Palestinians support Hamas decision to go to war with Israel, survey suggests, with no political solution on horizon | CNN
www.cnn.com
A survey of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank suggests they back Hamas in its decision to go to war with Israel, seeing no alternative to armed struggle.

CNN reporting on some interesting survey results from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. Seven hundred and fifty adults were interviewed face to face in the West Bank, and 481 were interviewed in Gaza, also in person. The Gaza data collection was done during the recent truce, when it was safer for researchers to move about.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    820·
    11 months ago

    I support the decision to go to war with Israel, too. The entire planet should be at war with Israel - and it’s benefactors in the west as well.

          • Xavier@lemmy.ca
            52·
            11 months ago

            Hence, my alternative plan: I suggest planting trees and gardening fruits, vegetables and leguminous plant.

            Will it solve anything regarding those conflicts? I don’t know.

            But as you have said, any plan is better.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          31·
          11 months ago

          Not attacking a country with nuclear weapons because of what they’re doing is a lot more rational than attacking that country. But maybe you want to die of radiation sickness. That’ll sure teach Israel!

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            23·
            11 months ago

            So as long as they have nuclear weapons you’ll just allow them to do anything they want?

            How liberal of you.

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      65·
      11 months ago

      I think the rest of the world should simply stop supporting Israel. No need to attack it, just let them fight their own battles.

      9/11 literally only happened because of American support of Israel. It happened because most Americans were supporting Israel without even knowing it. The recent attack by Hamas brought the Zionist agenda and its victims back into the public spotlight. This is many people’s first exposure to what’s really going on in the Middle East, and Zionists do not like that.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      33·
      11 months ago

      Surely this would wipe out all the violent bastards without hurting any Israeli civilians, nor would it lead to increased violence against Jews by idiots who can’t separate Jews from Israel. /s

      All you’d accomplish is changing the power dynamic, but nothing else. And while that might feel good at the time, 50 years from now we’ll have this conversation again, where the civilians caught in the middle of the conflict have been born into nothing but strife.

      There’s a reason why an ongoing moral in fiction is that revenge is bad. Violence begets violence. Unfortunately, I just don’t see how this conflict can reach a resolution without continued violence. Nonetheless, there’s no need to egg it on.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        34·
        11 months ago

        Violence begets violence.

        The violence has already been “begat,” Clyde. And none of your liberal feelgood handwringing is “un-begatting” it.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          31·
          11 months ago

          Indeed, when someone says “violence begets violence”, that usually means there has already been violence, hence the whole “violence begets” part. You’re literally agreeing with me.

          I also agree with you that handwringing does nothing either. My whole point is that violence accomplishes the same thing as handwringing – nothing. Violence is just bread and circus to distract from anything productive.

          By the way, do you actually have a definition of liberal you can refer to here? Or is it just a catch-all term for anyone you dislike and disagree with? Because it certainly seems like the latter, which makes it a very empty insult.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            2·
            11 months ago

            You’re literally agreeing with me.

            No, we’re not, because…

            My whole point is that violence accomplishes the same thing as handwringing – nothing.

            Riiiiight… if we just sacrifice a million more to the mass-murderers they’ll grow tired off it and leave peacefully, is that it, Clyde? Is that your plan?

            Why don’t you lead by example and put yourself up for the chop?

            By the way, do you actually have a definition of liberal you can refer to here?

            The guiding principle of moderate, centrist and liberal politics is acquiescence to the status quo.

            It is, by default, the most cowardly, self-serving and privileged form of politics one could ascribe to.

            As MLK himself wrote:

            I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;

            So no, Clyde - I will not be providing you with a description of the politics you should have no problem recognizing yourself.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              1·
              11 months ago

              Riiiiight… if we just sacrifice a million more to the mass-murderers they’ll grow tired off it and leave peacefully, is that it, Clyde? Is that your plan?

              The guiding principle of moderate, centrist and liberal politics is acquiescence to the status quo.

              Let me get this straight. Nonviolent solutions – once bombing the shit out of each other for the 50th time doesn’t work – is just liberal bullshit and trying to preserve the status quo, prioritizing order over justice…

              As MLK himself wrote

              … And you use a quote by one of the most famous nonviolent protest advocates in history to try and prove that?

              I think very clearly, MLK is not referring to using and promoting nonviolent methods as the problematic behavior of the white moderate. Considering, you know, how he promoted nonviolent methods.

              Allow me to quote MLK in kind:

              Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself.

              I believe this is the “liberal handwringing” you were referring to earlier?

              So kindly explain this contradiction – is MLK a “white moderate liberal who is devoted to order over justice”? Did MLK follow the “most cowardly, self-serving, and privileged form of politics” and acquiesce to the status quo?

              Or, is it possible that you’re letting your anger get the best of you? It’s completely sensible to be enraged about this, but you’re letting your anger turn you into a warhawk.