Israeli officials are facing backlash after years of Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu quietly allowing Hamas to remain in power.

But reporting in the New York Times has revealed that Netanyahu’s government was more hands-on about helping Hamas: they helped a Qatari diplomat bring suitcases of cash into Gaza, indirectly boosting the militant organization, according to the report.

The calculus — the Times reported on Sunday, citing Israeli officials, Netanyahu’s critics, and the man’s own reported statements — was to keep Hamas strong enough to counteract the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, allowing Netanyahu to avoid a two-state peace solution and keep both sides weak.

Israeli security officials got it wrong; they didn’t think Hamas was capable, or even interested, in launching a large attack against the Jewish state.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    They blockade Gaza to keep weapons out so Gaza smuggles weapons in to break the blockade…

    Huh.

    Sounds like they’re creating their own problem.

    • TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cause of the blockade premeditates the smuggling so no.

      If you a lock a terrorist and other terrorists fight you over it, the terrorists are still at fault.

      Dont let the anti semitism stop your brain from working.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The cause of the blockage was terrorism (or “freedom fighters”, depending on your POV) that was caused by Israel failing to negotiate in good faith on a two state solution, and actively repressing Palestinian organizations that were garnering international support.

        Again: Israel is causing most of their own problems; it’s like they’ve never heard of blowback.

        BTW - if you think opposition to Israeli politics is the same thing as antisemitism, well, you aren’t arguing in good faith. That would be like saying that opposition to US foreign policy is because you hate Jesus.

        • TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I already explained elsewhere why it is antisemitic. You can read that, or you can admit that you dont care and talk in bad faith.

          And only one government there wants the other side wiped out. Hint: it is the one chanting from river to sea.

          Thank god none of you idiots have power. Keep crying as hamas terrorists keep getting wiped off the map.

              • blitzkrieg@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Doesn’t matter. An Israeli minister in a government elected by the Israelis said it. That’s their true intention.

                Obviously they will ridicule him, because who would support that? People only support normal indiscriminate bombings of innocent civilians, but nuking is just a bit much. Maybe if Palestinians lived a little farther away, then it would be viable.

                  • blitzkrieg@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re free to study the history of Zionism, and watch recent and current videos of many Israelis (incliding Israeli soldiers) saying that all the land belongs to them (Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq).

                    Those aren’t a couple of people. Those are the beliefs of Zionists.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think its fair to say the blockade didnt work to keep things out of gaza. So other than being a type of effective security theater it seems to have been bad policy on its own terms