There is a huge difference between a conventional terrorist and Hamas. The latter has committed itself to eliminating all jews from the region. It has also demonstrated numerous times that it is totally committed to that goal. October 7th showed that. You cannot be at peace with people who maintain that view. Dropping it needs to be a precondition. When the PLO accepted that Israel could exist a peace deal followed very quickly. If Hamas revised its charter and accepted Israel's existence a peace deal might follow, but it is difficult to know whether to trust Hamas. Their behaviour in the past two years suggests not.
Isreal withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas took control in 2007. Despite this total withdrawal Hamas has continued to attach Israel from Gaza, targeting civilians more than the military.
Based on this experience how likely is it that Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank would also lead to peace. How would you guaranteed that? Would you continue to tolerate Hamas attacking Israeli civilians from the West Bank but condemn all attempts by Israel to respond to these attacks. Any response to Hamas guarantees major civilian casualiies because they intention used civilians as human shields.
You seem to think Hamas should not be pressured to change its approach while Israel should be.
Your approach effectively ensures that Hamas will continue the same strategy and place Palestinian lives at risk.
While you are well meaning this is well beyond your pay grade. You really need to educate yourself about this complex war before spouting off.
A few facts there that are contentious, for one Israel did withdrew in 2005 from Gaza, but short afterwards impose a cruel blockade. Hamas didn't just take over, they won the elections. In fact they are more legitimate than the PLO.
Hamas further did change their charter in 2017 and at one stage support a two state solution, acknowledging a Palestinian state, but stopping short of recognising Israel. When George Bush was told to negotiate with the PLO, he famously said "we don't negotiate with terrorists", Hamas won the subsequent election, shortly afterwards Israel and the US Prevented a vote in the West Bank from going on and since then tried to instigate a coup d'etat and continue a very cruel blockade that includes tactics such as limiting their food on a calorie restrictive diet.
It's not difficult to see how this type of treatment led to the creation of Hamas (that Israel originally funded to try and undermine the PLO).
Israel has also on numerous occasions "taken out the weeds", in 2023 for example Israeli gangs went on the streets and beat up Palestinian prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque and up to 47 Palestinian children were killed by snipers in 2023 alone. In 2018 Gazans had a non violent protest and they were gunned down by Israeli Soldiers,
the list of aggressions by Hamas is just as long and books can be written about them.
But what stands out is that this latest uprising was entirely provoked and predictable, the only unpredictable nature was the scope of what occured.
The point here is that the conflict has never been one sided and Israel is not an innocent victim under attack. In fact it's had an active policy of propping up Hamas and provoking conflict, only so it can "take out the weeds again" as Netanyahu admitted in 2019.
As for the story about "human shields" (under the strict international law definition of civilians being in the line of fire) has never been verified by independent sources. I actually wrote an article about it not long ago and cited a list of independent journalist and organizations that severely doubt that claim.
It's a type of black propaganda and even if they were used, then under the Geneva Convention Israel has a responsibility to take care of them.
I note that you focus on one claim which is difficult to prove, and ignore all the other atrocities which cannot be denied because Hamas filmed them and proudly broadcast the footage. These fact should tell you everything you need about Hamas. And yet you focus on once very specific claim. What about all the babies killed, the women raped, the houses set on fire to burn the occupants?
I note you also don't mention the one case where Israel was accused of deliberately bombing a hospital, which was false. There is definitely a pattern here where you are inclined to believe a Palestinian source but disbelieve a pro-Israeli source.
Your response to October 7th is to me a clear indication of you bias.
This does not surprise me as South Africans are generally very anti-semitic, especially Afrikaaners. We all know which side they supported during WWII. You would have hoped there would be some shame in this respect.
a lot of respond there, but firstly it's a stretch to accuse me of anti-Semitism given that I have jews in my family. Criticism of Israel does not equal antisemitisms.
But as for the source of the beheaded babies, even the journalist actually withdraw that statement, it was just classical propaganda.
The human shield tactic referred to by Israel is where Hamas embeds in militants and weapons amongst civilians or in tunnels under civilian buildings. This may not conform to your definition, but it makes it impossible for the militants and their weapons to be targeted without harming civilians. When this is combined with attacks launched against Israeli civilians, this can only result in civilian casualties, unless Israel chooses not to respond to these attacks. Is that what you expect? Is that reasonable?
Independent observers have questioned those claims numerous times and ready the Amnesty Report, they questioned the entire legitimacy of it.
The definition that I use is consistent in international law and that is also part of the propaganda here, definitions are being stretched to justify atrocities. The US senate even went as far as to just accept the claim without evidence.
It's not entirely reasonable for Israel to bomb civilians in hospitals, especially since the evidence provided is of a poor quality. They have for example refused independent inquiries and the last time that the UN did it under the Goldstone Commissions, they again couldn't find any evidence of war crimes. Netanyahu refused to endorsed the report and Goldstone was attacked heavily.
The point cannot be stretched enough, making claims of this nature, without evidence, is not just dangerous but serves the war narrative. All nations engage in propaganda during war and it's completely reasonable to ask for accuracy, especially from the aggressor.
Are you seriously claiming that Hamas does not fight from civilian areas and buildings? That it does not have tunnels under these areas? And that if they do this is not intentional and does not place civilians at risk?
Why would Israel target civilians when this causes so much problem for itself?
Conversely, why would Hamas stop these tactics when it gains so much from them.
I don’t think you appreciate the extent to which you are part of the problem, making resolving this problem more difficult.
Why? Because you totally support Hamas’s approach.
Because of this the blood of Palestinians is on your hands.
There is no way that Israel can or should simply allow Hamas to continue attacking Israel until it ceases to exist.
"I, along with every other reporter I know who has worked in Gaza, have never seen any evidence that Hamas uses civilians as “human shields.” Ironically, there is evidence of the Israeli military using Palestinians as human shields, which Israel’s High Court deemed illegal in 2005."
As for Hamas using tunnels etc, again even if they do, Israel, under International Law has the responsibility to protect civilians and it is clearly not doing so, in fact it is indiscriminately bombing at the moment without even providing any evidence. Human shields are defined as civilians being used in the line of fire. That is not occuring - fact,.
Hamas 2017 statement did not reject or superced its founding charter. This was intentional. It was simply an effort to give one palatable message to the west while not changing its goals. It continues to tells its supporters and fighters that the goal is ejection of all jews from the region, with any compromise short of that being entirely tactical.
Calling October 7th predictable and provoked is quite a stretch. If it was provoked why were Israel taken by surprise? Why had there been no significant military exchange for many months? Israel had been loosening restrictions on Gaza and had increased the number of Gaza residents able to travel into Israel. It believed that Hamas had become reasonable. This was all a ruse by Gaza to convince Israel that it had stopped wanting to attack Israeli civilians so that it could focus on the well-being of Gaza civilians.
Clearly Israel cannot trust the Gaza authorities again. October the 7th shows that negotiation is not a viable option.
Israel blockades of Gaza began in response to the threat by Hamas to Israel. From the outset Gaza was a launching pad for attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings and later missiles. It is true that Netanyahu supported Hamas and benefitted from their refusal to accept Israel. However that does not justify what Hamas does. It is a reason to criticise Netanyahu - which I have been doing since he was first elected Primer Minister and started obstructing the peace process.
Hamas embeds itself and its weapons in civilian building and in tunnels under civilian buildings. It only allows members of Hamas to use these tunnels. There are no shelters for civilians. It hoards food, water, and fuel for itself while allowing civilians to starve.
It has developed a very effective strategy which exploit gross double standards in the west, where little is expected of Hamas while Israel is expected to comply with western values.
You obviously have not made any effort to find out about what Hamas did on October the 7th when it entered Israel. The level of depravity and cruelty was reminiscent of or worse than the Nazis. One difference was that the fighters were clearly proud of and enjoying what they did. This is all documented by themselves. It is inconceivable that Israelis would commit the same crimes in Gaza and be applauded for this by Israel's supporters.
This moral asymmetry is ignored. I am sure you know that the IDF could eliminate ever last Gaza inhabitant within a few hours without a single IDF soldier being harmed. It would never do this. Can anyone doubt that Hamas would do this if it had the same capability?
No once is claiming that Israel is 'innocent' with respect to the Palestine conflict. What we are arguing is that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and that civilian casualties that result from Hamas embedding itself amongst civilians are tragic but inevitable.
We are also arguing that Israel, once it has neutralised Hamas, must make more attempt to facilitate a Palestinian State and remove its settlers from the west bank to enable this. As long as Hamas's genocidal tactics get support from across the world and Israel gets condemned from trying to defend itself, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to support any Palestinian State.
The article is a bit long to respond to every point, but briefly, Stephen Walt wrote an excellent article as this conflict broke out. To suggest that it wasn't provoked is just ridiculous. Yes in the strict legal sense it wasn't provoked, but you cannot ignore Israeli crimes in the build up of this conflict, the amount of PAlestinians under torture and the death of many children at the hand of Israeli Snipers. It's a mental gymnastics.
"We are also arguing that Israel, once it has neutralised Hamas, must make more attempt to facilitate a Palestinian State and remove its settlers from the west bank to enable this. As long as Hamas's genocidal tactics get support from across the world and Israel gets condemned from trying to defend itself, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to support any Palestinian State."
Israel has no intention to establish a Palestinian state, at least not the Likkud Party whose own charter is basically a Hebrew Version of the Hamas Charter saying clearly "from the river to the sea". What it wasn't is a continual annexation of the West Bank and even some have argued for a reoccupation of Gaza.
"No once is claiming that Israel is 'innocent' with respect to the Palestine conflict. What we are arguing is that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and that civilian casualties that result from Hamas embedding itself amongst civilians are tragic but inevitable."
Israel has gone beyond "self defense", they have by now actively bombed hospitals (more than one), flattened university, and attacked refugee camps. More than 1 million Gazans have been displaced from their home and many Israeli officials have even shown intention for ethnic cleansing .
It's such an obvious the Geneva convention, violation international law (that the ICC rules does apply to Gaza) and furthermore Israel doesn't even recognise conventions on torture etc, there are .
Yes, it was “unprovoked” in the narrow legal sense that Israel wasn’t about to attack Gaza, which might justify preemption by Hamas. But it was surely “provoked” in the commonsense meaning of the term—that is, as a violent response to the conditions that Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere have faced for decades—even if Hamas’s willingness to deliberately attack civilians in particularly brutal ways is cruel, indefensible, and quite possibly counterproductive.
"Calling October 7th predictable and provoked is quite a stretch. If it was provoked why were Israel taken by surprise? Why had there been no significant military exchange for many months? Israel had been loosening restrictions on Gaza and had increased the number of Gaza residents able to travel into Israel. It believed that Hamas had become reasonable. This was all a ruse by Gaza to convince Israel that it had stopped wanting to attack Israeli civilians so that it could focus on the well-being of Gaza civilians."
Israeli restrictions on Gaza was actually intensified, and for what it is worth, the Palestinians are used to pick up stretch and work on Israel's construction camp. Often they have to work for years to be able to afford a home, only so that a settler can kick them out again. (read the testimony of those in the west bank).
I am actually quite familiar with the awful things happening on the West Bank. My son is journalist and has reported from there. He has links with West Bank journalists. The situation is unacceptable and I strongly support pressure on Israel to change its policies and work towards a two state solution. My concern is that what has happened in Gaza, and the worlds response to it (condemning Israel) has made any policy change more difficult. Many Israeli's and jews elsewhere fear that the West Bank would become a giant Gaza controlled by militants.An important reason to support Israel's attempt to neutralise the military threat of Hamas in Gaza is to reassure Israelis that, should they vacate the West Bank, and should a Hamas-like group emerges determined to eliminate Israel, the West would support Israel in defending itself.
I just want to commend the way you have debated this fraught issue. You have been very logical and restrained. I have been quite angry at times and made provocative comments and you have ignored them. Apologies and well done!
There is a huge difference between a conventional terrorist and Hamas. The latter has committed itself to eliminating all jews from the region. It has also demonstrated numerous times that it is totally committed to that goal. October 7th showed that. You cannot be at peace with people who maintain that view. Dropping it needs to be a precondition. When the PLO accepted that Israel could exist a peace deal followed very quickly. If Hamas revised its charter and accepted Israel's existence a peace deal might follow, but it is difficult to know whether to trust Hamas. Their behaviour in the past two years suggests not.
Isreal withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas took control in 2007. Despite this total withdrawal Hamas has continued to attach Israel from Gaza, targeting civilians more than the military.
Based on this experience how likely is it that Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank would also lead to peace. How would you guaranteed that? Would you continue to tolerate Hamas attacking Israeli civilians from the West Bank but condemn all attempts by Israel to respond to these attacks. Any response to Hamas guarantees major civilian casualiies because they intention used civilians as human shields.
You seem to think Hamas should not be pressured to change its approach while Israel should be.
Your approach effectively ensures that Hamas will continue the same strategy and place Palestinian lives at risk.
While you are well meaning this is well beyond your pay grade. You really need to educate yourself about this complex war before spouting off.
A few facts there that are contentious, for one Israel did withdrew in 2005 from Gaza, but short afterwards impose a cruel blockade. Hamas didn't just take over, they won the elections. In fact they are more legitimate than the PLO.
Hamas further did change their charter in 2017 and at one stage support a two state solution, acknowledging a Palestinian state, but stopping short of recognising Israel. When George Bush was told to negotiate with the PLO, he famously said "we don't negotiate with terrorists", Hamas won the subsequent election, shortly afterwards Israel and the US Prevented a vote in the West Bank from going on and since then tried to instigate a coup d'etat and continue a very cruel blockade that includes tactics such as limiting their food on a calorie restrictive diet.
It's not difficult to see how this type of treatment led to the creation of Hamas (that Israel originally funded to try and undermine the PLO).
Israel has also on numerous occasions "taken out the weeds", in 2023 for example Israeli gangs went on the streets and beat up Palestinian prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque and up to 47 Palestinian children were killed by snipers in 2023 alone. In 2018 Gazans had a non violent protest and they were gunned down by Israeli Soldiers,
https://thegrayzone.com/2018/03/31/israel-massacres-unarmed-gaza-protesters-shooting-773-with-live-ammunition/
the list of aggressions by Hamas is just as long and books can be written about them.
But what stands out is that this latest uprising was entirely provoked and predictable, the only unpredictable nature was the scope of what occured.
The point here is that the conflict has never been one sided and Israel is not an innocent victim under attack. In fact it's had an active policy of propping up Hamas and provoking conflict, only so it can "take out the weeds again" as Netanyahu admitted in 2019.
As for the story about "human shields" (under the strict international law definition of civilians being in the line of fire) has never been verified by independent sources. I actually wrote an article about it not long ago and cited a list of independent journalist and organizations that severely doubt that claim.
It's a type of black propaganda and even if they were used, then under the Geneva Convention Israel has a responsibility to take care of them.
https://hkrugertjie.substack.com/p/dealing-with-war-propaganda
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders
on Hamas's 2017 updated charter
Did you actually read this article?
I note that you focus on one claim which is difficult to prove, and ignore all the other atrocities which cannot be denied because Hamas filmed them and proudly broadcast the footage. These fact should tell you everything you need about Hamas. And yet you focus on once very specific claim. What about all the babies killed, the women raped, the houses set on fire to burn the occupants?
I note you also don't mention the one case where Israel was accused of deliberately bombing a hospital, which was false. There is definitely a pattern here where you are inclined to believe a Palestinian source but disbelieve a pro-Israeli source.
Your response to October 7th is to me a clear indication of you bias.
This does not surprise me as South Africans are generally very anti-semitic, especially Afrikaaners. We all know which side they supported during WWII. You would have hoped there would be some shame in this respect.
a lot of respond there, but firstly it's a stretch to accuse me of anti-Semitism given that I have jews in my family. Criticism of Israel does not equal antisemitisms.
But as for the source of the beheaded babies, even the journalist actually withdraw that statement, it was just classical propaganda.
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/11/beheaded-israeli-babies-settler-wipe-out-palestinian/
In fact baby stories are widely used in war, and almost always false.
https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/hugo-kruger-on-the-middle-east-propaganda-and-media
The human shield tactic referred to by Israel is where Hamas embeds in militants and weapons amongst civilians or in tunnels under civilian buildings. This may not conform to your definition, but it makes it impossible for the militants and their weapons to be targeted without harming civilians. When this is combined with attacks launched against Israeli civilians, this can only result in civilian casualties, unless Israel chooses not to respond to these attacks. Is that what you expect? Is that reasonable?
Independent observers have questioned those claims numerous times and ready the Amnesty Report, they questioned the entire legitimacy of it.
The definition that I use is consistent in international law and that is also part of the propaganda here, definitions are being stretched to justify atrocities. The US senate even went as far as to just accept the claim without evidence.
It's not entirely reasonable for Israel to bomb civilians in hospitals, especially since the evidence provided is of a poor quality. They have for example refused independent inquiries and the last time that the UN did it under the Goldstone Commissions, they again couldn't find any evidence of war crimes. Netanyahu refused to endorsed the report and Goldstone was attacked heavily.
The point cannot be stretched enough, making claims of this nature, without evidence, is not just dangerous but serves the war narrative. All nations engage in propaganda during war and it's completely reasonable to ask for accuracy, especially from the aggressor.
Are you seriously claiming that Hamas does not fight from civilian areas and buildings? That it does not have tunnels under these areas? And that if they do this is not intentional and does not place civilians at risk?
Why would Israel target civilians when this causes so much problem for itself?
Conversely, why would Hamas stop these tactics when it gains so much from them.
I don’t think you appreciate the extent to which you are part of the problem, making resolving this problem more difficult.
Why? Because you totally support Hamas’s approach.
Because of this the blood of Palestinians is on your hands.
There is no way that Israel can or should simply allow Hamas to continue attacking Israel until it ceases to exist.
"I, along with every other reporter I know who has worked in Gaza, have never seen any evidence that Hamas uses civilians as “human shields.” Ironically, there is evidence of the Israeli military using Palestinians as human shields, which Israel’s High Court deemed illegal in 2005."
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/15/chris-hedges-the-israel-lobbys-useful-idiot/
Read the definition of human shields, as per International Law, you will find that Hamas has never done it.
numerous experts have questioned this, the list is long.
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/busting-the-myth-of-palestinian-human-shields-in-gaza-46645
As for Hamas using tunnels etc, again even if they do, Israel, under International Law has the responsibility to protect civilians and it is clearly not doing so, in fact it is indiscriminately bombing at the moment without even providing any evidence. Human shields are defined as civilians being used in the line of fire. That is not occuring - fact,.
Hamas 2017 statement did not reject or superced its founding charter. This was intentional. It was simply an effort to give one palatable message to the west while not changing its goals. It continues to tells its supporters and fighters that the goal is ejection of all jews from the region, with any compromise short of that being entirely tactical.
Calling October 7th predictable and provoked is quite a stretch. If it was provoked why were Israel taken by surprise? Why had there been no significant military exchange for many months? Israel had been loosening restrictions on Gaza and had increased the number of Gaza residents able to travel into Israel. It believed that Hamas had become reasonable. This was all a ruse by Gaza to convince Israel that it had stopped wanting to attack Israeli civilians so that it could focus on the well-being of Gaza civilians.
Clearly Israel cannot trust the Gaza authorities again. October the 7th shows that negotiation is not a viable option.
Israel blockades of Gaza began in response to the threat by Hamas to Israel. From the outset Gaza was a launching pad for attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings and later missiles. It is true that Netanyahu supported Hamas and benefitted from their refusal to accept Israel. However that does not justify what Hamas does. It is a reason to criticise Netanyahu - which I have been doing since he was first elected Primer Minister and started obstructing the peace process.
Hamas embeds itself and its weapons in civilian building and in tunnels under civilian buildings. It only allows members of Hamas to use these tunnels. There are no shelters for civilians. It hoards food, water, and fuel for itself while allowing civilians to starve.
It has developed a very effective strategy which exploit gross double standards in the west, where little is expected of Hamas while Israel is expected to comply with western values.
You obviously have not made any effort to find out about what Hamas did on October the 7th when it entered Israel. The level of depravity and cruelty was reminiscent of or worse than the Nazis. One difference was that the fighters were clearly proud of and enjoying what they did. This is all documented by themselves. It is inconceivable that Israelis would commit the same crimes in Gaza and be applauded for this by Israel's supporters.
This moral asymmetry is ignored. I am sure you know that the IDF could eliminate ever last Gaza inhabitant within a few hours without a single IDF soldier being harmed. It would never do this. Can anyone doubt that Hamas would do this if it had the same capability?
No once is claiming that Israel is 'innocent' with respect to the Palestine conflict. What we are arguing is that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and that civilian casualties that result from Hamas embedding itself amongst civilians are tragic but inevitable.
We are also arguing that Israel, once it has neutralised Hamas, must make more attempt to facilitate a Palestinian State and remove its settlers from the west bank to enable this. As long as Hamas's genocidal tactics get support from across the world and Israel gets condemned from trying to defend itself, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to support any Palestinian State.
The article is a bit long to respond to every point, but briefly, Stephen Walt wrote an excellent article as this conflict broke out. To suggest that it wasn't provoked is just ridiculous. Yes in the strict legal sense it wasn't provoked, but you cannot ignore Israeli crimes in the build up of this conflict, the amount of PAlestinians under torture and the death of many children at the hand of Israeli Snipers. It's a mental gymnastics.
"We are also arguing that Israel, once it has neutralised Hamas, must make more attempt to facilitate a Palestinian State and remove its settlers from the west bank to enable this. As long as Hamas's genocidal tactics get support from across the world and Israel gets condemned from trying to defend itself, Israel cannot reasonably be expected to support any Palestinian State."
Israel has no intention to establish a Palestinian state, at least not the Likkud Party whose own charter is basically a Hebrew Version of the Hamas Charter saying clearly "from the river to the sea". What it wasn't is a continual annexation of the West Bank and even some have argued for a reoccupation of Gaza.
"No once is claiming that Israel is 'innocent' with respect to the Palestine conflict. What we are arguing is that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and that civilian casualties that result from Hamas embedding itself amongst civilians are tragic but inevitable."
Israel has gone beyond "self defense", they have by now actively bombed hospitals (more than one), flattened university, and attacked refugee camps. More than 1 million Gazans have been displaced from their home and many Israeli officials have even shown intention for ethnic cleansing .
https://accuracy.org/release/israeli-intent-to-kill-in-the-thousands-international-law-ethnic-cleansing/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It's such an obvious the Geneva convention, violation international law (that the ICC rules does apply to Gaza) and furthermore Israel doesn't even recognise conventions on torture etc, there are .
Stephen Walt's article below.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-gaza-war-battle/
Yes, it was “unprovoked” in the narrow legal sense that Israel wasn’t about to attack Gaza, which might justify preemption by Hamas. But it was surely “provoked” in the commonsense meaning of the term—that is, as a violent response to the conditions that Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere have faced for decades—even if Hamas’s willingness to deliberately attack civilians in particularly brutal ways is cruel, indefensible, and quite possibly counterproductive.
"Calling October 7th predictable and provoked is quite a stretch. If it was provoked why were Israel taken by surprise? Why had there been no significant military exchange for many months? Israel had been loosening restrictions on Gaza and had increased the number of Gaza residents able to travel into Israel. It believed that Hamas had become reasonable. This was all a ruse by Gaza to convince Israel that it had stopped wanting to attack Israeli civilians so that it could focus on the well-being of Gaza civilians."
Israeli restrictions on Gaza was actually intensified, and for what it is worth, the Palestinians are used to pick up stretch and work on Israel's construction camp. Often they have to work for years to be able to afford a home, only so that a settler can kick them out again. (read the testimony of those in the west bank).
I am actually quite familiar with the awful things happening on the West Bank. My son is journalist and has reported from there. He has links with West Bank journalists. The situation is unacceptable and I strongly support pressure on Israel to change its policies and work towards a two state solution. My concern is that what has happened in Gaza, and the worlds response to it (condemning Israel) has made any policy change more difficult. Many Israeli's and jews elsewhere fear that the West Bank would become a giant Gaza controlled by militants.An important reason to support Israel's attempt to neutralise the military threat of Hamas in Gaza is to reassure Israelis that, should they vacate the West Bank, and should a Hamas-like group emerges determined to eliminate Israel, the West would support Israel in defending itself.
I just want to commend the way you have debated this fraught issue. You have been very logical and restrained. I have been quite angry at times and made provocative comments and you have ignored them. Apologies and well done!