The entirety of Hamas leadership is gone, Hamas will most likely not going to have control in Gaza (still being debated which mechanism will govern, this is part of the deal), the crossing to Egypt will be handled by foreign countries which will prevent weapon smuggling. And in the broader spectrum, hizballah is not more, Assad is no more, all of Iran’s proxies can no longer support Hamas’ ambitions which basically means the “mokawamma” is dead.
So in short, the entire Middle East have changed.
You still have millions of people in Gaza and Lebanon who got bombed by Israel. Whether it's the existing groups or new groups going forward, the grievances are still there and bigger than ever. Let's wait a few before we declare anything changed.
All of my Lebanese friends, quite young, have stories about the wars with Israel. The helicopters and bombs over Beirut. Waking up in fear in the night. They have been grieved in regards to Israel their whole life. In this respect not much has changed.
All Israelis have stories about rockets over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Be'er Sheba. Waking up in fear in the night, for over a year now, and before that in previous rounds. At least the Lebanese see that the targets were military, and strikes were, more or less, precise.
Peace between Israel and Lebanon is a necessity for both sides, and both sides suffered greatly over the many years of conflict. There is no real reason for there not to be peace between these two countries, except for latent animosity, mostly on the Lebanese side. I hope they can overcome it.
I think that was the above poster's point. None of us would like to become a target because of the foreign policy of the country we live in and our allies.
Yes but Hezbollah and Hamas caused enough grievances on their own. They were violent, far-right, Iran-backed terrorists that suppressed any sort of grassroots self-organization. Isreal wanted them there, they were easy to control, easy to use as an excuse to do whatever they pleased. I doubt the youth of Gaza or Lebanon are stupid enough to fall for the same trick twice.
I doubt the Palestinian people are going to just sit and watch Israel slowly usurp what remains of their homeland. It's never a good idea to underestimate the price a people are willing to pay for their freedom. The French learned that in Algeria, the British in Ireland, and the US in Veitnam.
The unfortunate truth is that, compared to Hamas, arabs are more free under Israeli rule. Its a terrible trick, but creating a despotic enemy, making yourselves out to be the land of reason and civilization, its all part of their game plan.
That isn't true. israel is an apartheid state, there are many documentaries showing their treatment of people who are non-Jews as second or third class citizens, or even Jews who have a darker skin color. We saw how they force steralized Etheopian jews for instance. We saw how they literally spit on christians.
This isn't true. Where, for instance, is the Arab right of return?
It also heavily reeks of the insinuation that Hamas imposes sharia law which is not the case.
But really, how can you claim "arabs are more free" while Israeli settlers evict arabs from their homes at gunpoint with the aid of the IOF? While the IOF kidnaps and kills children indiscriminately?
It's not even true to say all Jews enjoy the same freedom under Israel. Ask the Beta Israelis.
> A hidden camera in a local health clinic recorded a Ethiopian woman being told by a nurse that this shot is given “primarily to Ethiopian women because they forget, they don’t understand, and it’s hard to explain to them, so it’s best that they receive a shot once every three months… basically they don’t understand anything.”
How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel? The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.
And every other example is anecdotal, and does not signify less rights for Arabs. You might as well say that black people have less rights than white in USA.
> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel? The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.
Lets break this down.
> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel?
The original claim was that "arabs are more free under Israeli rule". Denying 750,000 people the right to return to the house they were forced out of under threat of death doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.
> The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.
Yeah the people kicked out in the Nakba are not citizens of Israel, so what is your point? I'm talking about the freedom of people terrorized out of their houses who are not recognized as citizens of the state of Israel. You nailed it bud. What are you misunderstanding?
So you agree that Arab citizens in Israel have the same right as Jewish citizens? And your only grievance is regarding which non citizen can get citizenship?
Palestinian Arabs within pre-1967 Israel are treated relatively well because Israel already dispelled enough of them in the Naqba to ensure that they will be demographically dominated by Jewish Israelis for the foreseeable future. The point is to ensure Jewish supremacy, which in a democracy requires Jewish plurality. The persecution of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is a deliberate process aimed at slowly enlarging the territory Israel can claim without losing a Jewish plurality.
This also explains why Israel has pursued genocide in Gaza. The Israeli project, in so far as it is a project to invert the population inequality between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine, is almost genocidal by definition. Once you maximize Jewish birth rates and incentivize Jewish immigration with birthright and similar policies, all that remains is to suppress Palestinian Arab birth rates and incentivize Palestinian Arab emmigration and yes, kill Palestinian Arabs--all that remains is genocide.
Its terrible, the Zionist simply didn't think there was an alternative after the Holocaust. One atrocities vs potential hundreds more over the millennia? It forecloses the possibility of a different kind of future, but its the only one that makes sense the way things are now. Its fear, all of it is fear for what might happen.
Also hundreds of millions of people outside of the Middle East who now very much do not support Israel. They've lost any goodwill they may have had and that's an understatement.
> None of this was a secret. In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
As a WP editor, the anti-Israeli editors have become a very strong majority, making it a poor source of objective information. For example the first paragraph of the Zionism article now reads: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."
The article you link to essentially boils down to the fact that Qatar funding for some (ostensibly) infrastructure and humanitarian aid projects in Gaza, with Israel facilitating it. It's not really support for Hamas, except in the sense that such Gaza aid projects require the involvement of its government.
I'm sure you could find 17 citations that Muhammad had sex with underage girls but that's not the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Muhammad, is it?
Point being just because something is cited doesn't mean putting it in the first sentence is unbiased.
...what?? What should the first sentence of the Zionism article be if not the definition of Zionism and the goals of Zionists? What would an unbiased but complete introductory sentence look like?
If the foremost notable thing about Muhammad were that he had sex with underage girls, but instead the actual first sentence is about him being the founder of Islam, then you'd have a devastating point here.
> What would an unbiased but complete introductory sentence look like?
The goal of Zionism is to create a safe haven for Jewish refugees, to prevent another situation like the Holocaust where millions of Jewish refugees were murdered.
The issue is that the reality distortion field that is required to maintain the current Zionist narrative is just too strong and it quickly falls apart even just by following some basic rules on fair citation.
Jimmy Wales has no involvement in editing such articles. The Wikipedia Foundation doesn't involve itself in such matters either. For example, when concerns were raised about the ADL (a Jewish NGO) being banned as a source, they responded by (correctly) explaining that "neither the Board or the Foundation make content decisions on Wikipedia. A community of volunteers makes these decisions".
Such content matters are entirely community decisions, so of course a biased community results in biased decisions.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-edit... - There is even an article that explains exactly how 'a powerful group of editors is hijacking wikipedia, pushing pro-palestinian propaganda, erasing key facts about hamas, and reshaping the narrative around Israel with alarming influence'
Who knows where the balance actually lies, but it's not just pro-Palestinians doing the propaganda here. Israel has engaged in far more propaganda than pretty much everyone (except maybe the United States) since the hasbara policy was first established following the public image fallout from the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
i think the key passage of this article is when they discuss the shortcomings of the wikipedia arbitration process (Arbcom) - however the wikimedia foundation is not exactly short on cash.
'''The charges are serious, and the evidence backing them up abundant. Nevertheless, seven months later the Arbcom case is still pending. The reason is systemic: in a lengthy request for arbitration on a separate PIA case, one of Wikipedia’s arbitrators noted that the final decision-making panel is staffed by 12 volunteers, only 10 of whom are active. “It is clear that AE [arbitration enforcement] has run out of steam to handle the morass of editor conduct issues in PIA,” the arbitrator wrote. “PIA is a Gordian knot; and AE has run short of knot detanglers.”
Electing more Arbcom members would require a massive overhaul of the site’s governing regulations, a task akin to the US government amending its constitution. And though Wikimedia Foundation, which owns the site, has around $500 million in assets, because of the air-gap between Wikipedia and WMF and the volunteer ethos of Wikipedia’s mission not a penny can be used to hire people to oversee contentious topics.'''
>In the article on “Jews,” for example, he removed the “Land of Israel” from a key sentence on the origin of Jewish people. He changed the article’s short description (a condensed summary that appears on Wikipedia’s mobile version and on site search results) from “Ethnoreligious group and nation from the Levant” to “Ethnoreligious group and cultural community.” Though subtle
It's pretty evident that the person who wrote your article is just complaining that wikipedia is at least somewhat resistant to being used as a platform for pushing zionist propaganda.
>It's pretty evident that the person who wrote your article is just complaining that wikipedia is at least somewhat resistant to being used as a platform for pushing zionist propaganda.
Thanks kernel_lover!
I don't think he did, he is a very civil person, by any standards. I get flagged occasionally, when talking about topics similar to that of this article, but don't think that Dang has anything to do with it.
(on the other hand, I got less involved with Hacker News, probably because I don't have much to say about AI/LLM and because of that discernible bias in middle east politics over here)
Israel approved money from
Qatar to flow into Gaza as a goodwill, trust establishing gesture, and as part of previous ceasefire agreements. It was supposedly used to pay salaries for the Gaza government.
Was it wrong in hindsight? Of course. Was it used to create division? No.
Fine, sure, I guess - the article is demanding an email address so I can’t read it, but I buy it.
I’m responding to the statement “Netanyahu was the one that helped put them there in the first place. He did this to try and derail the two state solution - famously delivering them thoses briefcases full of cash.”
This is a vastly different statement than “Israel has been funding anti PLO/PA efforts since the 80’s”. It’s referring to a specific (“famous”!) instance, and attributing it to a specific person (Netanyahu), and putting it at a specific time frame (before Hamas seized power) so as to have a specific consequence (Hamas’ acquisition of power) for a specific reason (to derail a two state solution). Very little of this is correct: Netanyahu was not the one responsible for putting them into power (he wasn’t prime minister at the time), the Qatari money being referenced was allowed into Gaza many years after Hamas was in power, it was unlikely to do much to prevent a two state solution as one hadn’t really been on the table since Arafat, and so on.
That other people in the Israeli government, at a different time, backed Hamas in different instances for different reasons does not warrant conflating the two events. It’s like saying Bush did 9/11 because the CIA funded Bin Laden in the 80s.
And Israel sold arms to Iran to use against Iraq in the 1980s. "My enemy's enemy" etc.
> Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy." Secret Israeli arms sales and shipments to Iran began in that year, even as, in public, "the Reagan Administration" presented a different face, and "aggressively promoted a public campaign [...] to stop worldwide transfers of military goods to Iran". The New York Times explains: "Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980", while "Israel [a US ally] was interested in keeping the war between Iran and Iraq going to ensure that these two potential enemies remained preoccupied with each other". Major General Avraham Tamir, a high-ranking Israeli Defense Ministry official in 1981, said there was an "oral agreement" to allow the sale of "spare parts" to Iran. This was based on an "understanding" with Secretary Alexander Haig (which a Haig adviser denied). This account was confirmed by a former senior US diplomat with a few modifications. The diplomat claimed that "[Ariel] Sharon violated it, and Haig backed away". A former "high-level" Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who saw reports of arms sales to Iran by Israel in the early 1980s estimated that the total was about $2 billion a year
The 1980's were a very different era. The PLO was a terrorist organisation backed by the Soviet Union, and Israel was aggressive in trying to support any challenges to it.
> As the Hamas leadership pointed out, this objective failed.
Israel's objective from day one has not been to expel Hamas from Gaza (that's virtually impossible), but to remove it from power. And if the rumors about the ceasefire are true (and if the ceasefire is going to be respected), that's what's going to happen.
You make it sound like Hamas was passive in this. Baiting your enemy into attacking you in order to galvanize your side still requires them taking the bait. It’s a legitimate strategy, just not a very nice one. See also: US/Japan relations ahead of WW2.
