Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> neighbor states actively blocking solutions that would therefore allow the UNRWA to disband

UNRWA though is what enables them to do so. If a state has 1m refugees on your soil that don't have any support mechanisms, it's this state's big problem and they'd be soon forced to find some solutions, as it routinely happened with other refugees. To be clear, not all of these solutions are very good, but at least there would be a pressure on the host country to find one. With UNRWA, it is taking care of the "refugees" - who aren't actual refugees for 2 generations already, btw - so no pressure on somebody else to do anything. In fact, it's an established policy - when one of the prominent Hamas leaders was asked, why don't you work to take care of Gaza population, he answered - it's not my business, my business is to fight Israel (he didn't use the word, of course), and UNRWA business is to take care and feed people. Without UNRWA, this wouldn't be possible - no people would tolerate a government that doesn't bother to provide even minimal care to them. But UNRWA provides this safety net that enables the perpetuation of that situation. Hamas can be 100% full time terrorists, because they know the population wouldn't revolt - they have UNRWA to supply their basic needs.

> It's not the UNRWA that is trying to perpetuate itself. It is the actions of several countries that force the continued status of refugee on the Palestinians

UNRWA certainly isn't doing anything to stop it or voice any objection at all to it, as far as I know. They never asked or acted in any way to make anybody except them to step up.

> Israel not providing humanitarian services in Gaza

Israel provided a ton of humanitarian services to Gaza. Of course that was before people from Gaza murdered over 1300 of people from Israel and kidnapped over another 200. Then the idea kinda lost its attraction for a bit. One of the most cruel parts here that many of those who were murdered were of the most active participants in providing those services, and in fact for many of them that was exactly the reason they went to live so close to Gaza - because they wanted to help.

Hey - let’s call out Hamas as opposed to the people of Gaza. I get the inclination to do so, but missing a chance to call out perpetrators and organizations in favor of a broad population benefits the perpetrators.

Actually - Hamas and Netanyahu are apparently an example of the Shirky effect aren’t they? I havent followed this that deeply, so maybe there is some nuance lost here - but Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive, so that their position would be strengthened.

> Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive

Sounds suss, like a "Jews created the Holocaust, actually" narrative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but whenever someone presents their "evidence" of things like this it's invariably something like a badly shot 4 hour lecture from a "Bible scholar".

It's not suss, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza.

Here's a Times of Israel article about it: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

> Netanyahu’s and his party kept Hamas alive

That's some bullshit right here. Nothing like that happened.

It is somewhat rare when our intuition is found wrong, however this is one of those times. The fact that a known hawk supported their ostensible enemy, is a weird situation.

However-

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-op...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas...

> A year later, Netanyahu was further embarrassed when photos of suitcases full of cash going to Hamas became public. Liberman finally resigned in protest over Netanyahu's Hamas policy which, he said, marked "the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself."

By the looks of it, this was going on for years.

But I am more interested in understanding if this had any impact on you? Do you still think this is BS? Are you cautiously looking for more evidence? Is the evidence sufficient to have changed your position? If so how?

These articles are quoting one of Netanyahu's fiercest opponents - the guy that right now says they need to wage campaign destabilize the government to topple him - as if these were established facts. And, btw, one of the architects of the completely failed "peace process", who let's say has a bit of an agenda to push here.

Yes, Israel had to cooperate to some measure with Hamas as the de-facto government of Gaza, absent any other and absent any desire to re-occupy Gaza. That included, yes, sending them goods and money, or allowing the money to be sent by other parties (note that Israel still is charged with making Gaza "open-air prison" simultaneously, because nothing has to make sense anymore). Because if Israel didn't do that, the whole world would cry out "Israel is blockading and starving Gaza" - there would be no way to pay the salaries of any civil servants (and not like there's much thriving business, except for contraband and drug trade, that can sustain Gaza economy) and deliver any goods. So yes, Israel was allowing money and goods to come to Gaza, and sometimes supplying them, because the only alternative was either to remove all the population there, or let them starve, or re-occupy them - and neither of these options were attractive. This is very far cry from "Netanyahu kept Hamas alive" - that's bullshit framing, Hamas was very much alive by itself, there wasn't a choice of not keeping them alive short of starving the whole population of Gaza or killing all the Hamas members. The former wasn't acceptable, and the latter is what Hamas eventually forced to happen, but Israel was hoping not to go there. Now when it's forced to go there, everybody is crying "how dare you!". Truly, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

> Do you still think this is BS?

Absolutely, it's complete and utter BS, and it's not news for me either - I know about the history of it much more than you'd ever hope to learn from occasionally reading a terribly biased article or quickly googling for a hot take. I lived there, I witnessed all the history of it happen, and I have read tons of materials about it for decades. What for you is a deep and profound revelation, for me is something that I knew for years, and unlike you, I know the full picture, I also know the context of it, the reasons for it and the consequences of it. That's why I say the idea that Netanyahu dreamed of Hamas never going away is complete and utter bullshit. Netanyahu and his policies leave a lot open to criticism, but this thing is on "doctors cause disease because that's how they get paid" level of conspiracy bullshit.

> Is the evidence sufficient to have changed your position? If so how?

There's no realistic "evidence" possible to change my position in such a question, because it goes contrary to decades of knowledge and context that I learned and witnessed. That would have to be evidence on the level that the whole Middle East history for the last 50 years has been some kind of staged conspiracy aimed at deceiving me, Truman-show style. It's on the level of proving with evidence that the Moon is actually made of Swiss cheese and you can get to it by jumping really hard, and that's actually how Swiss cheese is made - by going to the Moon and mining it there. If you can provide such evidence, go ahead, but I'm pretty sure no such evidence exists or can exist, because I don't see how it's existence is possible given what I know about the world around us. Maybe I am just crazy and we all live in simulation and anything is possible, but that's not likely. Much more likely is that some folks have read some biased bullshit - produced in part by people with very clear agenda - and decided they now know everything about the question.

Fascinating! Thank you for responding. Please know that my interest isnt in perpetuating a cycle of anger or hate, but primarily to see if we can somehow find ways to discuss difficult topics online.

Do note, I am not condemning Israel here.

I do not want to change your worldview or anything like that, nor am I litigating your lived history. This would be silly and rude.

That said, you have stated that there is no chance your position could be changed. Unfortunately expected.

So given that your position cant be changed, and I have gotten what I needed, let me help a bit by addressing a few assumptions made -

1) The Haaertz article is inaccessible to me, so I do not have any input from that individual biased against Netanyahu.

2) The second article is from CBC.ca, so I assume is also free of the dismissal causing bias. The quotes are from there.

Now when it's forced to go there, everybody is crying "how dare you!". Truly, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is a gross (and bizarre) distortion of why people are taking issue with the current operation in Gaza, of course. In a nutshell: no, they are very obviously not simply taking issue with the IDF "being there" in some form in response to October 7.

They are taking issue with the actions necessary to eliminate Hamas. There's no way to eliminate Hamas by hugging it out and singing Kumbaya in a drum circle. It requires war. And not a war somewhere where there's no civilians and all targets nicely marked up, but a war in real Gaza. And even now, when Israel suffered unspeakable atrocities, there are constant calls for Israel to stop and let Hamas recover and regain their strength, and ultimately just stop and go back to what was before - Hamas is attacking, Israel is suffering, UNRWA is feeding Gaza and Hamas both.

Imagine what would happen if Netanyahu started an action like this on October 6. The whole world would be sure that he's the next Hitler hellbent on committing genocide. He'd probably be declared international war criminal and Israel would be under sanctions in mere days. And everybody knew that. So Netanyahu instead did what the world demanded him to do - worked with Hamas. His mistake was (not only his personally of course, it was a widely shared delusion) that he believed it's really working and Hamas is slowly moving towards accepting Israel and becoming the real government of Gaza, and not just a terrorist group relying on UNRWA to perform essential government functions while they rob, murder and shoot rockets. But even if he weren't deluded, he's likely still have to cooperate with Hamas to some measure, because there weren't many realistic options otherwise. And that means, yes, that there would still be pictures of the boxes of money sent to Hamas, available for anybody to build their conspiracy theories on.

They are taking issue with the actions necessary to eliminate Hamas.

It's not, as you seem to be insinuating, the very idea of there being some kind of military response to October 7 that they take issue with.

Rather - they don't buy your contention that the current operation, the way it is being conducted, is necessary for (or even helpful towards) that goal. Or even for the safe return of the hostages.

Meanwhile, by now they find themselves forced to acknowledge certain ulterior motives at play -- based on how the current operation has been conducted on the ground, all the rather abhorrent statements by government officials and public figures, all those batshit insane TikTok videos that the IDF's best and finest have proudly broadcast to the world, etc.

That's the way of the hypocrite. While I don't object to the military action in theory, as an abstract concept, but as long as any actual military action happens in reality, I would object to it and demand an immediate cessation of it. So what's the point of not objecting in theory, if you object to any instance in practice?

> they don't buy your contention that the current operation, the way it is being conducted, is necessary for (or even helpful towards) that goal.

Destroying Hamas is not helpful for the goal of destroying Hamas? That's certainly a novel take. I wonder how do you imagine a military operation with the goal of destroying Hamas looking like. Is it, in your mind, being conducted by sending them a sternly formulated emails, expressing your grave concern? Do you realize that Hamas has - or, rather, by now "had" - over 30k soldiers (that we know of), 18 years to dig in and stockpile weapons, explosives, build miles-long tunnel system, establish command points in every hospital, school and mosque that exists in Gaza, and they couldn't care less about any "international law" or war crime statutes? A war with such type of an enemy is not going to look very pretty on your screen. Fortunately, it's also not the goal of it.

> all those batshit insane TikTok videos that the IDF's best and finest have proudly broadcast to the world, etc.

I have no idea what you're talking about (I don't use Tiktok, for starters, neither I recommend it to anybody else, and I would agree that any IDF soldier that uses it at the site of military action probably should get a stern talking-to by the unit commander, but of course it's inevitable since the soldiers are people, sometimes - very young people, and would occasionally do things that aren't in the best judgement). But whatever "batshit" things you've seen on Tiktok, I don't see how it's relevant to anything.

> Meanwhile, by now they find themselves forced to acknowledge certain ulterior motives at play

Again, I have no idea what you mean - could you speak your point plainly?

Destroying Hamas is not helpful for the goal of destroying Hamas?

What's the point of not objecting in theory, if you object to any instance in practice?

Unfortunately it appears that you're either grossly misreading what I'm saying, or (intentionally or otherwise) going through a lot of weird mental gymnastics to make it look like I'm saying things that I'm plainly not. So I'll have to bow out, and let you sort this stuff out on your own.

It is interesting - though not surprising - that when asked to speak your point plainly, in case I misunderstood you - you complain I am "grossly misreading" it and refuse to do so. Of course if you refuse to speak plainly, it's easy to misunderstand - or, it's easy to say something and then when proven wrong, claim it's the opponent's fault for misreading it.

The basic point is that, while you seem to think that if people oppose Operation Iron Swords, it's because they take issue with "Israel taking necessary action to defend itself" -- when very obviously that's not what they take issue with at all.

What they object to, rather with extremely high (by all appearances intentionally so) number of civilian fatalities. Combined with numerous blatant statements by government officials and public figures in support of a complete removal of the entire population of Gaza.

What is normally called a genocide, in other words.

No, it's a well-known fact. Netanyahu has lobbied within Likud to support Hamas as a way to prevent the PA from making inroads in Gaza (which is seen by most in the West as the only way for a Palestinian state to occur, since Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization). Basically, keep the terrorists running Gaza, and no one will make a serious effort to pressure Israel into recognizing or allowing Palestinian statehood.

Here's a Times of Israel article about it: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

What this article describes is that Netanyahu treated Hamas as de-facto government of Gaza - and cooperated with them in certain things. This is, btw, exactly what Israel has been accused of not doing - e.g. not letting Gazans work, not letting them receive goods and money, etc. But in reality, Netanyahu has been doing all that - under the mistaken impression that Hamas can be, eventually, converted from purely military genocidal terrorist group to kind of hostile, but manageable government of Gaza. This wasn't done because he liked Hamas, but because there's no other option in Gaza, and the alternatives would be very costly and politically untenable - you can't blockade million-sized territory for long before "international community" cries out, and you can't re-occupy it. All that changed on Oct 7, of course, where this policy has proven to be a colossal failure - and that's what Netanyahu and others who pushed this policy will have to answer for, after the war has ended. But none of this makes the claim that Netanyahu actually preferred Hamas as a partner any of a fact - he had a choice, either cooperate with Hamas, ignore them or destroy them. All the world screamed at him "cooperate immediately!". He cooperated. This turned to be a catastrophically mistaken choice. But ironically, now everybody screams at him "how dared you to cooperate! It's all your fault now!". Not that he had much choice - if he chose anything else before Oct 7, what occurred would also probably be listed as his fault, because how dared he not to cooperate? If only he cooperated, nothing like that would happen!

This is all just talking out your bum.

> But in reality, Netanyahu has been doing all that - under the mistaken impression that Hamas can be, eventually, converted from purely military genocidal terrorist group to kind of hostile, but manageable government of Gaza.

That is literally the opposite of what Netanyahu himself said. He told Likud directly that propping up Hamas in Gaza was good for Israel because Hamas would never be accepted as a legitimate government, and that would prevent 2-state talks from ever seeing progress.

Stop making up b.s. just to excuse Israel's fault in this.

Israel's fault in what? I wonder what you mean by "Israel's fault" - i.e. what Israel should have done and didn't?

Netanyahu said a lot of things over the years - including, yes, that Hamas is not going to be accepted as legit government by the world (though I'm not sure it's true) - but in his actions, he was treating it as de-facto government, even if not legitimately accepted formally. Actual political reality is a bit more complex than one slogan. And part of this reality has been that Israeli government tolerated Hamas - and it's significant abuses - because they thought it's a manageable evil and the alternatives were worse. This is a far cry with "keeping Hamas alive" - it's "not destroying Hamas because it's too hard and politically untenable, so we should make the best of what we have". If you think that there was some way for Netanyahu to magically make Hamas go away and he didn't because he like it - that's what I'd talk "talking out your bum" - nothing of the sort was ever possible. You can see what it actually takes to do this right now - and this only became politically possible after October 7. And even now the final destruction of Hamas is not assured at all - Biden admin, for example, works very hard to somehow avoid it (without saying it publicly of course), and they may yet get their with and Hamas will be spared - to repeat the same again for another 20 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com