• TheDankHold@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hamas can’t refuse a treaty for a territory they do not rule. Your argument is still ridiculous on its face.

        • TheDankHold@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is Hamas affecting a treaty between two parties that aren’t Hamas? You keep restating the premise but you haven’t justified why your premise is valid. The reality is that Hamas is a great excuse for Likud and the Zionist coalition to push for the one state solution they want without as bad of a pr storm.

          • goat@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because at the time, while the Palestine Government operated in Gaza, they didn’t actually hold power inside of Gaza. No, Hamas controlled Gaza and was in close contact with Arafat during the Accords.

            • TheDankHold@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok? You said the West Bank refused treaties. Hamas doesn’t run the government there. The only reason the actions of extremists would affect negotiations with moderates is if you’re negotiating in bad faith and want to break the agreement while posturing as moral. Which I’m pretty sure is the Likud party’s policy given all the actions they’ve taken.