• cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Do you think those two things are logically consistent?

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s a decision made for practical reasons, much like the PLO switching from armed to peaceful resistance and the Palestinian resistance movement as a whole switching from taking back all of Palestine to returning to 1967 borders. Hamas ideologically rejects Israel (for good reason) so they’re not willing to recognize it, but denying the position they’re in won’t accomplish anything, hence their current position. You can think of them as a more self-aware IRA.

      See also: The PLO taking back their recognition of Israel during the second Intifada despite not changing their goal of a two-state solution.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        That sounds less like a two state solution than a “we are biding our time until we can take the rest” situation.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Better than the “we will take everything and kill you” solution Israel is offering.

          Either way when it comes to organizations like Hamas their official positions (even though in this case it should be at least acceptable as a start) don’t really matter. There’s a reason I compared them with the IRA; when the injustice fueling these sorts of organizations fades away they either adapt by becoming governments or political parties (as Hamas attempted to do in the 2006 election) or fade away ala the IRA.