Forum menu
For a degree of balance in the thread, from a Palestinian perspective Hamas are an authoritarian entity with no regard for democracy amongst the Palestinians and are brutal in shutting opposing views/voices in Gaza, There are a few links below to offer an insight into their brutality.
Link to AP report on Hamas and their actions on October 7th
Amnesty : state of Palestine as of 2022
Amnesty : Link to 270+ articles on The state of Palestine
And if you want independent journalism on a range of topics free from influence then the French "The Conversation" is worth watching/reading.
How Hamas weaponised Palestinians despair
If Biden continues to shield Israeli atrocity from global opinion, the American public, and even the highest machinery of his own party, and Netanyahu unleashes the IDF into the south, kills another 10,000 civilians, and raises the last of Gazan infrastructure, leaving it a smouldering, starving and hopeless ruin, where and to what do these two million destitute peoples go back to?
So essentially, the Israeli intelligence services helped form a militant ruling faction that not only supresses the occupied population of Gaza, but gives Israel's leaders the perfect excuse to bolster support for continued genocidal bombardment and collective punishment, allowing Israel to expand it's territory in pursuit of it's ongoing colonial settlement policy...
Given the vast amount of military aid Israel receives:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.yPnMjreppKi5W-heWTLQkgHaFR%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=555011d50da92a88554289716fa5199f83f63baa33b357aac4001356fbbf6e70&ipo=imagesac4001356fbbf6e70&ipo=image s" alt="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.yPnMjreppKi5W-heWTLQkgHaFR%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=555011d50da92a88554289716fa5199f83f63baa33b357aac4001356fbbf6e70&ipo=images" width="474" height="337" />
are Palestinian authorities allowed any access to military hardware to resist the occupation?
My bad, as usual, I'm just seeking out the facts and seeing where they lead...
On which note:
are Palestinian authorities allowed any access to military hardware to resist the occupation?
That's odd...
The State of Palestine has no land army, nor an air force or a navy. The Palestinian Security Services (PSS, not to confuse with Preventive Security Service) do not dispose over heavy weapons and advanced military equipment like tanks.
In the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, Israel has consistently demanded that the Palestinian state would always be demilitarized. Israeli negotiators demanded to keep Israeli troops in the West Bank, to maintain control of Palestinian airspace, and to dictate exactly what weapons could and could not be purchased by the Palestinian security forces.<sup id="cite_ref-carlstrom_2011_4-0" class="reference">[4]</sup> In June 2009 at Bar-Ilan University, Benjamin Netanyahu said: ″We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarised,″<sup id="cite_ref-carlstrom_2011_4-1" class="reference">[4]</sup>
Meanwhile...
We are being asked to shun the Israelis, to mount a total moral repudiation of Israel – when that country has only recently suffered the biggest and most horrifying massacre of Jewish people since world war two.”
If that's the criteria, massacre, when do the Palestinians get armed? 30,000, 40,000, 80,000?
basically we should sell them arms because they are the only democracy in the middle east.
So everyone living, involuntarily, under an autocratic regime deserves to die at the hands of Isreal/A.N.Other?
And Isrealis have the power to change the direction of its policies and stop killing thousands of Palestinians, yet choose not to.
Ah yes, silly me, and there was I thinking it had all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated purge of territory for colonial purposes, but let's not forget, this is a war and even children may have dangerous thoughts of seeking freedom from occupation...
Ah yes, silly me, and there was I thinking it had all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated purge of territory for colonial purposes, but let’s not forget, this is a war and even children may have dangerous thoughts of seeking freedom from occupation…
Eh? That's very similar to what I think it looks like.
Doesnt mean Hamas are unarmed. Which was what you questioned.
Tbh, I've literally no idea what you're doing now so will move on.
Bloody hell, so Gazans and Palestinians are armed to the teeth then?
Maybe we should join our special relationship buddies in the US and forego our healthcare system to free up enough taxpayer money to ensure Israel has enough weapons to stop the Palestinians escaping in dinghies and coming over here and killing us all with their advanced automated drones integrating into society with their strong work ethic.
"We are being asked to shun the Israelis, to mount a total moral repudiation of Israel – when that country has only recently suffered the biggest and most horrifying massacre of Jewish people since world war two.”
What is being asked is that a country and nation state which is a regional superpower act within international law and not prosecute a genocide on a people who are stateless and defenceless. This is what is being asked of Israel and this is what is being ignored.
And with all due respect, what apologists for Israel demand is selective outrage and condemnation. Condemn the Hamas attacks and be outraged by them, but not by Israeli murdering many thousands of innocent children, as though the current theatre of atrocity is somehow justified by the atrocity the other.
With regards to accusing people of conspiracy theory by stating well-reported facts that Hamas were funded for political reasons is false equivocation. I don’t think anyone is saying that. Here, the facts speak for themselves.
Bloody hell, so Gazans and Palestinians are armed to the teeth then?
Not compared to Israel, nobody said they were. You asked "are Palestinian authorities allowed any access to military hardware" and I answered. I'm not casting judgement or expressing an opinion, just stating a fact in an attempt to answer your question.
Please for the sake of the thread dont go down that road.
But it doesn't take long for a few people to push that line though. Selective quoting, dishonest inference and flat out shitposting.
Not surprising, but when you've supplanted a personality for politics, this is the way.
How are we all doing?
still good?
Banging. Bloody lovely ride today.
Jivehoneyjive, it would be helpful if you were more precise in who you mean by "Palestinian authorities". Do you mean Hamas? If so please say so. Palestine is not a state in the way that most countries are (hence why "2 state solution" is a hope rather than reality). So it is hard to know how to respond to your points above.
Hamas are clearly not 'allowed' weapons... after all, they are terrorists, resisting occupation, who just happen to have a history of covert support from the Israeli intellgence services.
Meanwhile, as mentioned above, weapons supplied to the Palestinian Security Services are heavily vetted by Israel and are not to be used for the purposes of resisting occupation
It's not really a case of being 'allowed' weapons and isn't a helpful way of looking at things. It's more a case of who will supply you with weapons and technologies and the line they draw with how you use them. Someone is clearly supplying Hammas with weapons and not just small arms. They have or had a significant supply of artillery type munitions. Israel clearly has more open suppliers, the critical question is whether Israel has stepped over the line that will halt that supply. I think most of us think that line was unambiguously crossed sometime ago, unfortunately weapons supply and politics are closely linked and often murky at best.
Israel clearly has more open suppliers
On that topic. I've not seen much transparency on the supply to Isreal from the US's war reserve stock held in Israel, I've seen suggestions its happening but no real details on how much. I'm guessing the real size of the reserve is going to remain secret.
Dont suppose you've seen any credible sources on that?
dazh- surely you understand that the usual suspects have been keeping score since mark opened this thread?
It's just how they are...let me take you back to your post two million years ago.
You know who they are, so do they, so do I.
I don't think Israel has a credible or viable way out of this.
They clearly won't back down in any meaningful way; criticism of their behaviour is still muted; Netanyahu has shown he will do anything to stay in power.
They have a strong domestic armaments sector - external support very welcome, thanks Joe - but not essential.
This will fester for decades.
I'm not convinced by this 'plucky little Israel's doing it alone.' If supplies and political support were cut off from the US and UK, things would be different. Apartheid and repression can't last, it generates and multiplies the opposition. Just look at how Bloody Sunday increased recruitment to the nationalist movements. As with Ireland a single democratic secular state is the only answer.
I’m not convinced by this ‘plucky little Israel’s doing it alone.’ If supplies and political support were cut off from the US and UK, things would be different. Apartheid and repression can’t last, it generates and multiplies the opposition. Just look at how Bloody Sunday increased recruitment to the nationalist movements. As with Ireland a single democratic secular state is the only answer.
Mostly agree with you Bill, although I dont think a single democratic secular state is the most likely outcome, it's not western europe.
This will fester for decades.
I cant see anything but this happening. And it was going to fester for decades before Israel's invasion.
As with Ireland a single democratic secular state is the only answer.
with a side order of Hamas terrorism to make things lively? They don't want a secular solution (or Democratic for that matter)
I don't know what Hamaa would think of a single state solution but their 2017 charter advocates for a two state solution based on 1967 borders, which is roughly where the Oslo Accords were heading. I say that because I'm not sure how helpful the narrative that Hamas can't be satisfied with a solution is - if no solution can be found that makes them happy, Netanyahu is surely right and I cannot believe that that's the case.
AFAIK, Hamas are opposed to the 2-state solution, as they oppose any solution that denies the right of Palestinians to reclaim land/property that was taken in the 1948 Nakbah, I don't think that POV has ever changed.
The 2 state solution has the support of 70-72% of Israelis, but the far right are viscerally opposed and have done their upmost to ensure that most Palestinians are as well.
"As with Ireland a single democratic secular state is the only answer."
It's pretty much only naive foreigners that want this. Israelis regard that as being an invitation to disarm and await a pogrom at a hands of their numerically superior neighbours who already attacked them 3 times without warning (1967, 1973, 2023). The views that the history of Jews is one of being slaughtered, harassed and almost extinguished by Europeans and Arab States because they were not secure in their own homeland is not an extreme one. For Palestinians, it is inconceivable that they should be forced to live alongside people that have stolen their land and committed atrocities against them, and that their State should not be a Palestinian one.
It's also odd to suggest that the Northern Ireland peace process is a model for a single state solution in Israel and Palestine: there's been almost 30 years of peace and stability only after Ireland disclaimed territorial ambitions on NI and only after nationalists abandoned reunification as a precondition to the peace process. It's not perfect, but it's better than the past, and there's no white hot desire for reunification at the moment (especially among Ireland's taxpayers, who have just seen another study on how expensive reunification would be for them).ⁿ
In any case, the UK and Ireland arrangement after 1922 is a 2 state solution - you're just arguing about where the border is between them! Unionists and Israelis have the same response to Nationalists and Palestinians: you already have a state that was carved out of a large colonial entity for you, and it's called Ireland/Jordan.
But ultimately comparisons to Ireland are unhelpful. The situation in Israel and Palestine is so nuanced and specific that trying to jam it into a familiar conceptual framework from elsewhere is going to fail (especially if one's preconceptions of Ireland are also muddled).
Equally, posts that rely on sarcasm or irony or parody are going to cause more heat than light.
"AFAIK, Hamas are opposed to the 2-state solution, as they oppose any solution that denies the right of Palestinians to reclaim land/property that was taken in the 1948 Nakbah, I don’t think that POV has ever changed."
I guess it depends on your interpretation! 🙂 Here's the paragraph from the 2017 charter -
"However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
Would a solution that met their "formula of national consensus" be acceptable to them? I THINK so - they're otherwise pretty clear on what they don't find acceptable.
"Israelis regard that as being an invitation to disarm and await a pogrom at a hands of their numerically superior neighbours who already attacked them 3 times without warning (1967, 1973, 2023). "
Just as a point of order, Israel fired the first shots in 1967.
Just as a point of order, Israel fired the first shots in 1967.
That's an interesting point...Egypt threatened to close Israel's access to the Red Sea and Egypt had lined its forces up on the border and expelled UN forces.
It's widely held that Israel was getting its self-defence in first because of this, however, documents have since been declassified to show that major powers believed that Egypt was in self-defence mode because Israel had announced that closing the access would be cause for war.
Sort the blame for that one out 🙂
Paragraph 20 in full paints a much weaker endorsement of a two-state solution:
“20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensu”
And as has already been said, their words and actions since do appear to supersede the 2017 charter. I also don’t tbink a two-state solution will be possible with Hamas.
And I’d also like to say thanks to everyone for the comments and discussion so far and to Mark and the STW mods.
And as has already been said, their words and actions since do appear to supersede the 2017 charter
I fear is where we are at. Lots of times history has shown us words are used to stall for time ahead of violence, though in the case of Hamas (without wanting to sound like I'm condoning the October attack) it's pretty clear that the Israeli government didn't want a 2 state solution either.
This thread has been good so far. Much more thought provoking .
FWIW I don't believe the unjustifiable atrocity of 7/10 supercedes the Hamas charter. They see themselves as the legitimate armed resistance against an illegal occupation - unless there's a negotiated solution (including Hamas at the table) there will never be a time where they stop trying to bloody the nose of Israel.
People point to one paragraph of the 2017 charter as if it is evidence of Hamas' commitment to achieving peace and a 2-state solution but ignore pretty much all the rest:
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit.
Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine... Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished.
Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
And hanging on to claims of 1967 borders doesn't make sense from a Palestinian perspective anyway - pre-4th June 1967 Gaza was under Egyptian control and the West Bank was under Jordanian control. So Hamas claiming that's what they want is directly opposed to their desire for a fully sovereign Palestinian state.
I think it's more that their charter has been either worded extremely carefully to create ambiguity, or people are simply misinterpreting it. If you look at the language in detail:
Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus"
The emphasis is mine. There's a fundamental difference between "Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967" and "Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, along the lines of the 4th of June 1967"
"I think it’s more that their charter has been either worded extremely carefully to create ambiguity, or people are simply misinterpreting it. "
I think designed to create ambiguity, given how unambiguous the rest of it is.
They see themselves as the legitimate armed resistance against an illegal occupation – unless there’s a negotiated solution (including Hamas at the table) there will never be a time where they stop trying to bloody the nose of Israel.
Israel do not seem to accept the truism that when you negotiate you have to do so with your enemies. And in fact so far they have been justified because the negative consequences have been (relatively) minimal. The end point they seem to have in mind is not that the Palestinians will stop trying to bloody their nose; it's that the Palestinians will be killed, or driven out of Gaza via Egypt, and driven out of the West Bank bit by bit as their land is overrun.
That might appear a bit cynical and bleak, but what other endpoint can you envisage? And if you were a Palestinian, what would you do? Stay and live a life of misery under a brutal occupation to uphold a principle? Or emigrate somewhere/anywhere?
So if Hamas aren't the solution to resisting occupation, how are the Palestinians supposed to oppose the apartheid state of Israel and the ongoing theft of their lands by colonial settlers?
Whilst there is all this (justified) focus on Gaza, what is happening in the West Bank?
I think the points you have raised have been raised before in the thread.
It's all interconnected and messed up in all directions.
"Just as a point of order, Israel fired the first shots in 1967."
That's a fair point, and actually my description of the war being "without warning" doesn't make sense considering the months of escalating tensions that came before it.
Meanwhile, and I know some will immediately dismiss this because it comes from an Israeli journalist in the (rough) Israeli equivalent of the Guardian, but I thought this article was very interesting in showing how:
1) the Palestinian elite fled Gaza for Cairo at the beginning of the war, in an echo of what happened in 1947
2) Hamas on the ground was increasingly autonomous from their leadership in Qatar, and Qatari and Iranian sponsors (which undermined Netanyahu's idea that Qatari finding would somehow keep Hamas on a leash)
3) bonkers the Hamas leadership's plans for the October attacks were - dividing up Israeli land into cantons and planning out which administrators were going to be appointed
4) riven Palestinian politics is between Hamas and Fatah - with Palestinians seeking "refuge" in their own homeland from each other
Also, does the Hamas charter actually matter to anyone but political historians? Is it really impacting anything in reality?