militant government which hasn't held an election since 2006 and was reported to be installed by (and is reported to still receive facilitation from) the very state they're "fighting" can be considered heroes.
especially when the state that formed them shouldn't ever have existed in the first place.
no two state solution will fix this situation, Israel has made it extremely clear over and over since 1948 that they will proceed to steal Palestinian (and Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, etc) land by violent terrorism and military action. allowing their fake state to exist will perpetuate the problem until they've stomped flat every surrounding civilization and taken over completely.
the system indeed has a way of drawing lines in which 'staying neutral' amounts to supporting the position of the ruling status quo.
from the position you are in now, you would probably not object to the disarmement, dissolution and exclusion of government of hamas as tptb work towards their 'two state solution'.
compared to what most westerners (and the un, arab league, the pa) do, i don't fully grasp the quotation marks on fighting (nor the stubborn reluctance to recognize hamas as 'heroes', be it only for counter-propaganda purposes).
although i strongly support democratic principles (in an equally informed populace), as a marxist-leninist, i do not attribute the same holiness to the procedure in current circumstances as you do. and i understand why hamas has some serious reservations about it since the 2006 elections (also considering the seriously ramping up of the occupational pressure, but someone probably asked the question 'what else were the pa, israel and other international actors supposed to do after the hamas victory?' + on 'was reported': who is reporting this and why?).
i agree the fake zionist entity as such must go. i think hamas' optional way to lawfare the israeli ethnostate out of existence after a sovereign palestinian state has been established (with an independent economy and army that is capable of defending its advocates and lawyers) is as viable as hoping for some enlightened third military power to step in and make it go away by force.
I'm not sure how denying the legitimacy of both Israel and Hamas or pointing out the extended length of time without even the sham of democracy to justify continued Hamas rule counts as assigning holiness to any particular procedure. here in the West the misleading sacred cow is democracy via voting (even though we in America are supposed to have a republic.)
so I used the last election as a reference for the power grab of Hamas over Palestine.
you speak of forcible disarmament, but by who? which non-Palestinian state is to tromp into the fenced concentration camp with military force next? because the illegitimate genocidal state of Israel certainly shouldn't be allowed to take all their weaponry.
allowing the few remaining civilians control over their trimmed down 1948 territorial lines and removing Israeli control over Palestinian borders and territory is what I'm suggesting. that might require dissolution of BOTH involved militant governments and war crimes prosecutions. otherwise Israel will just accelerate their genocide with their US funded military cleansing the rest of a fully disarmed Palestine.
my bad, i probably read too much in 'which hasn't held an election since 2006'.
the official story (beware!) is that the hamas power grab was legit, that is a majority of palestinians endorsed it. this legitimacy was (strategically ?) enforced by the seemingly (?) panicked backpedaling (on how democracy works) of all other actors after the facts.
if i earlier spoke about 'forcible disarmament', that would've been a mistake. in their fantasy of a two state solution, they demand that hamas 'voluntarily' disarms (and recognises israel, and denounces 'violence' - kinda relinquish palestinian right to resist occupation and self-defense, and ... - yeah sure, hamas is the one with 'unreasonable' demands) before any negotiations begin.
i'm in no way inclined to 'both-side' this situation. hamas will agree with a palestinian state within the 1967 borders. it would therefor not require the dissolution of the hamas government, as for the israeli government ... it probably would not agree. hamas would probably also agree to equal war crimes prosecutions, but also including widening the justice-seeking to the wide world (responsible politicians and analysts) not living up to the genocide convention.