Your criticism of the Israeli gov is that they "may overstep their mark and go too far". The implication is they're basically correct to do what they do, but ought to dial it back a bit.
Your criticism of the Palestinian gov is that they "a literal barrier to any possibility of new borders or a peace process". The implication is that they're fundamentally evil and irredeemable.
Wasn't raising the point as a deflection, gotcha or anything else. Merely pointing out what may be an 'unconscious bias' on your part!
I wouldn't be surprised if most occupied countries in history had similar messages of hatred about their occupiers. And sadly all countries train their kids to be killers but we see it as noble and brave when it's our side. All I'm saying is it seems like you're holding Hamas to an unachievable standard.
I don't really see how that could ever help a peace process. How would that work? Irrespective of whether they're palatable or democratic or anything else how do you negotiate a peace there without involving Hamas?
I think you should stop posting these sensationalist hypotheticals. Nobody on FMTTM would be okay with that, obviously. Stupid to pretend or imply that anyone might be.
That's not my only critique of the Israeli Government though is it? I've criticised them in pretty much every post, you've just picked out one line...but we can talk about how bad Israel have been if you like, it was pretty much my dissertation topic. That specific line was in reference to causalities.
We are literally debating the role of Hamas, so obviously I'm going to be speaking more of the negatives associated with them, that's the nature of the discussion. Surely you understand that? If you think I give Israel a free pass or an easy ride you are badly mistaken.
As what to do with Hamas, not blatantly lie about what they are doing and what they are trying to achieve would be a good start. Claiming they aim for social and political justice is a ridiculous insult to those who live under their rule with zero democratic rights or freedom. Since when has lying about something so serious been the right way forward? You have to be going though some serious logical leaps to justify this.
If you don't see how condemning Hamas for wanting to eviscerate Jews from the planet would work then I don't really know what to say tbh. There's plenty of people and political groups in Gaza who despise them and fundamentally disagree the way they captured power and what they want to do with, those are the people and who should be getting support and empowerment, not a far Islamist Government who treat their citizens like military pawns to further their cause.
What's the disadvantage to condemning Hamas, asking for the Jihad on Jews to stop etc, is that zionism or something? It doesn't have to be that difficult, plenty of people are able to criticise both and put it all into context without blatantly lying about the horrors. Corbyn doesn't do this because it doesn't fit his wider narrative on oppressor v oppressed, even when we are talking about the torture of women, children etc.
What's sensationalist about what I said? You need to read the conversation properly to see why I said that. If someone responds to critiscms of Hamas by refusing to condemn them or say ANYTHING negative, but instead simply lists issues with Israel then that does indeed suggest that said person is comfortable with what Hamas are doing. I give him plenty opportunities to say this but he choose not to. If you support the 'Palestinian government' then by very definition you support violence towards a race of people. Its very easy not to do that, just be logically consistent and point out religiously field discrimination and vionece wherever it comes from.
The idea that not being honest about Hamas is the way to progress is just not something I can get on board with so we may need to agree to disagree on this one.
