Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday he doesn’t know that a ceasefire is possible in the Israel-Hamas war with “an organization like Hamas” involved.
“I don’t know how you can have a ceasefire, (a) permanent ceasefire, with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos and destroying the state of Israel,” Sanders told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday.
WRT the wall at least:
Hamas's goal from securing power in 2007 has been rejecting the two state solution and destroying Israel leading to many many attacks since then so, maybe securing the border isn't an insane idea? I mean, fuck all good the wall did recently but still.
Slightly amend that one, Egypt also supports the blockade. That being said, it's not the fault of all the civilians in Gaza that people voted in 2007 to let a terrorist organization take over and things went poorly because of it. This blockade needs to end. Humanitarian aid needs to be able to get to Gaza.
I'm not going to get fully bogged down in the semantics, but Israel still basically controls the Egypt border.
The US forced a vote, didn't like the outcome, attempted to coup Hamas, and failed. Also, if Hamas is so bad (which they are in many respects), why does Israel fund them and explicitly has a policy of only interacting with them as being the legitimate government?
Easy, they want an unsympathetic enemy that does not want peace. They want to continue the project of taking the rest of Israel for the ethnostate.
I'm overall on board for this comment but how does Israel find Hamas?
Through Qatar: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/israel-helped-funnel-qatar-money-to-fund-hamas-netanyahu-palestinian-state-gaza-war-2456157-2023-11-01
It's a deliberate strategy to divide and conquer and create blowback (Oct 7th)
You missed half the article.
Correct on funding, with the aim to provide a glimpse of a better life and work permits - for its people, not the organization in control.
I do find in interesting that there is a thing on Israel funding Hamas while at the same time issues that Israel stopped providing power and food.
I'd be absolutely fine if Israel didn't have Gaza under total blockade and THEN not giving aid. Sure.
But no, if Israel insists on total control (I think is counter productive, but whatever), they gain total responsibility.
You can't just not feed your open air prison full of refugees (of your own making).
WRT to your correction about the wall: Hamas's attacks aren't because they reject the two-state solution; they're because of the blockade. The blockade started in 2005 (not 2007 as is popularly believed; that's when the blockade moved into full force) before Hamas was elected. They withdrew and blockaded the border.
The idea that Israel blockaded Gaza because they of Hamas terrorist attacks is basically Israeli propaganda.
Yes and no, there was a lesser blockade starting in 2005, that's correct. Then halfway into 2007 after violence broke out between Hamas and Fatah which resulted in the first of Hamas's civilian executions in Gaza, the current, and more draconian, blockade was instituted.
Which then, you are correct, Hamas responded to the new restrictions by committing another war crime of firing missiles into urban areas.
That's why it's yes and no, the original blockade no, the much stricter one that is in effect today was however a direct result of Hamas's first war crime after being voted into office.
Like quick edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
This is what caused the blockade that was supposed to be a temporary one to shift to a draconian ongoing one. War crimes.
That Wikipedia article is a mess that sounds like it was written by a high school student. He said, she said, with very few citations.
That’s basically the entire history of the region and current conflict. Everyone is lying, IDF and supporters, Hamas and supporters. You have to treat all of it as the propaganda it is.
There is no one with clean hands over there.
Which was a result of the first blockade. You say lesser, and while it was more lenient that doesn't mean it was fine. Israeli actions in late 2005/2006 destroyed the Gazan economy, and had large destructive effects on the West Bank's.
I never said it was fine, but no Hamas's first war crime in Gaza after taking control was not because of the blockade. They straight up publicly executed their political opponents in the Palestinian Authority. You can't do that and not be labeled terrorists.
But yeah their first war crime in office wasn't even against Israel, it was against fellow Palestinians.
Oh you're talking about that. Yeah that's just indefensible, but I don't see how that meant a permanent blockade was the right move. It was nothing short of pure tyranny.
Also, how was the blockade supposed to be temporary? It lasted for more than a year and a half and showed no signs of being lifted. It only seems to me like Israel took the chance to tighten the blockade.
Well, yeah so we have to take that with a grain a salt. It was claimed that the original blockade was meant to be temporary and the reason it went draconian instead of ending after the transition of power was because the transition of power was violent.
But yeah, just because those are the claims doesn't mean it's actually true, you're correct.
Edit: found it under "description of plan" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
Eventually Gaza was supposed to be opened up and have the airport rebuilt etc etc, whether you take the plan was in good faith though is another thing.
Hamas and Palestine have no power. Their rejecting or accepting any solution is kinda a ridiculous proposition. It's an officer offering an inmate a banana. Just give it to them, there's no need to ask.