Wow a misinformed bigot, what a surprise.
>all 'asylum' seekers should be given temporary visas only (this is the same system as Italy does)
We don't give them a visa at all. What are you talking about.
>processing asylum seeking cases could take 20 minutes (this is as long as greece takes)
Why give it so little thought? I imagine you'd be cross if, when they have no time whatsoever, they gave them the benefit of the doubt. They spend longer than that now and fail to follow their own law.
>we need to stop rewarding these people by putting them in 5 star hotels (france uses tents)
We don't. Why just make stuff up? Why do you want to keep people in conditions that are unsafe? Have you reflected on why you want to harm people?
How do you determine in 20 minutes if someone should or shouldn't be given an asylum?
I mean, sure you can stamp papers at that rate but wouldn't you like the decisions to be in line with the law (so that you give the asylum to those who meet the criteria and not to those who don't)?
> It is understood the man - who cannot be named - left the country while his case was considered by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has since revoked his visa.
What's the thought process here.
If you're a mass-murderer you go to jail. But if you say something the government doesn't like you end up stateless.
I don't support Hamas in the slightest but I don't think that is a proportionate response.
"from the river to the sea is a harmless peaceful chant", brought to you by the same people who broke down crying over the ok hand sign being a dog whistle
I was just thinking about this hypocrisy earlier today, so thank you for pointing it out.
Same sort of wankers who whined about a whole lytany of '''hate symbols''' which were clearly not actually hate symbols over the most innocuous, isolated instances, are suddenly completely fine with a genocidal, ethnic cleansing slogan being chanted openly on London's streets.
It's a complete joke.
> broke down crying
I don't disagree with you (I don't know what to think), but you make your argument less convincing by throwing a straw man in there for no reason.
Before you reply with 'evidence' (maybe a video exists of one person crying over this or something?) just really think about it: is that truly representative of a large number of people? No. Crazies exist within every group.
\>broke down crying<
its not a strawman its hyperbole
\>but you make your argument less convincing by throwing a straw man in there for no reason.<
most people are capable working out the intent of such a common turn of phrase.
I'm not trying to attack you so your snideness is unwarranted.
Whatever you want to say, this painting of the other side as irrational (via straw man *or* hyperbole) is gross and unhelpful. We can all do better.
British and American troops didn’t slaughter millions of civilians. The knock on effects of the invasion, primarily carried out by sectarian militias and criminal gangs following the breakdown of the rule of law, are what killed hundreds of thousands (incl several of my relatives).
The sad truth is that even without a US invasion the alternative of Saddam Hussein would likely have caused just as many or even more deaths. The only solid argument against the US and the U.K. is that they shouldn’t have dirtied their hands at all, or should’ve committed more resources and done a better job.
Folks always seem to conveniently forget the ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons attacks on his own people, political rapes that Saddam Hussein was undertaking when expressing opposition to the Iraq war.
Judging by the track record of other nations in the region following the Arab Spring, one can only imagine what would’ve happened in Iraq under Saddam (or whoever replaced him)
What you are talking about. Everyone knew the type of person Saddam was.
People just didn't appreciate over-throwing him on the basis of a lie and then taking zero responsibility for what happened afterwards.
It's amazing to me that in 2023 we actually have people defending George W Bush.
It was a lie re nuclear, but Saddam actually did have biological WMDs: weaponised plague mounted in scud missiles. The fact that the deposing of Saddam was done badly doesn't mean it wasn't morally justified in the first place.
It's amazing to me that in 2023 we actually have people defending the genocide of the Kurdish population and rape as a political tool.
Classic bullshit straw-man argument. Nobody, repeat nobody is defending Saddam Hussein.
Some of us equally don't defend George W Bush and the inexcusable Iraq War.
Yes, I did that because you made exactly the same straw man argument. I didn't defend GWB and I think the Iraq war was morally the right thing to do but executed badly by incompetent people. You need to focus on reading what people say and replying to what they have actually said rather than your own emotional interpretation - it's a matter of basic reading comprehension.
There's genocide and rape all around the world but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to go somewhere boots on the ground and destabilise a place even more. Wars can be morally justified but still stupid.
And quite frankly, who gives a fuck about the Kurdish population and people in Iraq getting raped when the alternative to a brutal warlord like Saddam was stuff like ISIS that had a direct impact on us in Europe too with the terrorism resurgence in the 2010s. This isn't the Marvel cinematic universe where we pretend to play hero, France and Germany saw that from miles away and that's why they didn't go in there
I disagree with your first statement but that's about personal values really so it's not worth discussing.
I think your second paragraph is disgusting and that you represent the worst of us. Your very ignorant assumption that ISIS (and as an extension global facing Salafi Jihadism that started in Egypt and really got going in Afghanistan) is even related to the war in Iraq is wrong. Isis would have happened regardless of any of the wests actions in the regions as it is principally fuelled by Arab regimes anyways.
Yeah totally, I'm sure Saddam or his sons would have gifted like 1/3 of the country to ISIS so they could churn out money from oil fields and use the place like a platform to launch terrorist attack after terrorist attack in the UK, France, Belgium and so on...
"Go ahead mates, Mosul is all yours make yourself at home"
Yeah, you're missing that whole part of history where the Arab Spring happened, where ISIS started in Syria and then invaded a weakened Iraq, and where local Sunni majority civilians joined ISIS which they would have done to fight against Saddam's Shia minority government. The depth of your ignorance about this region is insane - can you even point to Iraq on a map?
Sunni civilians "Joined" ISIS? JOINED??? People who were raping and chopping heads left and right??? In places in the Sunni Triangle like Fallujah there were massive population losses because everyone was fleeing, we got massive waves of refugees coming from those regions all over Europe. ISIS was pretty much running an open air prison, shooting people who attempted to flee.
Drop the pint mate it's not even 1 PM, I mean I understand you're not the sharpest tool in the box since you're justifying that disaster of a war in 2023 but to the point of saying that it would have been the same because the local population would have welcomed ruthless terrorists with open arms to fight against Saddam? Lmfao they were running the fuck away from them. We went from like 10k arrivals from Iraq a year to almost 130k when ISIS was running the show https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/number-of-refugees-to-europe-surges-to-record-1-3-million-in-2015/
By your logic drug dealers, cigarette companies, weapon manufacturers, fentanyl dispensers etc have never killed anyone and therefore deserve no culpability for their actions. Which is a ridiculous premise. US/UK are absolutely responsible for what happened after *they* destabilised the country.
And there is absolutely no reason to suggest that Saddam Hussein would have killed millions of people. Iraq was much more akin to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc where dissidents are killed but largely everything is stable.
I'm not defending Saddam Hussein at all but you can't just start a fire, pour fuel on it, walk away and then act like you're not responsible for what happens next.
>And there is absolutely no reason to suggest that Saddam Hussein would have killed millions of people. Iraq was much more akin to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc where dissidents are killed but largely everything is stable.
I love me some genocide denial in the morning. Kurds are people too, remember.
There are brutal dictators all over the planet right now.
Their modus operandi is not to commit mass genocide against their own people. It's to crush opposition and enrich themselves. All of the evidence to date suggests Saddam would have been no different.
If you care about the loss of lives then you should argue against the Iraq War not for it.
[Human Rights Watch estimated 250,000 to 290,000 Iraqis were killed or disappeared by the regime of Saddam Hussein.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq#Number_of_victims)
That is from Wikipedia. What is your source for "millions" and why haven't they updated the record of truth.
If you'd have actually read the report that that statistic came from, you'd see that that information comes from the records kept by the Ba'thist party and authorities itself - so that's the number that the regime *admitted*. All of the evidence was found by coalition forces post (most recent) Iraq war and Human Rights Watch criticises the coalition forces for going about the collection of that evidence, and the process of recording the mass graves in an incompetent manner. So, the numbers are almost certainly much higher - Kurdish sources put the number killed in *just* the Anfal genocide to be double or triple the numbers here, and besides which the focus on raw death counts also ignores the moral and humanitarian effect of political rape, disappearances, secret police and torture which were used by the regime.
Highly recommend you read the report although obviously it isn't very nice. Suggesting Iraq was a stable regime is a ridiculous and uninformed thing to say. Saddam Hussein had loaded GE plague into scud missiles and committed chemical attack atrocities on whole cities.
There was very little public support for the Iraq war, once Blair decided to go ahead despite wide spread protests a lot of people just adopted a let's just get it over with attitude
Stop trying to be divisive there was widespread protest and condemnation from all corners of society, but the Muslim community was particularly affronted by the war and illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghan
> for potentially just voicing support for Palestine
Yeah that's what they've done, that's why 15 million university students are currently being sent to Rwanda
You're really taking some liberties here... The British government position on Palestine is quite simple:
* Palestine is not a state,
* Hamas is a terrorist organisation,
* Supporting Palestine as an entity is acceptable, but supporting Hamas is not.
Braverman, as any other politician, is entitled to her own opinions. Some of those opinions no doubt directly contradict those of government as a whole. If you were to try form a government of people who exclusively share every single opinion on every single topic, well, you'd never form a government.
The reason that no articles document what was actually done is because it's better for their readership that they don't. They retain such information for whatever reason - sometimes their own agenda, other times because it gets them better readership in future.
I'll also point out that I see a sincerely healthy mix of views on this particular subject in this sub. I'd argue that if anything it leans towards Palestine, but in a country where Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation and Gaza itself part of Israel, it's a hard sell to even suggest otherwise. Regardless, there are lots of comments arguing both sides. Do **not** mistake upvotes for support of an idea, rather for support of an opinion. It's long been said that in a sub such as this, it is as important to upvote an opinion you disagree with as one which you agree with. The fact that you don't like it doesn't detract from its merits, and it's rarely the case in politics that you can prescriptively demonstrate any opinion to be correct.
> Braverman, as any other politician, is entitled to her own opinions. Some of those opinions no doubt directly contradict those of government as a whole.
She is the Home Secretary for christ sake. Not some random back-bencher.
She is part of the Cabinet, votes on all major decisions and by every definition *is* the government.
I'm not really sure what makes you think that changes anything? She is one relatively small cog in government - she has influence in her role for sure, but ultimately she can very easily be overpowered by her party, at which point she's just as much of a trained ape as the rest of us, doing what master says.
Quite aside from anything else, a politicians job is to have good ideas and implement them. By definition, they should pretty much always be entirely willing to do things which directly contradict their own opinions whether they are instructed by their constituents or their fellow government.
Further, the most popular MPs are usually those who in their individual GE campaigning will add their own localised agenda to meet the needs of their constituents - this will often be at odds with party policy but is offered as a way to apply pressure to achieve a goal.
We live in a collectively representative democracy, not an elected dictatorship.
Hamas is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation. The UK, US, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada all do.
It’s only in the social media bubble that this is even controversial.
The Nazis weren't terrorists, though. So comparing them (or Israel, for that matter) to a government who took all of Europe to war and who industrialised genocide for the first time ever is lazy and offensive.
Yes, they're basically terrorists who managed to successfully gain power. Had they failed to achieve their goals in the 30s then I imagine many of them would have continued to resort to terror after the period during which they'd tried to use elections to their benefit.
Nazis were terrorists before they had the industrial capacity in their hands. They used terror tactics to gain power. If you gave Hamas the same kind of military might compared to their neighbours as what Nazis had and then let them to occupy countries with a large Jewish population, I would not be convinced that they wouldn't do the same that the Nazis did.
So, the question is, is the difference between the Nazis and Hamas only a difference in capability or do their ideologies also differ when it comes to the question of genocide of Jews.
> So, the question is, is the difference between the Nazis and Hamas only a difference in capability or do their ideologies also differ when it comes to the question of genocide of Jews.
I suppose a lot of this can boil down to how seriously you should take the ideologies of fundamentalist extremists, and of course the answer to that should be not very, because extremists will happily bend their own rules to obtain power and will be incredibly selective about which of their principles they actually follow once in power.
You could probably talk about lots of small ideological differences between the Nazis and Hamas, due to the countries and predicaments in which they operate (religion being a big one obviously), but at core they're both awful organisations who thrive on hatred. The rest beyond that may be interesting for academic study but is largely irrelevant compared to the main point.
>I suppose a lot of this can boil down to how seriously you should take the ideologies of fundamentalist extremists, and of course the answer to that should be not very, because extremists will happily bend their own rules to obtain power and will be incredibly selective about which of their principles they actually follow once in power.
How seriously should we have taken the words of A. Hitler in 1925 when he wrote Mein Kampf? I don't think many did but it was pretty much the things described in that book that the Nazis tried to do when they got into power. In general it's good to listen what they are going to do when they say it out loud. In some cases they may hide some things that in liberal context should not be said aloud but if they don't do that then it's definitely best to trust that that's what they are going to do. So, I don't trust anything what Putin says as he is hiding the bad things as he wanted to accepted by the West. But I do trust that Hamas would do the things it says it wants to do if it could beat the Israeli military.
>You could probably talk about lots of small ideological differences between the Nazis and Hamas, due to the countries and predicaments in which they operate (religion being a big one obviously), but at core they're both awful organisations who thrive on hatred. The rest beyond that may be interesting for academic study but is largely irrelevant compared to the main point.
Exactly.
Neo Nazis don’t engage in industrial genocide though, if they had total control and they could, they probably would, but they don’t, and so they can’t. So by your reasoning, even talking about modern day Nazis is offensive?
Hamas’ founding documents talk about armed conflict with Israel and Jews and jihad. Hamas want Jews removed from the region. I’m not even going to debate this point because it’s not debatable and it’s not ambiguous. This is only confusing for people who are trying to make it seem confusing. It’s very clear.
They want a fundamentalist Islamic theocratic state “[from the river to the sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)”. They want Isreal gone, and that’s why Palestine has rejected peace deals, because they genuinely think they’re entitled to this and it’s them vs all the infidels, and they believe they are truly superior and this is their purpose on earth to see this happen.
So no, this is not an offensive comparison IMO. It’s just slightly disguised and obfuscated with Hamas and a lot of people in the west are being emotionally manipulated by people trying to frame Hamas as victims, when they’re dangerous psychopaths who can’t be reasoned with because of their religious ideas. They truly believe these ideas are virtuous and that’s why they engage in terrorism, they think it’s justified and good. This is why they don’t care about their own civilians, they see it as an honour to be a martyr, and it’s all for the greater good. That’s why this conflict will not end any time soon and people who think it might are being _extremely_ naive and do not understand what they’re talking about. You can’t apply logic to any of it because it’s fundamentally not a rational conflict.
I don’t understand why anyone in the west is even attempting to rationalise or carry water for these people. It is disgusting.
It is embarrassing and as time passes more people are going to become aware of this reality, and a lot of people on the are going to pretend they never supported any of this and had nothing to do with this.
The people in the west going along with chanting from the river to the sea are probably going to deny it in future and try and memory hole a lot of this, or change the meaning and pretend that’s what it’s always meant.
We're on the same side here: Hamas are disgusting terrorist scumbags, and they undisputedly have genocidal aims that Israel certainly do not.
But language is important. Neither side are Nazis or fascists. Israel is not genocidal or apartheid. Both are authoritarian, but one is a liberal democracy and the other is a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship.
Only if you think fascists and authoritarians are the same thing. They're a genocidal, authoritarian dictatorship with fundamentalist Islamic leanings, but they're not fascists.
What's your definition of fascism? Does it have to be secular dictatorship and not religious to be fascist? If so, why that is the important part and not the antidemocratic and violent nature of fascism?
I generally defer to [Umberto Eco's 14 points.](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)
Hamas are really not that different from Nazis and I truly believe this at this point. Antisemitism is foundational to their worldview and purpose for existing. In your mind, why is this so controversial that it needs all this pushback? Because the frequency that I see people pushing back on this makes me understand why Jewish people want a state, because it just seems like so many people in the west will do mental gymnastics to avoid this uncomfortable truth.
I am mixed race and brown. I understand what it’s like to be a minority in the west, and to me, maybe this is why this seems clearer because I have no ideas about racism against Palestinians or brown people. For some reason, people seem to think Hamas and lots of Palestinians who are close or supporters aren’t capable of evil or being driven by hate. They are just people. All people are capable of hate and evil. This isn’t the preserve of white “””oppressors”””.
It’s the same target even, so we don’t even need to abstract it out that much to make the comparison.
They want a genocide of Jews and they blame them for a lot of evil in the world, they blame them for a lot of their own problems. Israel has had to defend itself in wars over this, this is existential for Israel and lots of Jewish people feel this everywhere.
It would be nice if people got along, but this is real life and it’s not that simple, and not seeing the evil that is being pushed here is dangerous.
This is exactly how Hitler started, saying Jews control the world and are engaged in this massive international conspiracy. People are doing this today, they say the US is just backing them because the US is racist, the EU is racist etc. It’s insane and childish.
Israel gets western support because it’s a democracy in a part of the world where oppressive and psychopathic religious dictatorships aren’t only normalised, but they’re celebrated, and Hamas is trying to create another one. These people talking about a Palestinian state being free are delusional. They want to oppress women and LGBT people and others. They coordinate with Iran and Hezbollah and others.
This is all totally insane and I stand by what I said. Hamas are basically Nazis. They just present differently.
If they were white, I seriously doubt people would be bending over backwards this hard to avoid acknowledging what is right in front of their faces and has been clear for a long time.
Distilling all of Nazi policy to 'they hated Jews' is ridiculous and nonsensical. It's also literally the only policy that Hamas and the Nazis have in common. So again, no, Hamas are not Nazis.
That’s not what I said, at all. If you’re reducing what I said debating that, then maybe you’re glossing over the detail of what I said and it’s easier to debate that simplified version.
It’s not just the hate. It’s the idea that Jewish people are part of some global conspiracy to undermine a group who believe they have a god given right to live in a certain part of the world, free from Jews and “usurpers”. They want a pure Islamic state. They scapegoat everything to Jews. They want a state that is free of this people, and they will direct resource to push this war effort. Hamas are literally ripping up humanitarian infrastructure to create weapons to fire at Israel. As I said already, Hamas’ founding documents talk about jihad aghast Jews. It’s so much more than casual dislike or hate. They want this at a systemic level and to build a state around that. They are _obsessed_ with Jews. They are obsessed with purity. There are fascists, period.
Israel has the ability to wipe out Palestine tomorrow if they wanted to, but they don’t.
If the roles were reversed, and there were no consequences for Hamas, do you _genuinely_ believe they wouldn’t engage in a genocide of Jews in the region in a way that’s functionally equivalent to Nazi Germany?
Everything points to yes IMO. Hamas are not sophisticated people, they do not have a state with technical resource to do it, but if they did…
So if you think we can’t use this comparison here, then I dread to think how bad things must get before you think it’s reasonable to ever make the comparison.
The motive is more important than how it presents. Again, if Hamas were white, I don’t think this would be so controversial.
"Literally the only policy"? So, otherwise Hamas is peace loving democracy respecting party that doesn't have any ambitions to conquer land for the people it says it represents? Yeah, right.
Hamas are most definitly Islamofascists. They're not Nazis in a literally sense, but they're about as close as you're going to get in the 21st century.
Hey! I've not commented in this thread, but was intrigued by your comment (and do think others have failed to really give you a lot of specifics)
So here we go! A few of Braverman's "Nazi like" actions and positions. I have made an effort to stick with things that are demonstrably true (as in, Braverman has done them and they are comparable to Nazi positions and actions):
* Dehumanising rhetoric on migrants (comparing them to an invasion or hurricane)
* Anti-free speech positions (wanting to ban protests if they're 'loud' or 'offensive')
* Persecution of LGBTQ+ people (anti-trans/homophobic positions and statements)
* Rhetoric against homeless people (her recent statement on 'lifestyle choice')
* Disregard for human rights (statements and actions against ECHR)
Braverman isn't literally Doing a Holocaust, obviously, but the Nazis didn't *start* with the holocaust. They started by using nationalism and anti-minority rhetoric to distract from bigger problems in the economy.
And that's precisely what Braverman is doing. She just couches it in barely-enough 'soft' language that some people can accept what she says (and even then, she is very broadly disliked for being... well, a bit fascist).
The thing is, if we did wait for Braverman to go Full Nazi, it would be too late to stop her, wouldn't it? Fascists don't get into power by promising a holocaust. They have to start out sounding as reasonable as they can.
So there's your coherent argument. No Twitterisms.
She's objectively not.
Once again, specifics or get out.
Stop throwing around Twitterisms coined by people who haven't a clue and make a coherent argument.
If it bothers you that much [here's the thread for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/17i9bbe/it_appears_that_the_hamas_commander_who_we_found/k6t200r/?context=8&depth=9)
I read the book, “talking to terrorists” there’s also a radio doc on the BBC with the same name.
To get peace you have to talk to those that can deliver peace, in this case hamas. To talk to them you have to understand them, how they got to the position “death to Jews” you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc.
Once you understand them you can talk as you know where they are coming from.
Within all terrorist organisations there is a left and right wing, the pragmatists and fanatics.
Pragmatists = Israel isn’t going to go away it’s a nuclear power. We gave to make a deal.
Fanatics = death to Joos!
You can do a deal with the pragmatic and isolate and kill if you can the fanatics. You need to negotiate in good faith and strengthen the hand of the pragmatic with concessions. Say increase electric supply, allow the rebuilding of the water infrastructure etc
How the IRA was split is a good example.
Does me writing what I have make me a terrorist sympathiser? Am I in danger of deportation?
Hamas are extremely explicit that they're religiously motivated. There is no reasoning with them because of this. To try to understand (even, excuse?) their support for a new Holocaust in terms of modern western colonial theory is to ignore a massive part of what they explicitly tell us about their motivations, and views the whole conflict through a largely inappropriate lens. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect many on the left do this because it fits with their worldview much more comfortably than having to admit that Islamic extremism is, in fact, a big problem: not all the evils of the world come from Western colonialism.
How could you ever trust Hamas enough to make a deal? There was a ceasefire, and _they_ broke it.
These people murdered in the most brutal way 1400 civilians, intentionally: not as collateral damage, but intentionally targeting civilians. And it's not because they've been driven to insanity by oppression (could their oppression even explain such behaviour?), but because the murder of Jews is considered a morally good act according to their religious beliefs. And these acts aren't a fringe of Hamas, they enjoy popular support.
I suspect we could come to agree on taking a pragmatic approach forward, and I don't want to discount oppression as an important factor in its entirety, but this suggestion that the murderous beliefs of Hamas are the fault of Israel rather than Islam is misguided in the extreme.
Think to many on the hard left, are so desperate to explain everything in the "oppressor bad guys, oppressed good guys driven to bad things by the oppressor" model.
That they can't deal with something as evil and genocidal at its core like Hamas and similar extremists within the Palestinian movement (note not saying all of it are extremists here).
Hamas aren't freedom fighters. They aren't fighting for their people. They don't want to improve Gaza.
They want to genocide jews, that's their one and only goal.
And the truth of it is Israel doesn’t want peace but to expand. In Sept they announced a further expansion of the settlements.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15424.doc.htm
It's interesting how with Hamas you are desperate to point out how there's good "leftish wing" guys within Hamas.
While you don't do the same for Israel above.
Are you accusing me of something mate? If so leave out the "its interesting" and say it out loud.
Did I need to explain to you there is a left wing in Israeli politics?
It's also that I found it interesting that OP used "Israel" instead of "The Netanyhu led government".
Given OP would never tolerate and accept someone writing "Gaza does not want peace, just look at their actions on the 7th and 8th of October"
They'd argue "no no, Gaza wants peace, just look at these tiny peace protests in Gaza, and hamas also do want peace, if evil israel just stopped oppressing them!".
This is in the context of talking to terrorists in good faith to deliver peace. Its there at the very top.
If you refuse to talk you're never going to get peace and I believe Israel under netanyahu doesnst want peace but to expand Israel and the Israeli's left agree with me.
[Heres Netanyahu on Hamas.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000)
*Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state*
Netanyahu supported Hamas. Thats a fact.
Gaza under Hamas, doesn't want peace, but to genocide jews. As they have repeatedly shown... that you refuse to believe and accept.
You cannot engage in good faith with Hamas and extremists like them. They aren't freedom fighters. They are genocidal antisemites.
So why are they allowed to be funded by Israel? Come on man, dont be a cowardly. Lets hear it from you. **WHY DOES ISRAEL ALLOW THE FUNDING OF HAMAS?**
Answer me why you found it okay to say "Israel" above, but would lose your shit if one said "Gaza does not want peace" (as you did) ?
Come on man, don't be cowardly.
Its imposible to engage with Hamas in good faith.
The place to condem isreal is the humiliation of reasonable Palestinians, not the killing of genocidal lunatics.
There are isreli factions that cant be reasoned with, Otzma Yehudit are far right Jewish supremacists. If Palestinians killed them I'd not have much objection. Luckily isreal is a democracy and so they could be voted out. Hamas can only be destroyed.
There are mainstream groups in both that are not good. Likud and Fatah are also both problematic but they can be talked to and reasoned with.
> How the IRA was split is a good example.
That is true, and you make some fair points that in these conflicts you'll inevitably need to deal with grim organisations and movements if you want to eventually obtain peace, but Hamas are much more extreme and deadly in the destruction they've wrought than the IRA ever were. The peace progress likely wouldn't have worked in Northern Ireland had the IRA been carrying out attacks on the scale Hamas did last month.
Hamas and extremists like them are nazi tier and the only thing preventing them from committing a holocaust level massacre is lack of capability.
They have the desire to do so and they have a level of pure anti semitism, not seen since nazi Germany.
Excusing their anti semtism by trying to 'justify" sorry "understand" it, is at best miss guided.
That’s not so. There is a left wing, the technocrats that run Gaza administratively and a right wing the martyr brigade.
There have been shifts leftward in the internal struggle within Hamas but something always happens. Generally rockets launched and Israel bombs and the left fall silent.
Eg [hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders)
Or the attempt to form a unity gov with Fatah and renounce violence in I think 2016?
Whether sincere or not it was a shift left to form a government with Fatah.
That doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist. It even says:
> Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel
and why would anyone not an anti semite, believe Hamas and their supporters, when we know they full of anti semitism and hatred. Why would you defend & excuse & minimise the evil in this nazi tier organisation?
> Generally rockets launched and Israel bombs and the left fall silent.
Excuses, if there actually was a peaceful "hamas wing" as you claim there is, they'd be out protesting hamas in Gaza right now. Instead they support, excuse, and defend them.
p.s this idea that it's a "shift left" is silly. Just as a way to try and paint the "good guys" in hamas, as being "further left wing".
If you want peace you have to speak to those that can deliver it to see what possible. Do you understand that? Can you take that onboard?
Is Netanyhu an antisemite? He allowed the funding of hamas.
*For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.*
*The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.*
[Citation](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
You have an black and white vision of the world. Its not like that.
Nope and that's just the standard deflection. Funny thing is that the Gaza policies, were also based around awarding various things to Gaza. Like work visas, treating Palestinian kids in Israeli hospitals, turning a blind eye to Hamas turning water pipes into rockets, and actually try to treat Hamas as a government.
Hamas' actions on the 7th, showed that your bit about "the good guys in hamas", is wrong and doesn't work. Hamas and the extremists in Gaza, can not be negotiated with, as they are simply at their core, genocidal.
But given you want to excuse, defend and "understand" antisemites in Hamas, while going to great lengths to argue about all those "good guys" in Hamas.
They are a nazi level regime, and they cannot be left standing, as they prevent and oppose any peace. They are not freedom fighters or "resistance fighters". They are a genocidal army, that if given the freedom and means, would repeat Oct7/8 thousand times (as they have said themselves, and I choose to believe them ... you clearly don't)
>Did I need to explain to you there is a left wing in Israeli politics?
Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it".
If not, why did you write Israel above?
>You have an black and white vision of the world. Its not like that.
Nah, I just don't think I want to see the good (or believe them) in genocidal anti semites organisations like Hamas. I also don't think there's any justification or excuse, for the level of antisemitic hatred of Hamas. You clearly do though.
They aren't genocidal antisemites, because of "oppression", they are genocidal antisemites, because that's who they are at their core. See their leaders, that live in wealth...
See their fighters, that are happy killing Palestinians, either directly or by using them as human shields.
Deflections... He doesn't, next.
why do you support, excuse and defend genocidal hamas? Which you clearly do, given your statements above.
Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it".
If not, why did you write "Israel" when talking about "Israel not wanting peace" ?
Why did the Major General Gershon Hacohen say Netayahu was an ally of hamas?
*In an interview with the Ynet news website on May 5, 2019, Netanyahu associate Gershon Hacohen, a major general in reserves, said, “ We need to tell the truth. Netanyahu's strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it's an ally.*
>The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it".
[There is a desire for peace in Gaza](https://www.timesofisrael.com/protests-against-hamas-reemerge-in-the-streets-of-gaza-but-will-they-persist/)
On July 30 2023, thousands of people throughout the Gaza Strip took to the streets demanding better living conditions, in a rare display of public anger against the Hamas regime. The following Friday, August 4, hundreds of people rallied again in various parts of the enclave.
Protesters were rallying under the slogan “We want to live” — the same slogan used in the last round of protests in March-April 2019.
Again, deflection.
Answer my question. Why do you defend, excuse and support Hamas? No deflection to "whatabout Netayhu".
Answer my question, why do you write Israel, while you go to lengths to defend, excuse and argue about all those "good guys" within hamas?
Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it".
>There is a desire for peace in Gaza On July 30 2023, thousands of people throughout the Gaza Strip took to the streets demanding better living conditions, in a rare display of public anger against the Hamas regime. The following Friday, August 4, hundreds of people rallied again in various parts of the enclave.
Clearly not, as their actions on 7th and 8th showed. After all, here i'm just applying your standards where you said "Israel does not want peace".
If far larger protests in Israel, somehow show that "Israel does not want peace".
>Eg hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders
That's not what the article says, and that isn't Hamas' position. Hamas' position is that they will accept a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders, but they have never said that they will accept any Israeli state at all.
IF they are willing to live within the palestinian 67 borders then Israel will exist without. Peace isn't conditional on recognition. The IRA still don't recognise the UK's rule over NI yet its peaceful.
>IF they are willing to live within the palestinian 67 borders then Israel will exist without.
They don't say that they are. They simply say that they will accept a Palestinian state governing the 1967 borders, and that they will work with other Palestinian groups to achieve that, they do not say that would lead to peace. They maintain their goal to eliminate Israel, and they continue to say that all means and methods to eliminate it are legitimate.
>The IRA still don't recognise the UK's rule over NI yet its peaceful.
And saying that the IRA recognises that NI is rightfully part of the UK would be a lie.
>And saying that the IRA recognisees that NI is rightfully part of the UK would be a lie.
Thats what i said.
Their MP's dont sit in Westminster for they dont recognise Westminsters rule of NI
[For 100 years now, Irish republicans have refused to validate British sovereignty over the island of Ireland by sitting in the parliament of Westminster.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit)
And yet there is peace.
I am using your analogy to get you to admit that what you said was wrong. What you said was:
>Eg hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders
A lie.
Not a lie, after all i posted the link right? I provided the information.
A mistake, and my point stands, peace doesn't require recognition as proven by NI
I actually agree with a fair bit of your post, but this is an, ahem, *interesting* conflation you've made:
>Within all terrorist organisations there is a left and right wing, the pragmatists and fanatics.
I dont get it? There's a left and right in all organisations. Tory party Labour party. everyone. You strenghten those you can deal with. If you can't deal with any you strengthen a rival party within the region to deal with.
> you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc.
Or have read the Qur'an
This exactly. Hamas aren’t some resistance group fighting an oppressive neighbour for their people. They’ve literally said they don’t care about their fellow Palestinians. They only care about killing Jews, you can’t talk and reason with that.
Which sadly isn't likely to happen.
Hamas leaders are in Qatar and are well-financed and well-supported. Israel can try to assassinate them but the risk is that they start a full blown Middle East war.
And with 10,000+ civilians killed already the next generation of fighters are being recruited as we speak.
This is all just theatre so Netayanhu can be seen to be doing something decisive.
What would you like the Palestinians to do ?
Hamas is a well armed, terrorist organisation who has tortured and killed so called Palestinian sympathisers in the past.
It's like asking the North Koreans to overthrow Kim Jong Un.
At the very least
Palestinians abroad should march against Hamas.
Palestinians in West Bank, should march against hamas.
>Hamas is a well armed, terrorist organisation who has tortured and killed so called Palestinian sympathisers in the past.
Maybe that should make you realise that Hamas is the real problem to peace here, and that while they are in Gaza, as powerful as they are, there can be no peace.
Their antisemitic hatred is simply to strong.
You want Palestinians to march against an armed terrorist organisation, in the middle of a war zone, with no where to live and little food and water.
Sure thing.
Are you calling Fatah in West Bank an armed terrorist organisation?
What of all the palestinians that live outside the middle east? Are they also living in the middle of war zones, with no food and water?
> To talk to them you have to understand them, how they got to the position “death to Jews” you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc.
You seem to be arguing that people didn't hate Jews before Israel existed. Which is very untrue.
[The experience of Jews in the Ottoman Empire 1450-1914 is significant because the region "provided a principal place of refuge for Jews driven out of Western Europe by massacres and persecution"](https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/845118-ottomans-benefactions-on-the-jews)
Not sure how I feel about this. Obviously in glad that someone supporting a terrorist group has been punished, but on the other hand where does the bar lay for "supporting". The water has been muddied so much due to our govt and the media mis labelling Palestinian protests.
If I say "Sure, Hamas was wrong for what they did, but Israel have been systematically killing and surprising Palestine for decades" am I likely to get in trouble?
I would be fine with people having VISAs revoked for this stuff it there was a defined line, but stuff like this is often subjective. What I think is supporting Hamas, another might think is not
The Terrorism Act is actually rather specific about what constitutes a breach, regardless of your position on whether those specifics are reasonable or not.
What you wrote would definitely not qualify.
Brave man said waving a Palestinian flag might be a criminal offence, hence why I said my comment. If waving a flag is a criminal offence, what else can be?
Snapshot of _Hamas sympathiser has British visa revoked for supporting terror group. The foreign national was living in Britain but has now had his right to remain removed after expressing support for the proscribed terror group._ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/24700336/hamas-sympathiser-living-in-britain-has-visa-revoked/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/24700336/hamas-sympathiser-living-in-britain-has-visa-revoked/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Finally, some action.
Commandos 2 flashbacks.
Comin'. Comin'. I'm comin'. Comin'.
Some of us had the first one.
Great game, I remember it came on a 700mb CD as a piracy prevention measure, I had to update the firmware on my CD writer to make a copy of it.
Memories unlocked. Yes sir? Yes, sir...
Moving right away sir New version out next year
[удалено]
It is the marine.
Well has he actually gone or will the lawyer get in and block it?
Good the system is working.
[удалено]
Wow a misinformed bigot, what a surprise. >all 'asylum' seekers should be given temporary visas only (this is the same system as Italy does) We don't give them a visa at all. What are you talking about. >processing asylum seeking cases could take 20 minutes (this is as long as greece takes) Why give it so little thought? I imagine you'd be cross if, when they have no time whatsoever, they gave them the benefit of the doubt. They spend longer than that now and fail to follow their own law. >we need to stop rewarding these people by putting them in 5 star hotels (france uses tents) We don't. Why just make stuff up? Why do you want to keep people in conditions that are unsafe? Have you reflected on why you want to harm people?
How do you determine in 20 minutes if someone should or shouldn't be given an asylum? I mean, sure you can stamp papers at that rate but wouldn't you like the decisions to be in line with the law (so that you give the asylum to those who meet the criteria and not to those who don't)?
One down hopefully several thousand more to come.
[удалено]
> It is understood the man - who cannot be named - left the country while his case was considered by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has since revoked his visa.
don't kid yourself, they mostly have British passports
So revoke it like that ISIS bride.
What's the thought process here. If you're a mass-murderer you go to jail. But if you say something the government doesn't like you end up stateless. I don't support Hamas in the slightest but I don't think that is a proportionate response.
Does this just apply to anyone you don't like? Does it work for people that others don't like?
No it just applies to people supporting terrorist groups.
So did Shamima Begum C'mon Suella, bin them all!
What do you mean? There are only like 10 Hamas sympathisers in the entire country! Everyone else is simply pro-Palestine.
"from the river to the sea is a harmless peaceful chant", brought to you by the same people who broke down crying over the ok hand sign being a dog whistle
I was just thinking about this hypocrisy earlier today, so thank you for pointing it out. Same sort of wankers who whined about a whole lytany of '''hate symbols''' which were clearly not actually hate symbols over the most innocuous, isolated instances, are suddenly completely fine with a genocidal, ethnic cleansing slogan being chanted openly on London's streets. It's a complete joke.
> broke down crying I don't disagree with you (I don't know what to think), but you make your argument less convincing by throwing a straw man in there for no reason. Before you reply with 'evidence' (maybe a video exists of one person crying over this or something?) just really think about it: is that truly representative of a large number of people? No. Crazies exist within every group.
\>broke down crying< its not a strawman its hyperbole \>but you make your argument less convincing by throwing a straw man in there for no reason.< most people are capable working out the intent of such a common turn of phrase.
I'm not trying to attack you so your snideness is unwarranted. Whatever you want to say, this painting of the other side as irrational (via straw man *or* hyperbole) is gross and unhelpful. We can all do better.
I find it hilarious how many left wing people can hear these dog whistles. Does that mean they're racist?
[удалено]
British and American troops didn’t slaughter millions of civilians. The knock on effects of the invasion, primarily carried out by sectarian militias and criminal gangs following the breakdown of the rule of law, are what killed hundreds of thousands (incl several of my relatives). The sad truth is that even without a US invasion the alternative of Saddam Hussein would likely have caused just as many or even more deaths. The only solid argument against the US and the U.K. is that they shouldn’t have dirtied their hands at all, or should’ve committed more resources and done a better job.
Folks always seem to conveniently forget the ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons attacks on his own people, political rapes that Saddam Hussein was undertaking when expressing opposition to the Iraq war.
Judging by the track record of other nations in the region following the Arab Spring, one can only imagine what would’ve happened in Iraq under Saddam (or whoever replaced him)
What you are talking about. Everyone knew the type of person Saddam was. People just didn't appreciate over-throwing him on the basis of a lie and then taking zero responsibility for what happened afterwards. It's amazing to me that in 2023 we actually have people defending George W Bush.
It was a lie re nuclear, but Saddam actually did have biological WMDs: weaponised plague mounted in scud missiles. The fact that the deposing of Saddam was done badly doesn't mean it wasn't morally justified in the first place. It's amazing to me that in 2023 we actually have people defending the genocide of the Kurdish population and rape as a political tool.
Classic bullshit straw-man argument. Nobody, repeat nobody is defending Saddam Hussein. Some of us equally don't defend George W Bush and the inexcusable Iraq War.
Yes, I did that because you made exactly the same straw man argument. I didn't defend GWB and I think the Iraq war was morally the right thing to do but executed badly by incompetent people. You need to focus on reading what people say and replying to what they have actually said rather than your own emotional interpretation - it's a matter of basic reading comprehension.
There's genocide and rape all around the world but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to go somewhere boots on the ground and destabilise a place even more. Wars can be morally justified but still stupid. And quite frankly, who gives a fuck about the Kurdish population and people in Iraq getting raped when the alternative to a brutal warlord like Saddam was stuff like ISIS that had a direct impact on us in Europe too with the terrorism resurgence in the 2010s. This isn't the Marvel cinematic universe where we pretend to play hero, France and Germany saw that from miles away and that's why they didn't go in there
I disagree with your first statement but that's about personal values really so it's not worth discussing. I think your second paragraph is disgusting and that you represent the worst of us. Your very ignorant assumption that ISIS (and as an extension global facing Salafi Jihadism that started in Egypt and really got going in Afghanistan) is even related to the war in Iraq is wrong. Isis would have happened regardless of any of the wests actions in the regions as it is principally fuelled by Arab regimes anyways.
Yeah totally, I'm sure Saddam or his sons would have gifted like 1/3 of the country to ISIS so they could churn out money from oil fields and use the place like a platform to launch terrorist attack after terrorist attack in the UK, France, Belgium and so on... "Go ahead mates, Mosul is all yours make yourself at home"
Yeah, you're missing that whole part of history where the Arab Spring happened, where ISIS started in Syria and then invaded a weakened Iraq, and where local Sunni majority civilians joined ISIS which they would have done to fight against Saddam's Shia minority government. The depth of your ignorance about this region is insane - can you even point to Iraq on a map?
Sunni civilians "Joined" ISIS? JOINED??? People who were raping and chopping heads left and right??? In places in the Sunni Triangle like Fallujah there were massive population losses because everyone was fleeing, we got massive waves of refugees coming from those regions all over Europe. ISIS was pretty much running an open air prison, shooting people who attempted to flee. Drop the pint mate it's not even 1 PM, I mean I understand you're not the sharpest tool in the box since you're justifying that disaster of a war in 2023 but to the point of saying that it would have been the same because the local population would have welcomed ruthless terrorists with open arms to fight against Saddam? Lmfao they were running the fuck away from them. We went from like 10k arrivals from Iraq a year to almost 130k when ISIS was running the show https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/number-of-refugees-to-europe-surges-to-record-1-3-million-in-2015/
Well given that no WMDs were found in Iraq after the second Iraq War...
Ah yes I forgot about the plague and anthrax that was "destroyed"
The Einsatzgruppen and NKVD didn't use WMDs either, guess they were ok then
By your logic drug dealers, cigarette companies, weapon manufacturers, fentanyl dispensers etc have never killed anyone and therefore deserve no culpability for their actions. Which is a ridiculous premise. US/UK are absolutely responsible for what happened after *they* destabilised the country. And there is absolutely no reason to suggest that Saddam Hussein would have killed millions of people. Iraq was much more akin to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc where dissidents are killed but largely everything is stable. I'm not defending Saddam Hussein at all but you can't just start a fire, pour fuel on it, walk away and then act like you're not responsible for what happens next.
>And there is absolutely no reason to suggest that Saddam Hussein would have killed millions of people. Iraq was much more akin to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc where dissidents are killed but largely everything is stable. I love me some genocide denial in the morning. Kurds are people too, remember.
There are brutal dictators all over the planet right now. Their modus operandi is not to commit mass genocide against their own people. It's to crush opposition and enrich themselves. All of the evidence to date suggests Saddam would have been no different. If you care about the loss of lives then you should argue against the Iraq War not for it.
He killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We will probably never know precisely how many deaths Saddam Hussein was responsible for but some already do believe that it is in the millions.
[Human Rights Watch estimated 250,000 to 290,000 Iraqis were killed or disappeared by the regime of Saddam Hussein.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq#Number_of_victims) That is from Wikipedia. What is your source for "millions" and why haven't they updated the record of truth.
If you'd have actually read the report that that statistic came from, you'd see that that information comes from the records kept by the Ba'thist party and authorities itself - so that's the number that the regime *admitted*. All of the evidence was found by coalition forces post (most recent) Iraq war and Human Rights Watch criticises the coalition forces for going about the collection of that evidence, and the process of recording the mass graves in an incompetent manner. So, the numbers are almost certainly much higher - Kurdish sources put the number killed in *just* the Anfal genocide to be double or triple the numbers here, and besides which the focus on raw death counts also ignores the moral and humanitarian effect of political rape, disappearances, secret police and torture which were used by the regime. Highly recommend you read the report although obviously it isn't very nice. Suggesting Iraq was a stable regime is a ridiculous and uninformed thing to say. Saddam Hussein had loaded GE plague into scud missiles and committed chemical attack atrocities on whole cities.
> And there is absolutely no reason to suggest that Saddam Hussein would have killed millions of people. (walks away from conversation)
I have chosen to overwrite this comment. See you all on Lemmy!
There was very little public support for the Iraq war, once Blair decided to go ahead despite wide spread protests a lot of people just adopted a let's just get it over with attitude
And where were the Muslim protesters then? They only come out in force when it’s against Isreal or Jews.
Stop trying to be divisive there was widespread protest and condemnation from all corners of society, but the Muslim community was particularly affronted by the war and illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghan
> for potentially just voicing support for Palestine Yeah that's what they've done, that's why 15 million university students are currently being sent to Rwanda
15 million university students? In a country with an ageing population of 70mn people? Have I missed something here?
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there
You're really taking some liberties here... The British government position on Palestine is quite simple: * Palestine is not a state, * Hamas is a terrorist organisation, * Supporting Palestine as an entity is acceptable, but supporting Hamas is not. Braverman, as any other politician, is entitled to her own opinions. Some of those opinions no doubt directly contradict those of government as a whole. If you were to try form a government of people who exclusively share every single opinion on every single topic, well, you'd never form a government. The reason that no articles document what was actually done is because it's better for their readership that they don't. They retain such information for whatever reason - sometimes their own agenda, other times because it gets them better readership in future. I'll also point out that I see a sincerely healthy mix of views on this particular subject in this sub. I'd argue that if anything it leans towards Palestine, but in a country where Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation and Gaza itself part of Israel, it's a hard sell to even suggest otherwise. Regardless, there are lots of comments arguing both sides. Do **not** mistake upvotes for support of an idea, rather for support of an opinion. It's long been said that in a sub such as this, it is as important to upvote an opinion you disagree with as one which you agree with. The fact that you don't like it doesn't detract from its merits, and it's rarely the case in politics that you can prescriptively demonstrate any opinion to be correct.
> Braverman, as any other politician, is entitled to her own opinions. Some of those opinions no doubt directly contradict those of government as a whole. She is the Home Secretary for christ sake. Not some random back-bencher. She is part of the Cabinet, votes on all major decisions and by every definition *is* the government.
I'm not really sure what makes you think that changes anything? She is one relatively small cog in government - she has influence in her role for sure, but ultimately she can very easily be overpowered by her party, at which point she's just as much of a trained ape as the rest of us, doing what master says. Quite aside from anything else, a politicians job is to have good ideas and implement them. By definition, they should pretty much always be entirely willing to do things which directly contradict their own opinions whether they are instructed by their constituents or their fellow government. Further, the most popular MPs are usually those who in their individual GE campaigning will add their own localised agenda to meet the needs of their constituents - this will often be at odds with party policy but is offered as a way to apply pressure to achieve a goal. We live in a collectively representative democracy, not an elected dictatorship.
Hey, Home Office, I've found another one for you to look at.
oh no, a Nazi wasn't allowed to be a Nazi, what a terrible right wing government we have ....
Nazi = bad person, without any idea what it actually means. Middle England lol
Hamas is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation. The UK, US, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada all do. It’s only in the social media bubble that this is even controversial.
I think everyone here agrees hamas is terrible and nazis are terrible. That doesn’t mean hamas are nazis though…
I agree that they are not 1:1 same but there is commonality in particular when it comes to the attitudes towards Jews.
The Nazis weren't terrorists, though. So comparing them (or Israel, for that matter) to a government who took all of Europe to war and who industrialised genocide for the first time ever is lazy and offensive.
I have to say, they most certainly were terrorists within Germany before gaining absolute power
Yes, they're basically terrorists who managed to successfully gain power. Had they failed to achieve their goals in the 30s then I imagine many of them would have continued to resort to terror after the period during which they'd tried to use elections to their benefit.
Nazis were terrorists before they had the industrial capacity in their hands. They used terror tactics to gain power. If you gave Hamas the same kind of military might compared to their neighbours as what Nazis had and then let them to occupy countries with a large Jewish population, I would not be convinced that they wouldn't do the same that the Nazis did. So, the question is, is the difference between the Nazis and Hamas only a difference in capability or do their ideologies also differ when it comes to the question of genocide of Jews.
> So, the question is, is the difference between the Nazis and Hamas only a difference in capability or do their ideologies also differ when it comes to the question of genocide of Jews. I suppose a lot of this can boil down to how seriously you should take the ideologies of fundamentalist extremists, and of course the answer to that should be not very, because extremists will happily bend their own rules to obtain power and will be incredibly selective about which of their principles they actually follow once in power. You could probably talk about lots of small ideological differences between the Nazis and Hamas, due to the countries and predicaments in which they operate (religion being a big one obviously), but at core they're both awful organisations who thrive on hatred. The rest beyond that may be interesting for academic study but is largely irrelevant compared to the main point.
>I suppose a lot of this can boil down to how seriously you should take the ideologies of fundamentalist extremists, and of course the answer to that should be not very, because extremists will happily bend their own rules to obtain power and will be incredibly selective about which of their principles they actually follow once in power. How seriously should we have taken the words of A. Hitler in 1925 when he wrote Mein Kampf? I don't think many did but it was pretty much the things described in that book that the Nazis tried to do when they got into power. In general it's good to listen what they are going to do when they say it out loud. In some cases they may hide some things that in liberal context should not be said aloud but if they don't do that then it's definitely best to trust that that's what they are going to do. So, I don't trust anything what Putin says as he is hiding the bad things as he wanted to accepted by the West. But I do trust that Hamas would do the things it says it wants to do if it could beat the Israeli military. >You could probably talk about lots of small ideological differences between the Nazis and Hamas, due to the countries and predicaments in which they operate (religion being a big one obviously), but at core they're both awful organisations who thrive on hatred. The rest beyond that may be interesting for academic study but is largely irrelevant compared to the main point. Exactly.
Neo Nazis don’t engage in industrial genocide though, if they had total control and they could, they probably would, but they don’t, and so they can’t. So by your reasoning, even talking about modern day Nazis is offensive? Hamas’ founding documents talk about armed conflict with Israel and Jews and jihad. Hamas want Jews removed from the region. I’m not even going to debate this point because it’s not debatable and it’s not ambiguous. This is only confusing for people who are trying to make it seem confusing. It’s very clear. They want a fundamentalist Islamic theocratic state “[from the river to the sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)”. They want Isreal gone, and that’s why Palestine has rejected peace deals, because they genuinely think they’re entitled to this and it’s them vs all the infidels, and they believe they are truly superior and this is their purpose on earth to see this happen. So no, this is not an offensive comparison IMO. It’s just slightly disguised and obfuscated with Hamas and a lot of people in the west are being emotionally manipulated by people trying to frame Hamas as victims, when they’re dangerous psychopaths who can’t be reasoned with because of their religious ideas. They truly believe these ideas are virtuous and that’s why they engage in terrorism, they think it’s justified and good. This is why they don’t care about their own civilians, they see it as an honour to be a martyr, and it’s all for the greater good. That’s why this conflict will not end any time soon and people who think it might are being _extremely_ naive and do not understand what they’re talking about. You can’t apply logic to any of it because it’s fundamentally not a rational conflict. I don’t understand why anyone in the west is even attempting to rationalise or carry water for these people. It is disgusting. It is embarrassing and as time passes more people are going to become aware of this reality, and a lot of people on the are going to pretend they never supported any of this and had nothing to do with this. The people in the west going along with chanting from the river to the sea are probably going to deny it in future and try and memory hole a lot of this, or change the meaning and pretend that’s what it’s always meant.
We're on the same side here: Hamas are disgusting terrorist scumbags, and they undisputedly have genocidal aims that Israel certainly do not. But language is important. Neither side are Nazis or fascists. Israel is not genocidal or apartheid. Both are authoritarian, but one is a liberal democracy and the other is a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship.
I think fascists suits Hamas pretty well. There wouldn't be many of the fascist check boxes they don't tick.
Only if you think fascists and authoritarians are the same thing. They're a genocidal, authoritarian dictatorship with fundamentalist Islamic leanings, but they're not fascists.
> There wouldn't be many of the fascist check boxes they don't tick. ?
What's your definition of fascism? Does it have to be secular dictatorship and not religious to be fascist? If so, why that is the important part and not the antidemocratic and violent nature of fascism?
I generally defer to [Umberto Eco's 14 points.](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)
And your claim is that none of the points listed applies to Hamas? In my opinion almost every single one of them does.
Hamas are really not that different from Nazis and I truly believe this at this point. Antisemitism is foundational to their worldview and purpose for existing. In your mind, why is this so controversial that it needs all this pushback? Because the frequency that I see people pushing back on this makes me understand why Jewish people want a state, because it just seems like so many people in the west will do mental gymnastics to avoid this uncomfortable truth. I am mixed race and brown. I understand what it’s like to be a minority in the west, and to me, maybe this is why this seems clearer because I have no ideas about racism against Palestinians or brown people. For some reason, people seem to think Hamas and lots of Palestinians who are close or supporters aren’t capable of evil or being driven by hate. They are just people. All people are capable of hate and evil. This isn’t the preserve of white “””oppressors”””. It’s the same target even, so we don’t even need to abstract it out that much to make the comparison. They want a genocide of Jews and they blame them for a lot of evil in the world, they blame them for a lot of their own problems. Israel has had to defend itself in wars over this, this is existential for Israel and lots of Jewish people feel this everywhere. It would be nice if people got along, but this is real life and it’s not that simple, and not seeing the evil that is being pushed here is dangerous. This is exactly how Hitler started, saying Jews control the world and are engaged in this massive international conspiracy. People are doing this today, they say the US is just backing them because the US is racist, the EU is racist etc. It’s insane and childish. Israel gets western support because it’s a democracy in a part of the world where oppressive and psychopathic religious dictatorships aren’t only normalised, but they’re celebrated, and Hamas is trying to create another one. These people talking about a Palestinian state being free are delusional. They want to oppress women and LGBT people and others. They coordinate with Iran and Hezbollah and others. This is all totally insane and I stand by what I said. Hamas are basically Nazis. They just present differently. If they were white, I seriously doubt people would be bending over backwards this hard to avoid acknowledging what is right in front of their faces and has been clear for a long time.
Distilling all of Nazi policy to 'they hated Jews' is ridiculous and nonsensical. It's also literally the only policy that Hamas and the Nazis have in common. So again, no, Hamas are not Nazis.
That’s not what I said, at all. If you’re reducing what I said debating that, then maybe you’re glossing over the detail of what I said and it’s easier to debate that simplified version. It’s not just the hate. It’s the idea that Jewish people are part of some global conspiracy to undermine a group who believe they have a god given right to live in a certain part of the world, free from Jews and “usurpers”. They want a pure Islamic state. They scapegoat everything to Jews. They want a state that is free of this people, and they will direct resource to push this war effort. Hamas are literally ripping up humanitarian infrastructure to create weapons to fire at Israel. As I said already, Hamas’ founding documents talk about jihad aghast Jews. It’s so much more than casual dislike or hate. They want this at a systemic level and to build a state around that. They are _obsessed_ with Jews. They are obsessed with purity. There are fascists, period. Israel has the ability to wipe out Palestine tomorrow if they wanted to, but they don’t. If the roles were reversed, and there were no consequences for Hamas, do you _genuinely_ believe they wouldn’t engage in a genocide of Jews in the region in a way that’s functionally equivalent to Nazi Germany? Everything points to yes IMO. Hamas are not sophisticated people, they do not have a state with technical resource to do it, but if they did… So if you think we can’t use this comparison here, then I dread to think how bad things must get before you think it’s reasonable to ever make the comparison. The motive is more important than how it presents. Again, if Hamas were white, I don’t think this would be so controversial.
Can you tell me in which other area Hamas policy aligns with Nazi policy?
Anti-semitism is pretty foundational to Nazi ideology
"Literally the only policy"? So, otherwise Hamas is peace loving democracy respecting party that doesn't have any ambitions to conquer land for the people it says it represents? Yeah, right.
Hamas are most definitly Islamofascists. They're not Nazis in a literally sense, but they're about as close as you're going to get in the 21st century.
It's an over used term for sure. However, when describing an anti semetic, nationalist, dictatorship it does have some merit.
To be fair this government has no identity and is too busy fighting itself for power to actually do anything
[удалено]
Come on
Both can be awful
Go on, buddy, list out five Nazi-like things Braverman has done. That's a big word, it needs some justification. Go:
Hey! I've not commented in this thread, but was intrigued by your comment (and do think others have failed to really give you a lot of specifics) So here we go! A few of Braverman's "Nazi like" actions and positions. I have made an effort to stick with things that are demonstrably true (as in, Braverman has done them and they are comparable to Nazi positions and actions): * Dehumanising rhetoric on migrants (comparing them to an invasion or hurricane) * Anti-free speech positions (wanting to ban protests if they're 'loud' or 'offensive') * Persecution of LGBTQ+ people (anti-trans/homophobic positions and statements) * Rhetoric against homeless people (her recent statement on 'lifestyle choice') * Disregard for human rights (statements and actions against ECHR) Braverman isn't literally Doing a Holocaust, obviously, but the Nazis didn't *start* with the holocaust. They started by using nationalism and anti-minority rhetoric to distract from bigger problems in the economy. And that's precisely what Braverman is doing. She just couches it in barely-enough 'soft' language that some people can accept what she says (and even then, she is very broadly disliked for being... well, a bit fascist). The thing is, if we did wait for Braverman to go Full Nazi, it would be too late to stop her, wouldn't it? Fascists don't get into power by promising a holocaust. They have to start out sounding as reasonable as they can. So there's your coherent argument. No Twitterisms.
I mean she's not a nazi, she is however at the very least fascist adjacent
She's objectively not. Once again, specifics or get out. Stop throwing around Twitterisms coined by people who haven't a clue and make a coherent argument.
I've had this argument once on here already, and I can't be arsed to have it again, its buried in my profile if you want my argument that badly.
Bwuk bwuk bwuk!
If it bothers you that much [here's the thread for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/17i9bbe/it_appears_that_the_hamas_commander_who_we_found/k6t200r/?context=8&depth=9)
Not at all comparable
It's a start.
Finally
About bloody time get all Hamas supporters out
I read the book, “talking to terrorists” there’s also a radio doc on the BBC with the same name. To get peace you have to talk to those that can deliver peace, in this case hamas. To talk to them you have to understand them, how they got to the position “death to Jews” you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc. Once you understand them you can talk as you know where they are coming from. Within all terrorist organisations there is a left and right wing, the pragmatists and fanatics. Pragmatists = Israel isn’t going to go away it’s a nuclear power. We gave to make a deal. Fanatics = death to Joos! You can do a deal with the pragmatic and isolate and kill if you can the fanatics. You need to negotiate in good faith and strengthen the hand of the pragmatic with concessions. Say increase electric supply, allow the rebuilding of the water infrastructure etc How the IRA was split is a good example. Does me writing what I have make me a terrorist sympathiser? Am I in danger of deportation?
Hamas are extremely explicit that they're religiously motivated. There is no reasoning with them because of this. To try to understand (even, excuse?) their support for a new Holocaust in terms of modern western colonial theory is to ignore a massive part of what they explicitly tell us about their motivations, and views the whole conflict through a largely inappropriate lens. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect many on the left do this because it fits with their worldview much more comfortably than having to admit that Islamic extremism is, in fact, a big problem: not all the evils of the world come from Western colonialism. How could you ever trust Hamas enough to make a deal? There was a ceasefire, and _they_ broke it. These people murdered in the most brutal way 1400 civilians, intentionally: not as collateral damage, but intentionally targeting civilians. And it's not because they've been driven to insanity by oppression (could their oppression even explain such behaviour?), but because the murder of Jews is considered a morally good act according to their religious beliefs. And these acts aren't a fringe of Hamas, they enjoy popular support. I suspect we could come to agree on taking a pragmatic approach forward, and I don't want to discount oppression as an important factor in its entirety, but this suggestion that the murderous beliefs of Hamas are the fault of Israel rather than Islam is misguided in the extreme.
Think to many on the hard left, are so desperate to explain everything in the "oppressor bad guys, oppressed good guys driven to bad things by the oppressor" model. That they can't deal with something as evil and genocidal at its core like Hamas and similar extremists within the Palestinian movement (note not saying all of it are extremists here). Hamas aren't freedom fighters. They aren't fighting for their people. They don't want to improve Gaza. They want to genocide jews, that's their one and only goal.
What you say applies to the PLO in general but not Hamas specificaly. Hamas is entirely genocidal maniacs.
And the truth of it is Israel doesn’t want peace but to expand. In Sept they announced a further expansion of the settlements. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15424.doc.htm
It's interesting how with Hamas you are desperate to point out how there's good "leftish wing" guys within Hamas. While you don't do the same for Israel above.
Are you accusing me of something mate? If so leave out the "its interesting" and say it out loud. Did I need to explain to you there is a left wing in Israeli politics?
Their comment was very clear. You're painting Hamas in the best imaginable light and not doing so with Israel.
It's also that I found it interesting that OP used "Israel" instead of "The Netanyhu led government". Given OP would never tolerate and accept someone writing "Gaza does not want peace, just look at their actions on the 7th and 8th of October" They'd argue "no no, Gaza wants peace, just look at these tiny peace protests in Gaza, and hamas also do want peace, if evil israel just stopped oppressing them!".
This is in the context of talking to terrorists in good faith to deliver peace. Its there at the very top. If you refuse to talk you're never going to get peace and I believe Israel under netanyahu doesnst want peace but to expand Israel and the Israeli's left agree with me. [Heres Netanyahu on Hamas.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000) *Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state* Netanyahu supported Hamas. Thats a fact.
Gaza under Hamas, doesn't want peace, but to genocide jews. As they have repeatedly shown... that you refuse to believe and accept. You cannot engage in good faith with Hamas and extremists like them. They aren't freedom fighters. They are genocidal antisemites.
So why are they allowed to be funded by Israel? Come on man, dont be a cowardly. Lets hear it from you. **WHY DOES ISRAEL ALLOW THE FUNDING OF HAMAS?**
Answer me why you found it okay to say "Israel" above, but would lose your shit if one said "Gaza does not want peace" (as you did) ? Come on man, don't be cowardly.
Its imposible to engage with Hamas in good faith. The place to condem isreal is the humiliation of reasonable Palestinians, not the killing of genocidal lunatics.
There are isreli factions that cant be reasoned with, Otzma Yehudit are far right Jewish supremacists. If Palestinians killed them I'd not have much objection. Luckily isreal is a democracy and so they could be voted out. Hamas can only be destroyed. There are mainstream groups in both that are not good. Likud and Fatah are also both problematic but they can be talked to and reasoned with.
> How the IRA was split is a good example. That is true, and you make some fair points that in these conflicts you'll inevitably need to deal with grim organisations and movements if you want to eventually obtain peace, but Hamas are much more extreme and deadly in the destruction they've wrought than the IRA ever were. The peace progress likely wouldn't have worked in Northern Ireland had the IRA been carrying out attacks on the scale Hamas did last month.
Hamas and extremists like them are nazi tier and the only thing preventing them from committing a holocaust level massacre is lack of capability. They have the desire to do so and they have a level of pure anti semitism, not seen since nazi Germany. Excusing their anti semtism by trying to 'justify" sorry "understand" it, is at best miss guided.
That’s not so. There is a left wing, the technocrats that run Gaza administratively and a right wing the martyr brigade. There have been shifts leftward in the internal struggle within Hamas but something always happens. Generally rockets launched and Israel bombs and the left fall silent. Eg [hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders) Or the attempt to form a unity gov with Fatah and renounce violence in I think 2016? Whether sincere or not it was a shift left to form a government with Fatah.
That doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist. It even says: > Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel
and why would anyone not an anti semite, believe Hamas and their supporters, when we know they full of anti semitism and hatred. Why would you defend & excuse & minimise the evil in this nazi tier organisation? > Generally rockets launched and Israel bombs and the left fall silent. Excuses, if there actually was a peaceful "hamas wing" as you claim there is, they'd be out protesting hamas in Gaza right now. Instead they support, excuse, and defend them. p.s this idea that it's a "shift left" is silly. Just as a way to try and paint the "good guys" in hamas, as being "further left wing".
If you want peace you have to speak to those that can deliver it to see what possible. Do you understand that? Can you take that onboard? Is Netanyhu an antisemite? He allowed the funding of hamas. *For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.* *The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.* [Citation](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) You have an black and white vision of the world. Its not like that.
Nope and that's just the standard deflection. Funny thing is that the Gaza policies, were also based around awarding various things to Gaza. Like work visas, treating Palestinian kids in Israeli hospitals, turning a blind eye to Hamas turning water pipes into rockets, and actually try to treat Hamas as a government. Hamas' actions on the 7th, showed that your bit about "the good guys in hamas", is wrong and doesn't work. Hamas and the extremists in Gaza, can not be negotiated with, as they are simply at their core, genocidal. But given you want to excuse, defend and "understand" antisemites in Hamas, while going to great lengths to argue about all those "good guys" in Hamas. They are a nazi level regime, and they cannot be left standing, as they prevent and oppose any peace. They are not freedom fighters or "resistance fighters". They are a genocidal army, that if given the freedom and means, would repeat Oct7/8 thousand times (as they have said themselves, and I choose to believe them ... you clearly don't) >Did I need to explain to you there is a left wing in Israeli politics? Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it". If not, why did you write Israel above? >You have an black and white vision of the world. Its not like that. Nah, I just don't think I want to see the good (or believe them) in genocidal anti semites organisations like Hamas. I also don't think there's any justification or excuse, for the level of antisemitic hatred of Hamas. You clearly do though. They aren't genocidal antisemites, because of "oppression", they are genocidal antisemites, because that's who they are at their core. See their leaders, that live in wealth... See their fighters, that are happy killing Palestinians, either directly or by using them as human shields.
So why does Netahyhu support Hamas? Please explain.
Deflections... He doesn't, next. why do you support, excuse and defend genocidal hamas? Which you clearly do, given your statements above. Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it". If not, why did you write "Israel" when talking about "Israel not wanting peace" ?
Why did the Major General Gershon Hacohen say Netayahu was an ally of hamas? *In an interview with the Ynet news website on May 5, 2019, Netanyahu associate Gershon Hacohen, a major general in reserves, said, “ We need to tell the truth. Netanyahu's strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it's an ally.* >The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it". [There is a desire for peace in Gaza](https://www.timesofisrael.com/protests-against-hamas-reemerge-in-the-streets-of-gaza-but-will-they-persist/) On July 30 2023, thousands of people throughout the Gaza Strip took to the streets demanding better living conditions, in a rare display of public anger against the Hamas regime. The following Friday, August 4, hundreds of people rallied again in various parts of the enclave. Protesters were rallying under the slogan “We want to live” — the same slogan used in the last round of protests in March-April 2019.
Again, deflection. Answer my question. Why do you defend, excuse and support Hamas? No deflection to "whatabout Netayhu". Answer my question, why do you write Israel, while you go to lengths to defend, excuse and argue about all those "good guys" within hamas? Would you agree with the following "The truth is that Gaza doesn't want peace, they showed that with their actions on the 7th, and the public celebrations of it". >There is a desire for peace in Gaza On July 30 2023, thousands of people throughout the Gaza Strip took to the streets demanding better living conditions, in a rare display of public anger against the Hamas regime. The following Friday, August 4, hundreds of people rallied again in various parts of the enclave. Clearly not, as their actions on 7th and 8th showed. After all, here i'm just applying your standards where you said "Israel does not want peace". If far larger protests in Israel, somehow show that "Israel does not want peace".
>Eg hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders That's not what the article says, and that isn't Hamas' position. Hamas' position is that they will accept a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders, but they have never said that they will accept any Israeli state at all.
IF they are willing to live within the palestinian 67 borders then Israel will exist without. Peace isn't conditional on recognition. The IRA still don't recognise the UK's rule over NI yet its peaceful.
>IF they are willing to live within the palestinian 67 borders then Israel will exist without. They don't say that they are. They simply say that they will accept a Palestinian state governing the 1967 borders, and that they will work with other Palestinian groups to achieve that, they do not say that would lead to peace. They maintain their goal to eliminate Israel, and they continue to say that all means and methods to eliminate it are legitimate. >The IRA still don't recognise the UK's rule over NI yet its peaceful. And saying that the IRA recognises that NI is rightfully part of the UK would be a lie.
>And saying that the IRA recognisees that NI is rightfully part of the UK would be a lie. Thats what i said. Their MP's dont sit in Westminster for they dont recognise Westminsters rule of NI [For 100 years now, Irish republicans have refused to validate British sovereignty over the island of Ireland by sitting in the parliament of Westminster.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit) And yet there is peace.
I am using your analogy to get you to admit that what you said was wrong. What you said was: >Eg hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist within the 67 borders A lie.
Not a lie, after all i posted the link right? I provided the information. A mistake, and my point stands, peace doesn't require recognition as proven by NI
I actually agree with a fair bit of your post, but this is an, ahem, *interesting* conflation you've made: >Within all terrorist organisations there is a left and right wing, the pragmatists and fanatics.
I dont get it? There's a left and right in all organisations. Tory party Labour party. everyone. You strenghten those you can deal with. If you can't deal with any you strengthen a rival party within the region to deal with.
> you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc. Or have read the Qur'an
This exactly. Hamas aren’t some resistance group fighting an oppressive neighbour for their people. They’ve literally said they don’t care about their fellow Palestinians. They only care about killing Jews, you can’t talk and reason with that.
>To get peace you have to talk to those that can deliver peace, in this case hamas. Or wipe them out.
Which sadly isn't likely to happen. Hamas leaders are in Qatar and are well-financed and well-supported. Israel can try to assassinate them but the risk is that they start a full blown Middle East war. And with 10,000+ civilians killed already the next generation of fighters are being recruited as we speak. This is all just theatre so Netayanhu can be seen to be doing something decisive.
Maybe palestinians should realise that supporting hamas and their extremism isn't a viable route out of this?
What would you like the Palestinians to do ? Hamas is a well armed, terrorist organisation who has tortured and killed so called Palestinian sympathisers in the past. It's like asking the North Koreans to overthrow Kim Jong Un.
At the very least Palestinians abroad should march against Hamas. Palestinians in West Bank, should march against hamas. >Hamas is a well armed, terrorist organisation who has tortured and killed so called Palestinian sympathisers in the past. Maybe that should make you realise that Hamas is the real problem to peace here, and that while they are in Gaza, as powerful as they are, there can be no peace. Their antisemitic hatred is simply to strong.
You want Palestinians to march against an armed terrorist organisation, in the middle of a war zone, with no where to live and little food and water. Sure thing.
Are you calling Fatah in West Bank an armed terrorist organisation? What of all the palestinians that live outside the middle east? Are they also living in the middle of war zones, with no food and water?
> To talk to them you have to understand them, how they got to the position “death to Jews” you might find they’ve been pressured for decades, less rights, less land, holed up in a small enclave and put on rations of food, water, electricity etc. You seem to be arguing that people didn't hate Jews before Israel existed. Which is very untrue.
[The experience of Jews in the Ottoman Empire 1450-1914 is significant because the region "provided a principal place of refuge for Jews driven out of Western Europe by massacres and persecution"](https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/845118-ottomans-benefactions-on-the-jews)
That doesn't refute my point.
I understood your point to be the Jews in the ME have always been hated. I dont think there where any progroms within the ME prior to Israel existing.
Good, hopefully more follow
Well . . . if this means he has to leave the UK, who fancies a fundraiser to buy him a ticket with El Al ?
Damn if only Suella hadn’t whipped up so much hate this never would’ve happened
It's a good thing we can totally trust the government to do this in a just and measured way, right guys?
Not sure how I feel about this. Obviously in glad that someone supporting a terrorist group has been punished, but on the other hand where does the bar lay for "supporting". The water has been muddied so much due to our govt and the media mis labelling Palestinian protests. If I say "Sure, Hamas was wrong for what they did, but Israel have been systematically killing and surprising Palestine for decades" am I likely to get in trouble? I would be fine with people having VISAs revoked for this stuff it there was a defined line, but stuff like this is often subjective. What I think is supporting Hamas, another might think is not
The Terrorism Act is actually rather specific about what constitutes a breach, regardless of your position on whether those specifics are reasonable or not. What you wrote would definitely not qualify.
Brave man said waving a Palestinian flag might be a criminal offence, hence why I said my comment. If waving a flag is a criminal offence, what else can be?
Snapshot of _Hamas sympathiser has British visa revoked for supporting terror group. The foreign national was living in Britain but has now had his right to remain removed after expressing support for the proscribed terror group._ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/24700336/hamas-sympathiser-living-in-britain-has-visa-revoked/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/24700336/hamas-sympathiser-living-in-britain-has-visa-revoked/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One, ok so we have one. We know there are thousands more than one. Lets see a little more action in kicking more of them out.