This is a steelman argument. I do not agree with it nor do I claim it to be true.
No actually, Hamas are not terrorists. Terrorism is a word used by white supremacists in the West in order to justify their invasion of foreign nations. There were many negotiations yet nothing stuck because of the West and Israel's refusal to enact peace. Because Israel was bought off and is propped up by the West through "foreign aid", the West now has a strong incentive to keep their investment safe and so they fund wars in the Middle East to destabilize nations in the region to ensure they are fighting each other instead of repelling the Israeli invasion. There were several Jews in high positions within the US and the EU and because they were the world powers, they could dictate what happened in the region. Israel are the oppressors and so they must be fought against so the western hegemonic forces can be overthrown and the land returned to their rightful owners.
As Frantz Fanon states: "Decolonization is always a violent event." How can we expect men, women and children to fight back and reclaim their humanity through peaceful means? Hamas can not go too far as not going far enough will allow the oppression and subjucation of millions of disenfranchised minorities to persist. Any argument that disagrees just reinforces the rule the West has on innocent people. The West attacking and controlling other nations' peoples and resources has become normalized to the point where you are defending colonization without even realizing it. This is a form of false concsiousness that prevents us from making any progress towards a better future.
Again, steelmanning and so on. Most if not all of these points have been disproven at one point or another and even if they were all true, it wouldn't change much. Some "facts" are half truths which allows a motte and bailey defense when challenged and so argument is mostly pointless. With this said, one of the largest consistent contributors to Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis over the years is abortion where they are not available in neighbouring regions so that's kinda funny I guess.
The issue with their arguments is that the exact same reasoning can be used against the Palestinians and in fact against every sovereign nation on Earth. It is an unfalsifiable argument that relies on "me being the good guys and you being the bad guys." This means that it is an argument that can be thrown away pretty easily without much thought. At the end of the day, might does make right for better or for worse. Your morals don't matter, what matters is who's pointing the gun at who. I am not too emotionally attached to this debate and so I'd be down to let both fight it out and see who wins but if we were to stay out of the conflict and let Israel "handle it themselves" then they'd be accused of war crimes (again) and in turn will lose the propaganda war. My biggest issue with the whole thing is that it has been turned into a Left vs Right argument, people have enthusiastically let the issue divide societies tens of thousands of kilometers away for no good reason at all.
I've said this several times now but that was not my argument. It is one set of beliefs that some far Left wokists hold. The idea that white people cannot be terrorists is not my belief but rather it is what they think right wingers say and believe in order to minimize the struggles of the Palestinian people, but also to justify the apparent "Israeli genocide." The argument also had nothing to do with whether or not white people can be racist but instead that it is a word that white people use for these reasons. They believe that right wingers are saying "We aren't attacking civilians, we are attacking terrorists" and that terrorist is a word to dehumanize them.
The idea that white people can't be terrorists is the exact same collectivist slop that the New Left have been going on about for the past 50-60 years (and much earlier) and so by debunking this claim, you are also by proxy debunking all collectivist arguments. The far Left think in terms of the collective which is why they project this argument onto the right. I am willing to have a genuine conversation but if you're gonna keep ignoring what I am saying then there won't be much point in continuing. At the same time I could've spent more than 5 minutes writing the original statement but if you need any clarification on anything then let me know.
Yeah. I'm not sure if death cult is the best phrase to use if we are trying to be precise but the brainwashing part is almost certainly true. I think it was something like 75-80% of civilians support Hamas' actions taken but that depends on whether it's as trustworthy as Kim Jong Un's 100% approval rating or whether the numbers are actually legit. I'm less inclined to trust their numbers as Hamas has been known to lie in the past (shocking) but I wouldn't be surprised either way. At the same time even if civilians agree with the actions of the government, they are still civilians so proper discretion must be taken in order to reduce casualities within reason which to my knowledge has been happening for the most part.
That would be exactly my argument against them as well. I was demonstrating the ability for some to rationalize violence if it agrees with their ideology. The response to your rebuttal would be something along the lines of collective guilt and how Israelis support the violence just by living and producing within Israel, similar to how US taxes fund wars overseas. Additionally when I invoked the postcolonialist Frantz Fanon, he often advocated for killing Europeans without distinguishing between civilians and militants so there's probably more you can quote from there to back up a counter-argument.
Again though I do not support nor agree with these arguments being made. If we define terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." then to say Hamas are not terrorists is indefensible.
This is a steelman argument. I do not agree with it nor do I claim it to be true.
No actually, Hamas are not terrorists. Terrorism is a word used by white supremacists in the West in order to justify their invasion of foreign nations. There were many negotiations yet nothing stuck because of the West and Israel's refusal to enact peace. Because Israel was bought off and is propped up by the West through "foreign aid", the West now has a strong incentive to keep their investment safe and so they fund wars in the Middle East to destabilize nations in the region to ensure they are fighting each other instead of repelling the Israeli invasion. There were several Jews in high positions within the US and the EU and because they were the world powers, they could dictate what happened in the region. Israel are the oppressors and so they must be fought against so the western hegemonic forces can be overthrown and the land returned to their rightful owners.
As Frantz Fanon states: "Decolonization is always a violent event." How can we expect men, women and children to fight back and reclaim their humanity through peaceful means? Hamas can not go too far as not going far enough will allow the oppression and subjucation of millions of disenfranchised minorities to persist. Any argument that disagrees just reinforces the rule the West has on innocent people. The West attacking and controlling other nations' peoples and resources has become normalized to the point where you are defending colonization without even realizing it. This is a form of false concsiousness that prevents us from making any progress towards a better future.
Again, steelmanning and so on. Most if not all of these points have been disproven at one point or another and even if they were all true, it wouldn't change much. Some "facts" are half truths which allows a motte and bailey defense when challenged and so argument is mostly pointless. With this said, one of the largest consistent contributors to Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis over the years is abortion where they are not available in neighbouring regions so that's kinda funny I guess.
Fascism is national syndicalism but a similar definition is socialized unions. This is why good faith actors often call the Nazis fascist. The DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront) or German Labour Front was a state run (national) workers' union (syndicate) of which over 50% of the population were a part of. Stephen_Lynx used the word wrong in the sense of "everything I don't like is literally fascism" but this is the real definition. The Nazis were not Fascists but they were fascistic. The bundle of sticks used to denote fascism refers to a bundle of workers, a unity of workers. Any definition that uses "authoritarian, centralized, militaristic, hierarchical or for the nation" are indistinguishable from any other socialist state including Russia or China and the dozens of others attempted and therefore it cannot serve as an adequate description of fascism as it is too broad.
Yes fascism is socialist, so were China/Russia and so is Nazism. Aside from the theory, they are again borderline indistinguishable from each other when described which is why so many people mess it up and why they can rarely define it without admitting it is in fact socialist.
Some people also call the dialectical synthesis of capitalism and socialism fascism but this is instead corporatism. Corporatism was an integral part of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, but it was also crucial in FDR's welfare state and even in the USSR. Modern day China is the literal magnum opus of corporatism and you'll have a hard time finding anyone who genuinely believes China is fascist. America has also been corporatist for several decades now as well but not fascist. Again you can make the argument that the extremely powerful teacher and police unions are fascistic. The national part of fascism also doesn't have to refer to state-run but can also be state-adjacent or a state proxy organization similar to many so called NGOs. This also applies to corporatism.
With this said, fascism for the most part is a dead ideology. Again, there are many ideologies/states with fascistic properties but they are rarely fascist. The closest thing you can get to a fascist state is probably some African nation with insane workers' rights protections to the point where business is borderline impossible but I don't know anywhere near enough about African politics to make an educated guess.