Honest question: what was Hamas' long-game with respect to kidnapping Israelis? Did they think Israel would just negotiate rather than retaliate?

zzzz@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world – 153 points –

It just seems crazy to me given the power imbalance. A cynical part of me suspects that things are playing out exactly as some evil strategists hoped they would, which, given all the children dying, is super-depressing.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

73

You are viewing a single comment

It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders, that was the beginning of the killing and exiling of palestinians from their own land.

Diaspora Jews would be better classified as refugees than invaders before hostilities began. They started out legally purchasing land in Palestine, not killing and exiling people for it.

As for the source of those initial hostilities:

among the first recorded violent incidents between Arabs and the newly immigrated Jews in Palestine was the accidental shooting death of an Arab man in Safed, during a wedding in December 1882, by a Jewish guard of the newly formed Rosh Pinna. In response, about 200 Arabs descended on the Jewish settlement throwing stones and vandalizing property. Another incident happened in Petah Tikva, where in early 1886 the Jewish settlers demanded that their tenants vacate the disputed land and started encroaching on it. On March 28, a Jewish settler crossing this land was attacked and robbed of his horse by Yahudiya Arabs, while the settlers confiscated nine mules found grazing in their fields, though it is not clear which incident came first and which was the retaliation. The Jewish settlers refused to return the mules, a decision viewed as a provocation. The following day, when most of the settlement's men folk were away, fifty or sixty Arab villagers attacked Petach Tikva, vandalizing houses and fields and carrying off much of the livestock. Four Jews were injured and a fifth, an elderly woman with a heart condition, died four days later.
By 1908, thirteen Jews had been killed by Arabs, with four of them killed in what Benny Morris calls "nationalist circumstances", the others in the course of robberies and other crimes. In the next five years twelve Jewish settlement guards were killed by Arabs. Settlers began to speak more and more of Arab "hatred" and "nationalism" lurking behind the increasing depredations, rather than mere "banditry".

An accidental death that could have been resolved legally instead resulted in mob violence by Arab Palestinians against Jews.

In fact, most of the early conflicts between Jews and Arabs in mandatory Palestine were instigated by Arabs.

Then there's the Jaffa riots of 1936, started by the robbery and murder of Jews at a roadblock. This violence spilled out into a general revolt against the British occupation of Mandatory Palestine which convinced the Peel commission and the diaspora Jews in Palestine that a two-state solution was needed, and eventually led to Britain's withdrawal from the area.

They could have lived together in peace but Arab Palestinians started civilian violence, refused to make concessions, and outright rejected this two-state solution. (Look at the map and see how much more land they would have today had they accepted this plan instead of going to war.)

So, in summary, Arab Palestinian Nationalists took a hardline position early on, blamed Jewish immigrants for their problems, instigated violence against them, refused a two-state solution, then went to war with the Zionists, losing spectacularly. While they have successfully portrayed themselves as victims to many on the internet who have more sympathy for the underdog, the realpolitik situation of the conflict they started does not seem winnable. There were many points in this conflict where diplomacy, restraint, and concession would have led to a different outcome.

Once the conflict was started atrocities happened on both sides, (most notably by Irgun on the Zionist side,) but let's not forget how it started, or for that matter who can end it today without more lives lost.

From the modern day fraction of territory palestinians now have, and the massive death toll of palestinians, you can see how that has proceeded over time.

Not well, at this rate their constant belligerence and hostility seems to be leading to them losing everything.

Any resistance to this extermination just gets used as justification to continue it.

Again, if modern Israel wanted extermination, they have had the means to do so for some time. I believe you are misrepresenting their position and their goals.

Refugees should have been taken in by allies, they all went to one place due to Zionism, from the beginning with a goal of claiming their holy land. From your link, most of the land purchased was not from Palestinians, the area was under British mandate. From the beginning Palestinians resisted Jewish immigration, they did not consent to any of this, and all of their fears have proven true with time.

Refugees should have been taken in by allies

I agree, they really should have been.

most of the land purchased was not from Palestinians, the area was under British mandate.

Does that make the purchases any less legal? One need not be Palestinian to own land there.

From the beginning Palestinians resisted Jewish immigration, they did not consent to any of this, and all of their fears have proven true with time.

Is Jewish immigration really the cause of all this, or is it the intolerance and inability of some to peacefully coexist? The 20% of Israeli Arab/Palestinians descended from those who stayed and remained peaceful in 1948 are doing relatively well and have full citizenship rights there. These fears were only realized for those who refused to put down the sword and remained hostile. Violent intolerance was a self-fulfilling prophecy for them, I find it ironic that they themselves are now the refugees that their neighbors will not take in.

I mean legality doesnt mean much when youre talking about unwanted colonialist rule

And 100% all of this stems from zionism. They had to live in the holy land, people were there already, so they killed or exiled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

legality doesnt mean much when youre talking about unwanted colonialist rule

Are you suggesting that no real estate sales were valid while the British were in charge? What about when it was the Ottoman Turks that were colonizing it, should we ignore all property rights from that period, too? How many local people need to object to immigrants owning property before you support violence against the immigrants and denial of their property rights?

And 100% all of this stems from zionism. They had to live in the holy land, people were there already, so they killed or exiled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

The 1948 UN borders had Jerusalem in neither state's territory. Palestine went to war over it. If they lose the holy land to Israel, this is why.

If it was a palestinian government representing palestinians, and they decided it was okay to allow this planned ethnostate orfanization to buy property en masse, i wouldnt have much to argue about. But it wasnt a palestinian government, this decision was against the will of the people living there, which is what i care about.

And man, 700,000 palestinians were killed or exiled from where they were. That cannot happen if youre the invading army. Israel went to war over it and captured palestinian land.

A lot of that 700,000 voluntarily left. Arab Palestinians who stayed behind the Israeli 1948 borders, were not driven from their land and remained peaceful currently have full citizenship rights in Israel and so do their descendants. This makes it not an ethnostate as there are multiple ethnicities living in Israel with full rights. (Citation above)

Not liking your government doesn't nullify every legal action it takes.

Yes sir here have my house, i am willingly leaving, nothing to do with the massive army and the thousands dead