First of all, Hamas could have held elections in Gaza or joined the PA any time. Second, the debate over what Hamas has or has not done with its opportunity to govern in Gaza, or to what degree it has had a real opportunity to build a society post-occupation, or whether it can be a trustworthy partner, are all secondary to my question here.
My understanding of the anti-zionist stance is that there can be no two state solution, and that Israel must be forcibly dissolved, typically with little concern about what comes after that. That is what I am trying to better grasp here.
Is an opposition to settlements, condemnation of functional apartheid and being in favor of a two state solution really anti-zionism now? I have held those stances for a long time, but I have serious concerns about mixing those positions with what has historically been perceived as a significantly more extreme stance, via language used by some particularly problematic groups I do not want as bedfellows.
The anti Zionist stance is simple: Currently israel can accept a two state solution as offered by the Palestinians. Even Hamas is offering this. If israel accepts it israel loses their status as Nazi terror colonizers and gains the right to exist.
But because israel is Nazi-like state that wants to keep expending their Lebensraum far beyond Palestine into Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and even as far as Turkey in the future, israel will not accept this. It’s like asking if Hitler could just divide the land
Now for your other question, Hamas is a resistance movement not the government of the state of Palestine. If the state of Palestine is re established it can hold elections and Hamas will be a candidate in the political race.
Democracy isn’t secularism. Israel is in no way secular either. America arguably isn’t secular.
Hamas is a not just a resistance movement but also a political party that would participate in elections. Comparable to the ANC in South Africa.
First of all, Hamas could have held elections in Gaza or joined the PA any time. Second, the debate over what Hamas has or has not done with its opportunity to govern in Gaza, or to what degree it has had a real opportunity to build a society post-occupation, or whether it can be a trustworthy partner, are all secondary to my question here.
My understanding of the anti-zionist stance is that there can be no two state solution, and that Israel must be forcibly dissolved, typically with little concern about what comes after that. That is what I am trying to better grasp here.
Is an opposition to settlements, condemnation of functional apartheid and being in favor of a two state solution really anti-zionism now? I have held those stances for a long time, but I have serious concerns about mixing those positions with what has historically been perceived as a significantly more extreme stance, via language used by some particularly problematic groups I do not want as bedfellows.
The anti Zionist stance is simple: Currently israel can accept a two state solution as offered by the Palestinians. Even Hamas is offering this. If israel accepts it israel loses their status as Nazi terror colonizers and gains the right to exist.
But because israel is Nazi-like state that wants to keep expending their Lebensraum far beyond Palestine into Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and even as far as Turkey in the future, israel will not accept this. It’s like asking if Hitler could just divide the land
Now for your other question, Hamas is a resistance movement not the government of the state of Palestine. If the state of Palestine is re established it can hold elections and Hamas will be a candidate in the political race.