Comment by mrangle
2 years ago
You understand that your illogical and immoral death pact works both ways, right?
Who is dominant militarily? Does it look like the U.N. is going to be able to continue the theater of pulling the reigns on Israel?
There is a logical reason as to why civilians shouldn't be used as pawns in war. It green lights all civilians and tragically opens the door to ethnic cleansing.
And yet here you are arguing that the war can't end until Israel is removed. Literally demanding the terms, and guaranteeing the results, for the removal of Palestinians. Crazy talk, from someone who pretends to have the interests of the Palestinians at heart.
I’m not demanding anything, merely describing the likely future.
As an analogy, the South African apartheid state was dominant militarily. Over time, through internal and external military and political pressure, this state was defeated and abolished. The indigenous resistance that won established a new state, after which the more violent elements withered away.
Currently, Hamas are a part of the Palestinian resistance. When apartheid ends and the resistance wins, Hamas will either change or end.
Respectfully, that prediction is a very general set of events that could be applied to any government.
It will come to pass unless it doesn't.
If you'll forgive the glibness, all good gamblers know that the past does not predict the future.
I'd suggest that the SA State is not allegorical to Israel, except in the minds of those who have an interest of believing that to be the case. Which is fine, for them.
However, what should be pointed out is the difference between a subjective moral analogy and a military-political analogy.
I believe that the only reasonable analogy that could be subjectively held is a moral analogy, for people whose self-interest is aligned with arranging the facts just so.
However, your point correctly rests with the more pertinent political-military analysis. But I think that your analogical analysis and conclusion is off, respectfully.
The SA State was fighting against a Western Media whose general position was determined at the beginning of the American Civil War. Even still, I'd suggest that it is a mistake to believe that such pressure as they exerted on the SA State is not a choice for them. The Media, and the associated political class, can and often do ignore or otherwise force contrarian positions on governments within the context of opposing internal politics.
Second, there is the popular concept of the nature of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and then there is the military geopolitical concept of which the majority oif the population is seemingly mostly unaware.
Which is not at all related to South Africa.
What escapes the awareness of the general population will continue to drive the actions of Western governments.
Last and probably least, the Palestinians aren't indigenous.
There's nothing more dangerous than setting up camp on the most hotly contested piece of land on the planet. As unlike most anywhere else, those fighting for it will be referencing the deepest available histories to internally justify their claim. Even hidden histories, and deeper than one might think.
> Hamas are a part of the Palestinian resistance.
Repeat that POV all that you wish. They will continue to be treated as an opposition military until they no longer exist. And then their replacements will be treated as the same.