Israeli officials are facing backlash after years of Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu quietly allowing Hamas to remain in power.

But reporting in the New York Times has revealed that Netanyahu’s government was more hands-on about helping Hamas: they helped a Qatari diplomat bring suitcases of cash into Gaza, indirectly boosting the militant organization, according to the report.

The calculus — the Times reported on Sunday, citing Israeli officials, Netanyahu’s critics, and the man’s own reported statements — was to keep Hamas strong enough to counteract the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, allowing Netanyahu to avoid a two-state peace solution and keep both sides weak.

Israeli security officials got it wrong; they didn’t think Hamas was capable, or even interested, in launching a large attack against the Jewish state.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Israel’s existence is propped up solely to pander to the “authority” of the religulous. The creation of Israel was an attempt to make the Bible be true. This is the shit that happens when you believe that book - not only do you immediately and ultimately betray the principles in that book, but you discredit it utterly as well, which it richly deserves.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am reading a book on the last hundred or so years of Zionism. It is really depressing, it is basically a product of European imperialism and racism. Europe was happy to fund Israel so they could do something with the Jews…

      The nascent Israeli’s also kicked Palestinians off of their land and murdered them with paramilitary groups and then had Europe retroactively say it was ok because it was the Jewish homeland. Not to say the Palestinians didn’t as well, but I can’t say I blame them, they were getting invaded and killed and had their land taken.

      At this point the only “moral” path forward in my mind is a secular single state managing the region. That is never going to happen until the United States stops seeing Israel as the useful idiot projecting Western power into the region.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        At this point the only “moral” path forward in my mind is a secular single state managing the region.

        In a theoretical situation, I’d completely agree.

        But at this point, realistically, the situation is so fraught that I don’t think there’s a single authority anywhere on the planet capable of forming, administering, or managing that theoretical state.

        You certainly couldn’t have Israelis or Palestinians running it, and every other solution would, by default, mean it would be a region ruled by a government not of or by the people…which would make it exceptionally difficult to convince those people that it was, in fact, for the people.

        Basically, any individual or small coalition of nations trying to effect this solution would be, in essence, colonialism/hegemony, since as much as the Israelis and Palestinians don’t want each other running things, one thing they’d likely agree on is that neither of them want a foreign power running things. (Perhaps they might be okay with it, depending on which foreign power, but then we’re back to the issue that no one power would be agreeable to both parties.)

        While it’s still nigh-impossible, really the only possible way this could happen would be a sort of UN peacekeeping administration, but that would likely be a huge negative impact on the Israeli side, so they wouldn’t be likely to go for this anyway. Even if you do let these people have some sort of democratically representative seat at the table, it’s either population based, favoring Israel, or it’s not, and it’s just a same-number deal, favoring Palestine. Or they’re non-voting members of that leadership group, which neither side would stand for, effectively giving up sovereignty.

        There might be room for some sort of UN government in which there were two chambers like the US legislature, one scaled for population, the other not, but with a certain amount of seats…and explicit veto powers… residing with a UN contingent…but again, this is a theoretical solution that Israel is not ever going to stand for.

        The only thing I could see bringing them to the table would be if all their Western allies made all aid contingent upon their cooperation. But that’ll never happen because of the value of the Western ally state in the Mideast, no matter how troublesome they may be.

        So ultimately, we’re left with a situation where innocent lives are so comparatively unimportant to the governments who could do anything about it, versus the value of their alliances, that the incentive to stop the bloodshed isn’t as great as the incentive to keep it going…and that calculus is not likely to significantly change in the near future.