←back to thread

517 points xbar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.377s | source
Show context
locallost ◴[] No.39148816[source]
My views on the situation aside, the clearest I saw anyone communicate the issues from a global angle was the former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin

Translated here: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246

Viewed from the angle of the West, I think the message it needs to avoid isolating itself from the world is very unusual for Western media and important.

Quote:

"Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers."

And

"This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle."

replies(6): >>39148909 #>>39148934 #>>39148966 #>>39149209 #>>39150381 #>>39151344 #
megous ◴[] No.39151344[source]
"Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation."

Lost me there, because this is not the framing that matches reality. There were several instances where Hamas was willing to form unity government with Fatah/PLO, to share power, negotiate, to do things like that. It's first and foremost a national liberation movement. The movement itself would not even exist had not been for the occupation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_reconcilia...

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

I didn't read further, because assuming lack of negotiation, lack of pragmatism, of being able to participate in politics semi-normally, etc. is just a crucial point.

Especially while not recognizing intense pressure by the West for this political process to not exist, to suppress it, for it to fail. If you suppress politics, you get violent conflict eventually.

replies(2): >>39151758 #>>39153400 #
locallost ◴[] No.39153400[source]
He says exactly the same. There were in the past, but not today. He says the same thing for Israel - switched from secular to biblical and thus unable to compromise.
replies(1): >>39155685 #
1. megous ◴[] No.39155685[source]
I think why Israel's current government will not compromise is very pragmatic. It failed too badly in preventing this escalation, and has little support. Look at those numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_I...

Netanyahu is basically done and gone. His only hold on power is continuing the extermination campaign against Hamas and their families, until some miracle reversal in the polling numbers. His only mandate currently is for the "war".

Additionally, Israel doesn't need to compromise, due to large amount of outside support (in the form of material and political (vetoes in UN SC, etc.) support for its extermination campaign, and the sanctions against Hamas), and due to the massive power difference between it and Hamas.

Biblical stuff is largely a smokescreen/justification for pragmatic matters as far as government/politics goes. And maybe some ideological food for non-secular reserve soldiers to be more willing to go get maimed in Gaza.

How did it turn biblical, with 45% of Israeli Jews being secular, and 27% of population not being Jewish?