Comment by FireBeyond
2 years ago
Let's not forget that Likud and Netanyahu were instrumental in funding and arming Hamas. The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution. But the ultra right wing of Israel didn't want that, and didn't want awkward questions like "If they're willing to negotiate and work through diplomacy, why isn't Israel?" so they thought it'd be better to fund the rise of the extremist Hamas.
"From the River to the Sea" (Jordan River to the Red Sea) was not just a comment by Palestinian extremists, but was Likud's actual election campaign and slogan throughout the 1970s.
And it's hard, as a Gazan, to argue with Hamas, considering Hamas are about the only ones armed, thanks to Israel's ongoing air blockade (Arafat International Airport bombed in early 2000s), and the Israeli navy blockading Port of Gaza since 2007.
> The PLO and Arafat were becoming increasing moderate and willing to sit down and work out a peaceful two state solution.
You said this in another comment. While I agree that Netanyahu has done a lot of harm over the last 15 years, specifically by on-purpose shooting down chances for peace, I think you are giving the PA and Arafat too much credit. They were offered multiple deals that they turned down, walking away from negotiations without offering alternatives.
It's totally possible that with leadership towards peace on the Israeli side, that might've changed and we would've eventually seen a true peace deal signed. And for sure Netanyahu put effort into quashing that, one of his many sins. But we don't need to pretend that the PA was better than it was. It's not at all clear that, absent Netanyahu, a deal coudl've been agreed on.
You do make a good point with this. Certainly the PLO and Arafat were responsible for many heinous acts, and I didn't mean to downplay that or unduly make them out as harbingers of peace who were just being derailed by Israel.
I don't pretend to understand their motivations for moderation - maybe it was the feeling that their "way" was never going to out stubborn Israel, maybe Arafat grew tired in his old age of the conflict. There were many failed attempts, some briefly successful, others not at all, much like the Troubles. And Arafat and the PLO should shoulder a large chunk of that responsibility.
But like you say, it's entirely possible that an accord could have been reached, and also entirely possible that it would have tripped over 1,000 other hurdles and not happened.
I just feel way too much is going into overlooking not just the early tolerance of Hamas because it was politically expedient to the Israeli right wing, but the active enablement and fostering.
> I just feel way too much is going into overlooking not just the early tolerance of Hamas because it was politically expedient to the Israeli right wing, but the active enablement and fostering.
I mean, that's true, and I think Israel has done immoral things for at least 15 years, mostly by not strongly pursuing peace, with or without a partner.
Still, I think you might be over-indexing on the idea of "Israel propped up Hamas". What would the alternative have looked like exactly? Israel fighting more wars against Hamas? Israel not letting Qatar money in (which is one of the big claims against Netanyahu)? I'm sure that had that happened, the world would've condemned this as "depriving Gazans of aid they desperately need".