Google Jeb Bush posted:

Personally I feel that there is a distinction between "Israel prevents Gaza from having fresh water" and "Israel deliberately poisons Gaza drinking water" that isn't just pedantic. The latter extremely strongly implies somewhere between "has industrial contaminants they deliberately dump" and "deliberately acquires poison for the purpose" which is very very different from being huge shitheads on the logistics and infrastructure level.

that said, I like source posting a lot so this worked out, thanks

Google Jeb Bush posted:

Personally I feel that there is a distinction between "Israel prevents Gaza from having fresh water" and "Israel deliberately poisons Gaza drinking water" that isn't just pedantic. The latter extremely strongly implies somewhere between "has industrial contaminants they deliberately dump" and "deliberately acquires poison for the purpose" which is very very different from being huge shitheads on the logistics and infrastructure level.

that said, I like source posting a lot so this worked out, thanks

quote:

Al Jazeera: Can you explain the new political document? Will it replace Hamas’ old charter?

Khaled Meshaal: Hamas’ new document has been in the making for four years. It is intended to function as a guiding principle for the Hamas organisation to deal with new emerging realities in our Palestinian society, our conflict with Israel and in the outside world. This document reflects our position for now, which means that we are not a rigid ideological organisation. This document also shows that we are a dynamic and adaptive organisation and that we are eager to change if it is in the best interests of our people. In the future, Hamas will issue more papers and policy guidelines to deal with new realities.

The old charter was a product of its era, 30 years ago. We live in a different world today.

quote:

Al Jazeera: One of the most important aspects of the new document is your acceptance of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, a marked change from Hamas’ previous stance. Why the change?

Meshaal: We have said it many times over, that Hamas would not stand in the way of establishing a Palestinian state that would come as a product of negotiations between Israel and other Palestinian groups. Even though we would accept and welcome that eventuality, this does not necessarily mean that we would have to recognise Israel or surrender our principle that all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people.

quote:

Al Jazeera: During Monday’s press conference, you called for the “liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea”, or all of historic Palestine. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, you somehow were able to achieve that – what would happen to the Israeli Jewish citizens?

Meshaal: What we want is to restore our national rights on our own lands, to facilitate the return of our refugees and to live free in an independent sovereign state. This is what the Palestinian people are looking and hoping for.

We don’t have to answer to the Israeli propaganda claims that try to make us seem monstrous when it comes to Jews. Arabs and Muslims were highly moral and ethical with their enemies during wartime. They committed no massacres of innocent civilians. Here, I recall the Muslim leader Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (Saladin), who spared the lives of Jerusalem’s inhabitants when he liberated the city from the Crusaders in 1187. Hamas has its humanitarian dimension, but it will not coexist with occupation and colonisation.

quote:

Al Jazeera: Is Hamas a democratic organisation?

Meshaal: One hundred percent. I think in terms of our internal policies and operations, we practise democratic governance you seldom see in this region. We are also pragmatic. Unfortunately, in our region, pragmatism has gotten a bad name because of the bad practices of those who called themselves “pragmatic”. That said, however, our pragmatism is positive and is connected to upholding our principled positions, not sacrificing them.

quote:

Al Jazeera: Currently, you say you reject dialogue with Israel, whether in negotiations or not. Suppose that the Israelis said they were willing to engage in negotiations with you. Is there anything, ideological or otherwise, preventing you from talking to the Israelis as a strategic choice?

Meshaal: For us, the principle of negotiations or not is not something set in stone. It is a matter of politics and it is dynamic. In our history, we have many examples where Muslim leaders have negotiated with their enemies, such as Prophet Muhammad and Salahuddin. The current circumstances have not matured enough for us to benefit from any negotiations with Israel.

Currently, Israel is not interested in peace. Israel feels it is not obligated or forced to have peace with the Palestinians and give us our rights. When we are strong enough to create a reality that will force Israel to reconsider its positions against us, only then negotiations will have value and meaning for us. Look at, for example, the PLO’s negotiations experience with Israel. It got them nowhere after decades of futile talks with Israel.

quote:

Al Jazeera: Development is a natural process. However, there appears to be a change in the identity of Hamas, according to this new document. The founding charter described Hamas as a “branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine”. Whereas this new document describes Hamas as a Palestinian national Islamist liberation and resistance movement. Does this mean that you have broken ties with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Meshaal: Hamas belongs to the school of the Brotherhood. But Hamas is an organisation that is Palestinian, patriotic and Islamic. There is no contradiction between these definitions. The first charter in 1988 mentioned the definition and its relationship to the Brotherhood because it was new back then, we were introducing a new name. Today, there is no need for that anymore. We, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, exist in Palestine, work in Palestine. Its roots are in the Brotherhood, its thinking is of the Brotherhood, but it’s a patriotic movement, a liberation movement, it’s frame reference is Islamic. That is well-known to everyone. But Hamas is an independent movement, not linked to any other organisations; its authority lies in the institutions of its leadership.

quote:

Al Jazeera: There is also an important change in the document … with regards to the identification of whom you consider to be your enemy … According to this document you say, “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project, not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against Zionism or Zionists who occupy Palestine …” This is a far cry from the original document … what is the thinking behind it?

Meshaal: Hamas, ever since its inception it realises the nature of the struggle against the Israeli occupier, that it is not a struggle because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. Yes, in the charter the expression that was used, especially in the early days, it was not as accurate as the one we use in the new document. The Hamas thinking from the very start was clear: We are not facing a religious war. We are not fighting people because of their religion, but because of what they did, the occupation, the aggression …

The struggle against Israel is for our cause, our land. We fight them because they have occupied our land, and attacked our people, and forced them out of their homes. That is the philosophy of the struggle. The first expressions were, perhaps, part of the early start. But in fact, Hamas, throughout its history, believes that the struggle came about because of the occupation. In Palestine and other Arab states, there used to be Christians, Jews and Muslims. Our Arab countries, in particular, especially in Palestine, the land of religions and prophets, it used to be home to several religions. The followers of these religions used to live side by side in peace.

quote:

Al Jazeera: Domestically, there is a mass hunger strike taking place amongst Palestinian prisoners. What is Hamas doing to alleviate this suffering of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails? And I would also like to ask you about the fate of the Israeli soldiers arrested by Hamas in Gaza after the last Israeli waged war on Gaza. Why have we not heard about them, like we heard about Gilad Shalit?

Meshaal: Briefly, the responsibility of Hamas and the Palestinian leadership in general towards the Palestinian captives is twofold. First is to support them, whether they are on hunger strike – we salute them, as they, with empty stomachs, are sending their messages to the entire world – they cause embarrassment to the Israeli occupation and put pressure on it. We identify with them under all circumstances. We defend their cause and support their demands to improve their conditions and their legitimate demands inside the prison, to keep their cause in the public eye on the Palestinian and Arab levels, as well as internationally. Our second demand, which is more important, is to set them free, to force Israel to release them. You know that Hamas has a long experience on that front …

As to information on Israeli captives held by Hamas, as you know this is a security game, a psychological game, bare-knuckle fight. We use the media to put pressure on Israel domestically. That is why the Israeli leadership started to climb down from its marble tower and make U-turns regarding its bravados that claimed there will be no new negotiation for a prisoner swap. We will force it to do so. No information without a price. And the final price will be freeing our captives, both men and women, God willing.

Hamas on Israel Starvation Tactics posted:

But Ismail Haniyeh, who says he is still prime minister and faces the responsibility of feeding 1.5 million Gazans, stressed he would not drop political demands in return for an easing of a blockade that has tightened around them since the Islamists routed Western-backed, secular forces a month ago.

“Today, the siege is tighter. Why this siege on the Gaza Strip? Is it because we want to end chaos and anarchy?” he told Reuters on Sunday in an interview at his office in Gaza City.

“This mistaken policy must be reconsidered ... But we will certainly not bend political positions in return for food. Food and human rights must not be subject to political blackmail.”

Israel on Palestinian unity & nonviolent governance posted:

Israel and international powers imposed economic sanctions on the Palestinian Authority when Haniyeh formed a government after Hamas won a parliamentary election 18 months ago.

Those were lifted on the West Bank after President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Haniyeh on June 14 following Hamas’s defeat of Abbas’s Fatah forces in Gaza. But their effect has deepened on the Gaza Strip, blocking all but humanitarian essentials.

This is due in part to Israeli and Egyptian refusal to deal with Hamas militants now controlling border crossings.

Israel on Hamas' turn towards Governance posted:

The United Nations and World Bank have warned of economic and humanitarian disaster if trade routes are not reopened, but Israel and the West insist they will shun Hamas while it refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist and to renounce violence.

Haniyeh, a 44-year-old scholar once jailed in Israel, said Hamas still wanted a state in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem but was also still offering a “comprehensive, reciprocal and simultaneous calm” now with Israel, as well as “long-term truce” with the Jewish state if Palestinian demands were met.

That position does not satisfy Hamas’s opponents, however.

Hamas on PA cooperation posted:

Haniyeh insisted the movement was right to oust Fatah forces, whom he blamed for conflict and instability in Gaza, and had no regrets that Abbas’s renewed agreements with Israel and Western powers were now unlocking concessions for the West Bank in the form of funding and the release of Fatah prisoners.

Asked if he regretted last month’s seizure of power in Gaza, he said: “The Gaza Strip today is more secure and safer.

“The result the Palestinian people are experiencing confirms that the crisis was caused by a group of security chiefs.

“If some people in the Palestinian area want to bet on the American administration and bet on the Israelis, let them place their bets on that square,” he said. “We will choose the square of our people, our nation and the rights of our people.”

Hamas on Rocket Strikes posted:

Rocket fire by Hamas and other militants from Gaza was, he said, a response to Israeli raids and would end if Israel did likewise: “Resistance has always been defensive,” he said. “If the Israeli occupation stops its attacks ... then certainly there would be no justification for any action of this kind.”

He also repeated his willingness to free an Israeli soldier captured a year ago, in return for jailed militants: “We are more eager to resolve this issue than the Israelis,” he said.

“We are looking for an honourable deal.”

Hamas on being a Proxy posted:

Haniyeh rejected suggestions from Israel and Washington that Gaza under Hamas would become a satellite for a hostile Iran and Syria and a haven for al Qaeda: “There is no al Qaeda in the Gaza Strip and talk of Gaza becoming a foothold for al Qaeda is an invitation to international hostilities,” he said.

“Neither Syria, nor Qatar nor Iran and nor any other Arab or Islamic country had anything to do with what happened in Gaza.”

Google Jeb Bush posted:

Personally I feel that there is a distinction between "Israel prevents Gaza from having fresh water" and "Israel deliberately poisons Gaza drinking water" that isn't just pedantic. The latter extremely strongly implies somewhere between "has industrial contaminants they deliberately dump" and "deliberately acquires poison for the purpose" which is very very different from being huge shitheads on the logistics and infrastructure level.

that said, I like source posting a lot so this worked out, thanks

B B posted:

Medhi Hasan also posted some findings from the University of London that cast doubt on the IDF's claims about what happened.

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1715429352697934331

Between the projectile coming from the opposite direction that IDF claimed (which is to say, from the direction of Israel) as well as the probably-faked audio, it seems like there's very little reason to put much stock in the IDF's version of events.

Neurolimal posted:

Since Hamas intent, the old charter, and their internal workings are likely to remain a subject that gets touched on for the remainder of the conflict, I think it's worth sharing a few interviews, as even if you do not believe they are speaking in good faith, it is useful to have an idea of their public-facing positions

Meshaal: ‘We want to restore our national rights’









Khaled Meshaal: Struggle is against Israel, not Jews





INTERVIEW - Hamas leader won't bow to "food blackmail"











Essentially, their stance on the charters is "We're not against Jews, the new charter is a clarification that we don't hate jews". Obviously that's them not willing to say "We were angry and indiscriminate with our anger when we wrote the first charter", but it makes pretty clear their public stance; We don't hate Jews & we're not interested in interpreting hating Jews as necessary for our history".

I unfortunately couldn't find an interview in Al-Jazeera between Ismail and AJ, 2017 during the Charter ratification (I think it's actually been deleted), which I wanted to find because the AJ journalist directly asks him "Would you recognize Israel as a legitimate state if the Ten Year Truce was agreed upon", and I thought his answer was pretty reasonable. It essentially amounted to "Look, Palestinians are never going to pretend that Palestine isn't Palestine, but we are willing to accept the political reality. You never ask Israel if they recognize Palestine as a state, do you? Why do we need to make these compromises in every interview?"

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

I don't know, that looks about right? The fireball goes out to 50 meters in the video, so one can assume the bulk of the destructive force is going to be in the center of that fireball. A bomb is going to have very different properties when it lands on packed ground and cobblestone, so there's just going to be less distortion on the ground. Everything within 30 meters of the crater is completely destroyed, everything in that picture that is not within 30 meters of the crater is at least damaged.

Windshields don't knock out easily or break easily. Cars, being made of metal, do not easily burn. It takes a lot of pressure and force to make a car's gas tank explode. It takes a lot of heat to make a car fully combust. I've seen a lot of news stories about rocket attacks over the years, I get that a rocket can gently caress a car up, but I've never seen a story where rockets do that much damage to that many cars at once.

The artillery explanation makes a lot of sense and I think will ultimately be what proves to be correct. I just get the feeling some people are underestimating the destructive force involved. I get what people were expecting to see was a collapsed hospital, and what they saw was a destroyed parking lot, but if you look at the aftermath of the blast in a critical way it's clear that this was a massive explosion.

I want to talk about this but I don't know what to say. This is real hosed up? There's no way to interpret this situation that isn't incredibly sinister all around?

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

And when he isn’t taking softballs from AJ he is claiming they only killed soldiers and making it clear the purpose was to incite all Arabs into war against Israel. He knows who this reporter is and is playing right into Israel talking points. Dumb leader.

https://twitter.com/arash_tehran/status/1715354932595847322

Probably the dumbest thing they could have done for the Palestinian people is to give Israel every reason they needed to attack. Does he really think Egypt and Lebanon is going to come to their rescue?? People can defend them as innocents all they want, the civilians born into this are, but there was a huge number of ways their ‘elected’ government could have taken advantage of their resources to advance the cause of international pressure against Israel, which has come a long way over the last decade, but instead they slaughtered hippies in kibbutzim and got an American backed war declared on them.

quote:

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI; officially the Middle East Media and Research Institute[1]) is a nonprofit press monitoring and analysis organization co-founded by former Israeli military intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., MEMRI publishes and distributes free English-language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports.[5]

Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, despite portraying itself as "independent" and "non-partisan",[6][7][8] aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light through the production and dissemination of incomplete or inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions.[9]

Gumball Gumption posted:

They're not being "huge shitheads", they're committing genocide through sabotaging necessary infrastructure.

Can you actually expand on why you think they're non-pedantic differences and there is an actual important distinction in the discussion on why it's important to not call sabotaging the water supply through destruction and neglect of infrastructure is not "poisoning the water supply" and that Hamas is actually the ones harming Gaza's water supply? (That was the original argument "poisoning the water supply" was refuting, that Hamas was doing more harm and showing that they did not care about Gaza by turning pipes into rockets)

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

I mean, Zionists are for all intents and purposes Nazis and the Hamas charter states that Zionists should be eradicated. I am not defending Hamas's tactics or their potentially loose definition of Zionist (it should not and can not include children) but their cause, as stated, is one of self defense, not aggression.

As for the difference between poisoning a water supply and purposefully preventing water from being decontaminated, the end result it what matters, not the logistics.

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

I mean, Zionists are for all intents and purposes Nazis and the Hamas charter states that Zionists should be eradicated.

quote:

As for the difference between poisoning a water supply and purposefully preventing water from being decontaminated, the end result it what matters, not the logistics.

i fly airplanes posted:

This is pretty gross.

You think intent doesn't matter?

For example, that a parent killing a child in cold blood is the same thing as a parent denying them a necessary blood transfusion to save their life?

i fly airplanes posted:

This is pretty gross.

You think intent doesn't matter?

For example, that a parent killing a child in cold blood is the same thing as a parent denying them a necessary blood transfusion to save their life?

flashman posted:

Whats supposed to be the difference in these examples?

i fly airplanes posted:

Pretty common case law involving religion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

And no, the parents do not get sued or charged with murder.

flashman posted:

What does the legality have to do with anything? The fact that they should be charged but aren't is irrelevant

i fly airplanes posted:

This is pretty gross.

You think intent doesn't matter?

For example, that a parent killing a child in cold blood is the same thing as a parent denying them a necessary blood transfusion to save their life?

i fly airplanes posted:

If you're going to accuse a state actor like Israel of "genocide" and "war crimes", you have to prove intent. It's not a matter of "legality", it's a matter of discourse when people are just throwing these terms around meaninglessly to derail.

So no, Israel "poisoning a water supply" and "purposefully preventing water from being decontaminated" is absolutely not the same.

i fly airplanes posted:

If you're going to accuse a state actor like Israel of "genocide" and "war crimes", you have to prove intent. It's not a matter of "legality", it's a matter of discourse when people are just throwing these terms around meaninglessly to derail.

So no, Israel "poisoning a water supply" and "purposefully preventing water from being decontaminated" is absolutely not the same.

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

Probably the dumbest thing they could have done for the Palestinian people is to give Israel every reason they needed to attack. Does he really think Egypt and Lebanon is going to come to their rescue?? People can defend them as innocents all they want, the civilians born into this are, but there was a huge number of ways their ‘elected’ government could have taken advantage of their resources to advance the cause of international pressure against Israel, which has come a long way over the last decade, but instead they slaughtered hippies in kibbutzim and got an American backed war declared on them.

i fly airplanes posted:

Pretty common case law involving religion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

And no, the parents do not get sued or charged with murder.

i fly airplanes posted:

Pretty common case law involving religion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

And no, the parents do not get sued or charged with murder.

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

quote:

In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do "for the sake of al-Aqsa". Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot".

The child says: "I'm going to draw a picture."

Memri's translation ignores this remark and instead quotes the child (wrongly) as saying: "I'll shoot."

Pressed further by the mouse - "What are we going to do?" - the girl replies in Arabic: "Bidna nqawim." The normal translation of this would be "We're going to [or want to] resist" but Memri's translation puts a more aggressive spin on it: "We want to fight."

The mouse continues: "What then?"

According to Memri, the child replies: "We will annihilate the Jews."

The sound quality on the clip is not very good, but I have listened to it several times (as have a number of native Arabic speakers) and we can hear no word that might correspond to "annihilate".

What the girl seems to say is: "Bitokhoona al-yahood" - "The Jews will shoot us" or "The Jews are shooting us."

This is followed by further prompting - "We are going to defend al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not?"

Again, the girl's reply is not very clear, but it's either: "I'll become a martyr" or "We'll become martyrs."

In the context of the conversation, and in line with normal Arab-Islamic usage, martyrdom could simply mean being killed by the Israelis' shooting. However, Memri's translation of the sentence - "I will commit martyrdom" turns it into a deliberate act on the girl's part, and Colonel Carmon has since claimed that it refers to suicide bombers.

The overall effect of this is to change a conversation about resistance and sacrifice into a picture of unprovoked and seemingly motiveless aggression on the part of the Palestinians. But why hype the content in this way? Hamas's use of children's TV for propaganda purposes is clearly despicable, as the BBC, the Guardian and others have noted, without any need to exaggerate its content.

quote:

She said the sentence where it says [in Memri's translation] "We are going to ... we will annihilate the Jews", she said: "Well, our translators hear something else. They hear 'The Jews are shooting at us'."

I said to her: "You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. You can't even get the order of the words right. Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word 'Jews' is at the end, and also it means it is something to be done to the Jews, not by the Jews."

And she insisted, no the word is in the beginning. I said: "Octavia, you just don't get it. It is at the end" ... She didn't know one from two, I mean.

Carmon's words succeeded in bamboozling Glenn "Israel shares my values" Beck, who told him: "This is amazing to me ... I appreciate all of your efforts. I appreciate what you do at Memri, it is important work."

It was indeed amazing, because in defending Memri's translation, Carmon took issue not only with CNN's Arabic department but also with all the Arabic grammar books. The word order in a typical Arabic sentence is not the same as in English: the verb comes first and so a sentence in Arabic which literally says "Are shooting at us the Jews" means "The Jews are shooting at us".

Homeless Friend posted:

I'd say if somebody described it as not genocide they'd be technically right, its ethnic cleansing that the state is more geared toward (see negev desert plan). I don't think even the most ardent zionist believes that they have the ability to kill all the Palestinians. Genocide is used because rhetorically it is much more evocative imo. ethnic cleansing is clearly within the umbrella "crazy crimes" as genocide but doesn't have a very defined mental imagery within the public imagination of the U.S., just imo. so genocide is shorthand

i fly airplanes posted:

So no, Israel "poisoning a water supply" and "purposefully preventing water from being decontaminated" is absolutely not the same.

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

There is no material difference between those two. The latter carries a fig leaf of plausible deniablity which might help someone rationalize a UN veto or the like, which is all the more reason to reject the reframing.

If you hear someone say "Israel is poisoning Gaza's water," ask them to clarify, and are told "they're draining the aquifer and only permitting Gaza access to the brack layer while also sabotaging any efforts at sewage or contamination treatment" and think that changes anything, you should consider your priorities.

Homeless Friend posted:

Cement won't poison the water. The poisoning isn't from one direct action, but their policies makes the water highly susceptible to becoming undrinkable or even unusable on plants. Attacks on water infrastructure, low water pressure, salinity penetration, leeching of pollutants (sewage, chemicals from bombs, etc) basically in combination creates wide swathes of drinking water reaches the level of impotablity.

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

There is no material difference between those two. The latter carries a fig leaf of plausible deniablity which might help someone rationalize a UN veto or the like, which is all the more reason to reject the reframing.

If you hear someone say "Israel is poisoning Gaza's water," ask them to clarify, and are told "they're draining the aquifer and only permitting Gaza access to the brack layer while also sabotaging any efforts at sewage or contamination treatment" and think that changes anything, you should consider your priorities.

HonorableTB posted:

Excuse me but you're saying pouring cement into water would...NOT poison that water? People would still be able to drink it? This is a baffling claim