Hamas is comprised of people from Gaza.
There is no separating them.
Hamas is comprised of people from Gaza.
There is no separating them.
Hamas being composed of people from Gaza still doesn't make Hamas synonymous with Gaza. You're confusing an organization with the population it operates among. There are Palestinians who oppose Hamas, Palestinians who have no meaningful political affiliation, children who obviously never chose Hamas, and civilians who have been harmed by both Hamas and Israeli military action. Someone can oppose Hamas and still have their home destroyed, be displaced, detained, injured, or killed by Israel. "They're from Gaza" doesn't erase that distinction.
And your attempt to make this entirely about LGBT rights doesn't establish the binary you're trying to construct either. I oppose Hamas's treatment of LGBT people, just as I oppose anti-LGBT treatment anywhere else. I don't need to pretend Hamas is acceptable in order to criticize Israel. Israeli society having comparatively stronger LGBT protections also doesn't make every action of the Israeli state toward Palestinians acceptable. The Sde Teiman controversy is one example of how even alleged abuse of Palestinian detainees can become politically contentious within Israel itself. That doesn't prove every allegation against Israel is true, but it certainly makes "Israel = freedom, Hamas = oppression" an inadequate description of the conflict.
You keep trying to force me into choosing between two sides when I don't accept the premise. I can oppose Hamas, oppose Islamist repression, oppose anti-LGBT discrimination, and oppose Israeli abuses against Palestinians simultaneously. There is no contradiction there.
Hamas is comprised of people from Gaza.
There is no separating them.
Hamas being composed of people from Gaza still doesn't make Hamas synonymous with Gaza.
It does.
Hamas is comprised of people from Gaza.
There is no separating them.
Hamas being composed of people from Gaza still doesn't make Hamas synonymous with Gaza.
It does.
No, it doesn't. You're asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it. "Hamas is composed of people from Gaza" establishes that Hamas contains people from Gaza. It does not establish that every person in Gaza is Hamas, supports Hamas, belongs to Hamas, or is responsible for Hamas's actions.
If you mean "Hamas is a Gazan organization," then obviously. If you mean "Hamas and Gaza are synonymous," then no. Gaza is a population and territory; Hamas is a political and military organization operating within it. Those are categorically different things. A country's military being composed of its citizens doesn't make the military synonymous with the country's entire civilian population. The same distinction applies here.
You're essentially arguing: Hamas is from Gaza → therefore Gaza is Hamas. The second proposition does not follow from the first. That's collective guilt dressed up as a definition.
Dude.
Where are Hamas members from ?
A lot of them are from Gaza. So what? You're answering "where are Hamas members from?" when the actual question is whether "Hamas" and "Gaza" are interchangeable terms. They aren't. Hamas is an organization with defined membership, leadership, political and military structures. Gaza is a territory and population. Even the distinction between Hamas's military wing and its political/administrative structures exists within the organization itself.
If your argument is simply "Hamas is a Gazan organization," nobody is disputing that. If your argument is "therefore Gazans as a population are Hamas," then you still haven't provided an argument for that. You just keep repeating the premise. There are millions of people in Gaza, and membership in an armed organization is not established merely by being from the same territory. International humanitarian law explicitly distinguishes organized fighters from civilians and says mere affiliation with Hamas is not by itself sufficient to make someone a lawful military target.
So yes, Hamas members are largely Palestinian and many are Gazan. That is completely compatible with Hamas not being synonymous with Gaza. You're confusing the geographic origin of an organization with the identity of an entire population.
Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin. Is a Palestinian. He formed Hamas.
Israel as I mentioned, it at war with Hamas.
Palestinians are brainwashed to hate Jews.
Jews are better educated and over all better people in my personal opinion.
,
,
,
Charlie Kirk is cool
Yes, Ahmed Yassin was Palestinian and founded Hamas in Gaza. That establishes where Hamas came from. It does not make Hamas synonymous with Palestinians or Gaza. Hamas is an organization with a specific ideology and membership. Gaza is a civilian population containing people who support Hamas, oppose it, are secular, are apolitical, or are children who obviously never chose it. "Where are Hamas members from?" is not an argument that every Gazan is Hamas.
"Palestinians are brainwashed to hate Jews" is just another sweeping generalization. Hamas is antisemitic, but Hamas's ideology isn't automatically the ideology of every Palestinian. And saying "Jews are better educated and therefore better people" is even worse. Education and moral worth aren't the same thing, and ethnicity certainly isn't a measure of either. Education is supposed to involve scientific literacy, critical thinking, and the ability to revise beliefs when evidence contradicts them. It can also be corrupted by political or religious propaganda and used to teach simplistic ideas about economics and society. Someone can be highly educated and still believe false things. Denying established climate science is one example.
I also don't need religion to tell me that one population is better than another. Secularism and atheism don't automatically make someone intelligent or moral, but they are compatible with an evidence-based approach where supernatural claims aren't accepted without evidence. The same principle applies to civil liberties. If you're going to appeal to Israel and the West as examples of freedom, then that should include abortion rights, same-sex marriage, protection from discrimination, freedom from religious coercion, and equal political participation for atheists. You can't praise LGBT rights when comparing Israel to Hamas while calling homosexuality disgusting and defending anti-gay slurs.
Israel having stronger LGBT protections than Hamas does not make Israel morally correct in everything else. I can oppose Hamas's Islamist and anti-LGBT politics while criticizing Israeli treatment of Palestinians. An LGBT Palestinian can oppose Hamas and still be killed, displaced, detained, or have their home destroyed by Israeli military action. Likewise, Hamas being funded by Iran doesn't make Palestinians responsible for Hamas.
The history also isn't your simple binary. Israeli policy helped Islamist networks that later developed into Hamas as a counterweight to secular Palestinian organizations, and later Israeli governments facilitated Qatari money into Hamas-controlled Gaza. That doesn't mean Hamas was simply an Israeli creation. It means the history is more complicated than "Palestinians chose Hamas, therefore Palestinians are Hamas."
And Charlie Kirk being "cool" doesn't establish anything. He himself said that passing the Civil Rights Act was "a huge mistake." You can argue about which provisions he objected to, but that still makes his record rather strange to invoke while presenting your side as the natural defender of freedom.
You're repeatedly turning Hamas into Gaza, Gaza into Palestinians, criticism of Israel into support for Hamas, and differences between populations into claims that one group is inherently "better." None of those conclusions follow. I can oppose Hamas, oppose antisemitism and anti-LGBT discrimination, support secular freedoms and scientific education, and criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians without contradiction.
A video of children being taught antisemitic ideas would be evidence that that particular program or environment is teaching antisemitism. It doesn't establish that this is what the entire Gaza Strip believes. You're taking a selective sample and extrapolating it to millions of people.
I could do exactly the same thing with Israel. I could show footage of Israelis protesting against the prosecution of soldiers accused of abusing Palestinian detainees and say, "This is what Israelis believe. Israelis support war crimes." That would obviously be an absurd generalization. The footage establishes that those particular people participated in that protest. It doesn't establish the beliefs of every Israeli. Likewise, the fact that many Israelis support the war doesn't mean every Israeli supports every action taken by the government or military.
And you also have to consider the environment people in Gaza are living under. Gaza has experienced enormous destruction, displacement, death, and prolonged conflict. It isn't surprising that some children or adults exposed to that environment might develop intense and irrational hostility toward Israelis or Jews, even if they weren't previously committed to that ideology. That doesn't make the hatred justified, but you can't automatically interpret every expression of hatred as proof of systematic programming. A short video doesn't tell you whether something was taught by Hamas, repeated by family or media, or developed partly as a reaction to what someone has experienced.
If the footage genuinely shows Hamas or another organization indoctrinating children to hate Jews, then condemn that directly. I have no problem doing so. But that still doesn't establish that Palestinians are Hamas, that Palestinians generally hate Jews, or that Palestinian civilians are collectively responsible for Hamas. Hamas can indoctrinate children without every Gazan being Hamas.
The same standard has to work both ways. You can condemn antisemitic indoctrination without treating Palestinians as a monolith, and you can condemn Israeli abuses without treating every Israeli as a supporter of them. The existence of extreme examples on either side doesn't justify turning an entire civilian population into a political or ideological monolith. That's exactly the collective generalization I've been criticizing.