Is Hamas an Israeli glow-op to create a constant "cassus belli" for slaughtering civilians, or a legitimate resistance movement? Genuine question. I was reading this exchange in another thread:
>>2459253>>2459263>>2459340>>2459344>>2459347>>2459348>>2459359and both these anons seem to be talking past each other. Which one of them is correct?
On the one hand I have read articles like [pic 1 related] saying Israel encouraged Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO.
On the other hand I see maps like [pic 2 related] saying that really only the 1st world imperialist countries really see Hamas as "terrorists" and the rest of the world views them as legit resistance.
I am leaning towards the idea that Hamas is legitimate resistance, but I also remember ISIS turning out to be a glow op [pic 3 related] and it's not the first time I've seen suspicious acts of terrorism that may have been false flags used as a cassus belli to destroy nations [pic 4/5 related]
>>2459841it was category A and it moved towards category B
islamism was supported in gaza starting in the 70s to divide the west bank from the gaza politically. At first the sunni islamists being astroturfed were politically quietists so they were very useful, but israel continued shoveling them resources even after they became adversaries.
>"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas The “Israeli support for Hamas” meme is a myth. So far there have been two histories of Hamas, one by Azzam Tamimi and the other by Tariq Baconi. Neither found credible evidence that Hamas ever received funds or weapons from Israel.
Islamism in Palestine goes back to the 1920s and 30s. Some of the first people to take up arms against Israel were from Islamic groups (such as Izz al-Din al-Qassam). Fateh itself came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. Arafat was a member of one of the Brotherhood’s youth wings, while Salah Khalaf and Abu Jihad were both members of the Brotherhood. Fateh splitting out was a source of bad blood between the Islamic movements combined with Arafat’s friendly relationship with Nasser. Many Arab nationalists at the time and the PFLP were fanatically pro-Nasser and saw Islam as something backward, maybe a mark of Arab greatness but not a worthwhile belief system. Because Muslims were excluded, they had to create their own Islamic political movement otherwise they probably would have been integrated into the rest of the political spectrum.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad split out of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza because the Brotherhood didn’t support armed resistance. Having been crushed by Nasser and with no weapons, the Brotherhood more or less thought confronting Israel was suicide. Ahmad Yasmin and Shiqaqi thought otherwise. The reason Hamas outgrew the PLO was because none of the PLO factions had any presence in the occupied territories. But the Islamic charities and welfare groups were well established and popular there. They also had a very powerful Palestine wide students union. Then you have the PLO’s corruption problem.
When Hamas started its armed campaign against Israel, their armed wing had a bunch of knives, axes, and a stolen sub machine gun. Yassin was thrown in prison in 1983, if he was an Israeli agent he wouldn’t have achieved anything. If Israel was backing Hamas in the 70s and 80s they were doing a shit job.
The claim Hamas was created by Israel comes from a misinterpretation of comments Avner Cohen gave to the Walls Street Journel. Cohen basically said “we unwittingly allowed Hamas to happen because we didn’t crush the Islamists sooner” etc. it’s like blaming yourself for getting an infestation of roaches in your house. Cohen isn’t saying “yeah we gave Hamas money and weapons.” All educational establishments and charities in occupied Gaza had to get a permit from the Israelis to operate. Cohen is saying, “if we didn’t let those fuckers have their permits they wouldn’t be killing us today.”
The “Hamas was backed by Israel” narrative was peddled by Fateh and leftists because they don’t want to admit Hamas is popular. Instead of addressing their own corruption and failures, they’d rather have everyone believe Israel is the cause of their lack of popularity. Out simply, Fateh and the left factions never had a platform they could deliver on and they were notoriously corrupt. They were too rooted in the refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon and neglected people inside occupied Palestine. Islamism skyrocketed because Hamas and PIJ didn’t have these problems.
>>2460296Hamas: A History From Within and Hamas: The Unwritten Chapters by Azzam Tamimi
Hamas Contained by Tareq Baconi
>>2460148>Cohen isn’t saying “yeah we gave Hamas money and weapons.” All educational establishments and charities in occupied Gaza had to get a permit from the Israelis to operate. Cohen is saying, “if we didn’t let those fuckers have their permits they wouldn’t be killing us today.” Good post, well researched. This is just supposition on my part, but I could believe Israel thought allowing Hamas to operate (or the Islamic charities and schools that helped Hamas develop a social base) would be aligned in some way with their interests because they weren't actively engaged in the kind of warfare they would do later, more "these are conservative religious types" in comparison to the secular-nationalist PLO which was Israel's primary enemy at the time. That's a whole different thing from Hamas being some kind of Israeli glowop. These kinds of conspiracy theories result from some kind of misfire in logical reasoning. The Jews also built up a military force in British-mandated Palestine under the noses of the British authorities, which did not like it and would regularly attempt to seize hidden arms caches, but also practiced divide-and-rule tactics and would also allow the Jews to operate their own police force in their own areas. Israel wasn't simply a British creation as some say, rather the Jews kind of (my reading) were playing the Brits and trying to "beat the system" to prepare for when the time to strike was right.
>>2460396>Funded by them to create chaosThe PLO was plenty "chaotic," or at least some of the more radical factions like the PFLP which won the gold medal in scaring the hoes.
>>2460550you are not angry at the palestinian genocide because you
are overconfident want to have sex with your mother and suck off your father
you’re welcome for the internet psychoanalysis
>>2459841Intelligence agencies have always attempted to divide and conquer by suppressing some opposition movements and tolerating or amplifying others. That's how it works.
'Legitimacy' is just a point of view. But if in your eyes the only 'legitimate' resistance movements are those which intelligence agencies don't meddle in, you're going to have a bad time.
>>2460425>"these are conservative religious types" in comparison to the secular-nationalist PLO which was Israel's primary enemy at the time.Yes. The Begin plan was to integrate Palestinians as an Arab minority inside a greater Israel. They genuinely believed the PLO was the source of militant nationalism, and by isolating/destroying them the problem would go away. Palestinians in the territories could then be seduced into accepting limited autonomy within Israel. So they allowed for civil institutions, charities, and clubs to multiply, as long as they weren’t PLO affiliated. This simply backfired as most of these organizations wound up being even more anti-Israel than the PLO. That’s what led to Oslo. Bring in the PLO to police Palestinians to offset the first intifada and the Islamic groups. The plan might have worked if the Israelis hadn’t been so craven and supremacist in what they were offering. You can see liberal Zionists continuing something like Begin’s plan, but sacrificing the West Bank and Gaza because in their minds it would lead to too many non-Jews with voting power to undo the Jewish state.
>Israel wasn't simply a British creation as some say, rather the Jews kind of (my reading) were playing the Brits and trying to "beat the system" to prepare for when the time to strike was right.Yes, there’s a lot of truth to that. The Balfour declaration only promised a “national home.” While many senior British officials and leaders were sympathetic to the Zionists, others were more pragmatic. After the Arab revolt of the 30s, the British issued a policy paper in 1939 that restricted Jewish immigration and gave some concessions to the Arabs.There were some senior British policymakers who even floated the idea of tearing up the Balfour declaration. This is what led to the creation of Irgun and violence between Jewish militias and the British army. A Jewish state was a possibility but it wasn’t a guarantee and Ben Gurion had to play his cards right.
Unique IPs: 16