That last paragraph! It truly is a test of submission. As ritualised as kissing a cardinal's ring. I listen only to people who 'fail' it, there is no better lithmus test of a truly principled thinker and an anti-imperialist, a of a person who does not kiss rings.
Come back to senses. You promised in categorical terms to show that Hamas aimed at military targets and Israeli civilians on Oct 7 are collateral damage ("see below"). Not a word of it, let alone any shred of evidence in this text. More importantly your recent contributions omit central facts. Of course the Netanyahu government is to be blamed, a majority of Israelians can tell: precisely for supporting Hamas, dividing the Muslims (and importantly, playing some colonial cards). "Hamas's goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such," [Hamas leader] al-Hayya said. That is an almost consistent policy throughout the years falling on the feet of those Hamas supposedly rule. Yet in your version, nobody seems to have persecuted Jews in the Ottoman Empire and its successors who found, among people from other places, shelter in what is now Israel and was part of the Ottoman Empire. In your view, there is Naqba (important as it is) but no place for new-fangled late 19th and 20th century antisemitism (with Nazi propaganda help) in Muslim areas previously mainly devoid of this plague bedeviling Europe in increasingly vile versions since the middle ages. Why are you supporting something so un-Muslimic? Hamas ideas are more European than Muslim: they are imperialistic concepts condemning the Muslim world to self-destruction. In your version of history, Israelis are perpetrators, full stop (and blame the German "master values" for seeing them [also] as victims). I can understand your emotional involvement. Still, this is too one-sided for an Ivy League scholar.
Here's a link to Max Blumenthals Grayzone article on the mounting evidence of Israel killing its own citizens during its "response" to the October 7th attacks as an example of what Tarik mentioned. I think we can predict that the Israeli state will never publish the facts of what happened on that day, if they even bother to document it fully. It's not a project that benefits the apartheid state to publicize its own lack of consideration for its own citizens' lives in a crisis:
It's also possible that Hamas targeted some civilians not out of "savagery" but as a cold calculation that by doing so they would insure an Israeli over-response which is necessary for Israel to enter Gaza so that Hamas can achieve a level of defeat of the Israeli army and thus re-establish themselves as the primary representation of the Palestinian resistance movement. In other words, it was a strategic move, not an issue of violent emotion. One can continue to consider this "criminal", but given how often this is done by supposedly "legitimate states" - Ukraine is an excellent example - it's hard to say Hamas deserves any more condemnation.
There is also the issue that "people get the government they deserve" - and are responsible - if they vote for it - the government they get. Israelis have been supporting a genocidal Israeli state for decades. It's hard to argue how "innocent" they are. Arguing that removes agency from them. It's not at all the same as the Israeli claim that the other inhabitants of Gaza are "terrorist sympathizers" because they are the victims of occupation, Israeli citizens are not.
It may have been a strategic error for Hamas to kill civilians, due to the perception issues, but that's about all one can say.
That last paragraph! It truly is a test of submission. As ritualised as kissing a cardinal's ring. I listen only to people who 'fail' it, there is no better lithmus test of a truly principled thinker and an anti-imperialist, a of a person who does not kiss rings.
Come back to senses. You promised in categorical terms to show that Hamas aimed at military targets and Israeli civilians on Oct 7 are collateral damage ("see below"). Not a word of it, let alone any shred of evidence in this text. More importantly your recent contributions omit central facts. Of course the Netanyahu government is to be blamed, a majority of Israelians can tell: precisely for supporting Hamas, dividing the Muslims (and importantly, playing some colonial cards). "Hamas's goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such," [Hamas leader] al-Hayya said. That is an almost consistent policy throughout the years falling on the feet of those Hamas supposedly rule. Yet in your version, nobody seems to have persecuted Jews in the Ottoman Empire and its successors who found, among people from other places, shelter in what is now Israel and was part of the Ottoman Empire. In your view, there is Naqba (important as it is) but no place for new-fangled late 19th and 20th century antisemitism (with Nazi propaganda help) in Muslim areas previously mainly devoid of this plague bedeviling Europe in increasingly vile versions since the middle ages. Why are you supporting something so un-Muslimic? Hamas ideas are more European than Muslim: they are imperialistic concepts condemning the Muslim world to self-destruction. In your version of history, Israelis are perpetrators, full stop (and blame the German "master values" for seeing them [also] as victims). I can understand your emotional involvement. Still, this is too one-sided for an Ivy League scholar.
Here's a link to Max Blumenthals Grayzone article on the mounting evidence of Israel killing its own citizens during its "response" to the October 7th attacks as an example of what Tarik mentioned. I think we can predict that the Israeli state will never publish the facts of what happened on that day, if they even bother to document it fully. It's not a project that benefits the apartheid state to publicize its own lack of consideration for its own citizens' lives in a crisis:
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/27/israels-military-shelled-burning-tanks-helicopters/
Pretty much agree completely.
It's also possible that Hamas targeted some civilians not out of "savagery" but as a cold calculation that by doing so they would insure an Israeli over-response which is necessary for Israel to enter Gaza so that Hamas can achieve a level of defeat of the Israeli army and thus re-establish themselves as the primary representation of the Palestinian resistance movement. In other words, it was a strategic move, not an issue of violent emotion. One can continue to consider this "criminal", but given how often this is done by supposedly "legitimate states" - Ukraine is an excellent example - it's hard to say Hamas deserves any more condemnation.
There is also the issue that "people get the government they deserve" - and are responsible - if they vote for it - the government they get. Israelis have been supporting a genocidal Israeli state for decades. It's hard to argue how "innocent" they are. Arguing that removes agency from them. It's not at all the same as the Israeli claim that the other inhabitants of Gaza are "terrorist sympathizers" because they are the victims of occupation, Israeli citizens are not.
It may have been a strategic error for Hamas to kill civilians, due to the perception issues, but that's about all one can say.