tony

From: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

In other words, the vast majority of people in Gaza want the PA administration wants Hamas stripped of power. Given the numbers, this includes even people who have a positive view of Hamas overall.

like Palestinians don’t want that also.

Exactly. This fiction that Palestinians all want Hamas to murder Israelis, or even want them to stay in charge is dangerous, because they open the door to even more moderate people buying the idea that the only thing preventing peace is Palestinians wanting it.

From https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah :

While the majority of Gazans (65%) did think it likely that there would be “a large military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza” this year, a similar percentage (62%) supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel. Moreover, half (50%) agreed with the following proposal: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” Moreover, across the region, Hamas has lost popularity over time among many Arab publics. This decline in popularity may have been one of the motivating factors behind the group’s decision to attack.

In fact, Gazan frustration with Hamas governance is clear; most Gazans expressed a preference for PA administration and security officials over Hamas—the majority of Gazans (70%) supported a proposal of the PA sending “officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up separate armed units,” including 47% who strongly agreed. Nor is this a new view—this proposal has had majority support in Gaza since first polled by The Washington Institute in 2014.

Also worth adding, since people don't seem to realise this: The majority of Palestinians alive today were not of voting age when Hamas won those elections, and a very substantial proportion were not even born.

And even then, of course, while Hamas won the largest number of votes, even back then they still only had the support of a minority (ca. 44%) of the electorate.

Exit polls during the same election showed near 80% support for a peace agreement with Israel, and 75% who wanted Hamas policy towards Israel to change. In other words: It's also disingenuous to see even the support for Hamas that was there in elections as support for the more extreme aspects of Hamas' actions.

Israel would give anything in the world to have peaceful rulers in Gaza.

All the evidence tells us this is not true.

I pasted my comment into a couple of online reading-level checkers, and they assessed it as requiring a reading level equivalent to grade 7 and up to grade 10 for one of them. In other words: We both know this is an excuse because you've run out of arguments.

You seriously struggle with reading comprehension.

I can say anything I want to gay people and by your logic should be protected.

I have said nothing of the sort. If anything, my comment took pains to draw a line. What I have said is that I don't think anyone has any legitimate claim to demanding the unmasking of someone who merely expresses the political view without taking action on it, subject to the limitations I stated with respect to incitement etc.

It is only when, after they find out about my beliefs (and make a point to try to use my services), the baker should be forced make the cake or decline their business that it becomes distasteful?

I would have found hate speech distasteful before that but it seems that is just me.

I specifically wrote that I considered the mere view alone distasteful in itself. Was that sentence too complicated for you? Let me quote where I did so:

"One is political speech, however distasteful."

Also, and your logic is pretty pretzeled so I am trying to follow it to its conclusion.

It's only "pretzeled" to you because you've failed to understand almost every part of what I wrote:

Because you agree with the speech, because you believe a bunch of Harvard students, who made a public statement and therefore made themselves targets of publicity, are oppressed, then their identities should be protected. But only because you believe their speech is justice. If it was unjust they should be hauled to the town square?

This entire paragraph misrepresents what I wrote so hilariously much it's really quite impressive:

1. I agree with their speech, that part is right. The "because" is not.

2. Because the fact that I agree with their speech is irrelevant.

3. I don't believe they are oppressed. I have never said or implied I think they are oppressed.

4. I do think the identities of anyone who engages in political speech and who does not cross over into inciting illegal acts should be free to remain anonymous, whether or not I disagree with them.

5. Whether or not their speech is justified is irrelevant. Case in point: I don't think your speech is justified. I don't think arguing it's right to unmask and put these people at right is reasonable. I find that notion reprehensible. I still think you should be free to remain anonymous, and don't think you should be "hauled to the town square".

Furthermore, I consider it a central measure of whether or not a person is good by whether or not they scream for "consequences" for everyone they disagree with.

I see, if it is speech you agree with and believe that there should be no punishment, then it is find to be anonymous. Is the reverse true, if this was an anti-Arab hate group, would you call for such protection? I doubt it. You would call for them to be unmasked and punished.

How nice of you to decide you know my views. Especially when you get it so offensively wrong.

If someone made a statement of the same content as they did, with the groups reversed, no, I sure as hell would not argue for them to be unmasked, nor would I argue for them to be punished, and I would think it was vile and a sign of deeply nasty authoritarian beliefs to do so, because the ability to debate without someone taking actions that are clearly intended to intimidate and ruin someone's life over disagreeing with me is something that is fundamentally incompatible with all my beliefs.

Put another way: I find the views you are expressing here reprehensible, because I consider standing up for the right of specifically those you disagree with to be a core and essential factor in whether or not someone is a good person and someone who believes in freedom and democracy. But I have no desire to see you punished for them, because I do fully believe you have the right to them, and the right to express them, without worrying about consequences.

Now, had you actually argued for violence or other illegal actions against specific people in a way reasonable to consider incitement, or intended to deprive others of that same freedom, then I would want to see you unmasked and punished for that.

To me, this desire to punish and to impose consequences is at its core a deeply authoritarian, anti-democratic belief.

In the end, I know where your disingenuous argument comes from. You are a rules for thee and not for me kind of person.

I take offense at that. Are you going to give us your full real identity, in accordance with your own principles, because someone takes offence at what you have said? I certainly would not demand it, because I find the notion of demanding to unmask someone offensive, but you yourself have argued that people should stand up for what they say.

No, I'm pointing out that they had a legitimate reason for staying anonymous. That the concern was economic is irrelevant.

As for the baker, you seem to struggle with the distinction between making a statement about views vs. pointing out their intent to discriminate. In other words: The distinction between anonymously saying they don't want to bake for gay people vs. actually refusing to bake for gay people. One is political speech, however distasteful. The other is actual discrimination.

I get the current fashion of political tribalism dictates that one must defend their side even when it does something awful or ridiculous. However, when you say vile things either on the left or the right you should face the consequences.

The problem comes when someone says something they don't consider vile, but that they know the other side will want to impose consequences on them for. It is wildly unreasonable to think people should just offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs for bigots who can't bear it when students express their political views on a brutally oppressive apartheid regime who has engaged in decades of war crimes and who want to impose punishments for designing to point out the responsibility of said apartheid regime.

This notion of trying to demand that people sacrifice themselves for speaking out about a brutal oppressor because they're not brave enough to risk ruining their lives over it is one that only ever comes from those siding with the oppressors.

Indeed, if it is not objectionable, there should be no punishment, in which case if they could trust this there would be no issue with them signing their names to their statement.

You are right, they likely do not sign their names because they fear retribution. In other words: They do not trust that there will be no punishment. The demands to unmask them show that this risk is real. It does not follow from this that this is something that warrants punishment.

See how that works: Someone can believe - whether or not they are right - that there is nothing in it warranting punishment, and at the same time believe that there will be punishment anyway.

That is a logically consistent position to hold, and sufficient to warrant not disclosing their names, and so it is not valid to try to infer from this that they belief that they've done something wrong, nor is it reasonable to expect everyone who believes in a cause to consider it so important to them personally that they are willing to risk their future careers over it.

Unless you yourself have taken greater risks in the name of this cause, you have no basis for demanding of them risks you are unwilling to take yourself.

While that is true in the legal sense, there has also been a historical expectation (more so than reality) that universities were also meant to be bastions of free speech. And irrespective of legal protections, it is entirely reasonable for people to still be upset that other entities disregard it. Especially in cases where there are potential lifelong consequences for the people involved.

If the bakers were just signing letters saying they opposed making cakes for gay people, but not actually refusing, then there'd be no public interest in demanding their names be uncovered.

If they cannot justify their speech to the public, there is probably an issue with what they said.

You mean like when several of the US founding fathers published the Federalist Papers anonymously?