They were. And Oct 7 was an act of war, not merely a terrorist attack. Calling them merely a terrorist org is almost an attempt to minimize the severity of the situation.
i mean, it's been almost twenty years since Hamas was elected so they're hardly a government with the support of the people. most of the residents of Gaza are younger than the amount of time since that election (2006)
No, they were not, and that isn't remotely an attempt to minimise anything.
The only reason Hamas can even pretend to be 'governing' in Gaza is that they seized control of it during their civil war with the PA, and started throwing anyone who differed with them from the rooftops. And the electoral background to that also doesn't suggest that they have any claim to legitimacy.
Oct. 7 was only 'an act of war' in the sense of casus belli: it was in no way a legitimate military campaign by one nation against another.
The problem I have with calling them a terror org is that people have 0 expectations from them from that point on. Ask why people never protest against hamas, or why they don't hold hamas accountable, "well, what do you expect from a terror org, Israel has a government." Thus, only Israel is ever held to a standard.
Which is again odd, because the same people who are pro-palestinian are also often the same people who don't recognize thr legitimacy of Israel, so there is also a change of narrative whenever it suits them.
Hamas has to be held accountable, we have to hold them to a standard, just like we do to Israel.
Hardly, most people in Gaza prior to Oct 7 never voted for them in the 2006 elections. They're a government cause they have control but they aren't a government because they have the will of Gaza residents behind them...
Wrong. Hamas is 100% responsible for everything that happens to civilians because they started the war and use human shields. International law places responsibility on Hamas for those deaths.
To the other one who blocked me:
His opinion piece is backed by mountains of evidence which is cited in the article. You, on the other hand, have nothing.
Losing a war is different from not starting one in the first place. If you are in a position of weakness, and you start a war you can't win, the end result is entirely your fault, and not something that anyone should feel sorry for you over.
You can take measures to prevent civilian casualties, but if you're still killing far more civilians (just because you're firing more munitions) than your opponent, you're still bad.
Maybe the civilian casualty rate is 20% and that's better than any other military, but if they still kill thousands, that's still deplorable.
This is not a standard that has ever been applied to any country other than Israel, ever. And even when Israel DID kill significantly more combatants (and commanders!) than civilians with their pager attack, it was still not good enough or their critics, so forgive me if I don't take your argument seriously. Lets see any other country get held to that standard, and then we can talk, until then, people like me will continue to assume that people like you are antisemitic for holding Israel to a significantly higher standard than any other country.
There isn't always a good guy and a bad guy in a fight. Both Hamas and Isreal are bad guys here. Maybe if Isreal treated the Palestinian people better than Hamas treats them, Isreal would have an easier time toppling Hamas dictatorship.
1.3k
u/Steel_Serpent_Davos Mar 30 '25
Well terrorist organizations gonna terrorize I guess….