Not just propping up, getting them into power in the first place. Israel manipulated the elections in Gaza to ensure that Hamas came to power so that they’d be able to frame their fight as being against extremists instead of the more reasonable who had been opposing Hamas (the name escapes me at the moment).
Fatah. Fatah agreed to a two-state solution and peaceful negotiation, and the Israeli prime minister got assassinated by far-right Zionist loons for his trouble. Ever since, every attempt by Fatah at good-faith negotiation has ended up as demands from Israel for a demonstration of fealty, followed by Israel not following through on its obligations anyway. For obvious reasons, this severely damaged Fatah’s credibility.
Also, Fatah is either hilariously or sickeningly corrupt, depending on whether you feel like laughing or crying on the given day. Hamas used that to worm their way in too, though now they’re no less corrupt.
Hamas has performed charity. But that’s not the same as being a charity - their express purpose from their founding has been the destruction of the state of Israel.
That’s in reference to Islamist predecessors of Hamas, not the org itself. I’m speaking of Hamas after its founding, which Israel has spent decades funding
Back in '98, which that article discusses, Hamas was not in control of Gaza. This started long before Hamas was a serious contender to Fatah’s dominion over Palestinian politics.
Not sure that setting up an enemy for the explicit purpose of using them to harm civilians, and then harming civilians in the process of taking them down, is really freeing anybody. As far as Israel’s actions more than a week or two past October 7 go, I’m disinclined to give them any sort of ‘credit’ for anything except the slaughter they’re overseeing.
Man, Israel has spent years propping up Hamas.
Not just propping up, getting them into power in the first place. Israel manipulated the elections in Gaza to ensure that Hamas came to power so that they’d be able to frame their fight as being against extremists instead of the more reasonable who had been opposing Hamas (the name escapes me at the moment).
Fatah. Fatah agreed to a two-state solution and peaceful negotiation, and the Israeli prime minister got assassinated by far-right Zionist loons for his trouble. Ever since, every attempt by Fatah at good-faith negotiation has ended up as demands from Israel for a demonstration of fealty, followed by Israel not following through on its obligations anyway. For obvious reasons, this severely damaged Fatah’s credibility.
Also, Fatah is either hilariously or sickeningly corrupt, depending on whether you feel like laughing or crying on the given day. Hamas used that to worm their way in too, though now they’re no less corrupt.
Because hamas was originally a charity
… when do you think Hamas was a charity?
Hamas has performed charity. But that’s not the same as being a charity - their express purpose from their founding has been the destruction of the state of Israel.
It started off as a charity organisation, which is why Israel funded them. Though it’s more likely Israel funded them since they opposed the PLO
That’s in reference to Islamist predecessors of Hamas, not the org itself. I’m speaking of Hamas after its founding, which Israel has spent decades funding
Because Hamas is the only avenue for aid to be received in Gaza.
You can argue UNRWA, but Hamas has ties to them as well.
Back in '98, which that article discusses, Hamas was not in control of Gaza. This started long before Hamas was a serious contender to Fatah’s dominion over Palestinian politics.
Until recently, yes.
Not sure that setting up an enemy for the explicit purpose of using them to harm civilians, and then harming civilians in the process of taking them down, is really freeing anybody. As far as Israel’s actions more than a week or two past October 7 go, I’m disinclined to give them any sort of ‘credit’ for anything except the slaughter they’re overseeing.