Why Do Young Americans Support Hamas? Look at TikTok
thefp.com
thefp.com
This is a religious war, and every time the US gets into someone else's religious war, it doesn't end well.
The article is by a Republican senator.
With rising sympathies for Palestinians, I do wonder how much longer this support will continue.
Good question. Probably depends on who comes after Netanyahu.
An understanding of events of October 7 starts with an understanding of the historical context of Palestine and Israel: most of the coverage of the events of October 7 deal with the symptoms of the violence and not the source. An understanding of the source of the violence, by no means justified, is needed.
This history starts with an understanding of Zionism, an ideology that is racist, not in its origin, but in the way it manifested itself in the land of Mandatory Palestine. And this racism is part of the settler colonial movement where the logic of the elimination of the Native was activated. These elimination policies were in the DNA of the Zionist encounters with the Natives of Palestine in the late 19th century. They wanted as much of the land of Palestine as possible with as few of the Palestinians as possible. There was always the demographic dimension as well as the geographic dimension in the earliest policies of the Zionist movement and into what later became Israel. The more space the Zionists had, the less space the indigenous people had. These elimination policies could take different forms: genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and they take different forms in different places. What happened in Gaza cannot be taken out of this context of Zionists/Israeli elimination and the ethnic cleansing of half of the population of Palestine that took place in 1947-1949 and the destruction of over 500 villages. The ruins of some of these same destroyed villages where the attackers originated from, and were next to the kibbutzim that were attacked. None of this justifies the violence that took place on October 7 but is needed to understand the source of the violence. The source of this violence is the racist ideology, of a racist Zionist ideology that needs to eliminate the Native. Zionism is not unique in this regard and is similar to other European colonial settler movements that desired to eliminate the native populations on the land they colonized.
"Do you think the Hamas killing of 1200 Israeli civilians on Israel can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians or is it not justified?" [0, p. 43]
0: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HHP...
"War is where the young and stupid are tricked by the old and bitter into killing eachother."
- Nico Belic
Here are two questions on it:
> Do you think the Hamas killing of 1200 Israeli civilians on Israel can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians or is it not justified? [call this question "Justified"]
Overall, 24% say "yes" to this. Among ages 18-24, "51%" say yes!
> Do you think that the attacks on Jews were genocidal in nature or not genocidal? [call this question "Genocidal"]
Overall, 75% say "yes" to this. Among ages 18-24, 62% say yes.
What on Earth is going on here? There's at least a 13% overlap of young people saying that the Hamas attack was both Genocidal and Justified.
I think the funniest example is this pair of questions:
There was an explosion at a Gaza hospital. Do you think the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike or by a terrorist rocket that went off course? 45% say "Caused by Israeli airstrike", 55% say "Terrorist rocket that went off course"
But then...
Given that US intelligence and Israeli intelligence have said and shown evidence that the hospital explosion was caused by an off-course terrorist rocket do you think the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike or by a terrorist rocket that went off 61% say "Caused by Israeli airstrike", 39% say "Terrorist rocket that went off course"
Mentioning the involvement of intelligence services makes people less likely to agree with their explanation! (This seems to affect age groups up to 44 to some degree.)
This was the prompt, from the survey:
> Do you think the Hamas killing of 1200 Israeli civilians on Israel can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians or is it not justified?
Note the distinction here. Can be. Not is. The question from the poll is garbage to begin with, IMO, because it's basically the only question anywhere in the poll that even deigns to fathom the idea that maybe Palestinians are suffering as part of the conflict.
But the author is intentionally twisting meaning of the question to turn it into "Young people support terrorism because TikTok!"
Never. If you're response is anything other than "under no circumstances", then there's a serious problem there...
Plenty of people believe 9/11 was a heinous act, but are willing to recognize that there were factors that caused it to happen (not just, "Al-Qaeda attacked the US because they hate OUR FREEDOM!"), and can believe that the US's response to completely level Afghanistan and Iraq was far in excess of the provocation.
My point being, once again, to look at the poll, and see that this is the only question anywhere in the poll where "grievances of Palestinians" is mentioned. If you happen to be someone who is sympathetic to their plight, answering "Yes" to this question is the closest you can get to on this. Every other question (including this one) is an intentionally binary choice of "I support Israel in 100% of everything they do" or "I support Hamas and love terrorism".
51% of US young people would think that???
Not on 9/11. Maybe 3% at most.
Unrelated but for context: adjusted to population size the Oct/7 attacks would be on a scale of 48,000 people dying on 9/11 not including all the kidnapped people...
> US's response to completely level Afghanistan and Iraq was far in excess of the provocation.
That's a separate discussion. But take into consideration that those countries were both far and invaded politically. Also the Hamas seems to be pleased with the result and is already promising a repeat: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/r1y31101m6
> "I support Israel in 100% of everything they do" or "I support Hamas and love terrorism".
I hope this is the case. But it is still disheartening that even for such a bad example people would choose that. I feel that indicates they don't truly understand how awful the Hamas really is.
I want a Palestinian state and have been politically active in various movements for that purpose. The Hamas is by far the biggest roadblock on that road followed by Netanyahu.
This is a dangerous argument. Each individual's value is the same irrespective of the size of their group or nation.
Also, following the exact same reasoning, we could say that Israel has killed 1.3 million Palestinians in last three weeks, and almost three million in last 15 years. The fact that the proportion is never mentioned in relation to Palestinians, but only Israelis, is revealing.
> The Hamas is by far the biggest roadblock on that road followed by Netanyahu.
Hamas was bolstered by Netanyahu precisely to weaken the more moderate Palestinian liberation movement and to have some useful enemy to point to in order to continue his politics of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. If they remove Hamas, they'll need to invent another one (and they will, if the bombs are not enough to breed a new generation of terrorists).
It means everyone knows someone who's still in Gaza. That's the implication of this scale. It's an important metric to understand the severity of the attack and the severity of the reaction. It's also important to understand the reduced empathy from the Israeli side.
Look at how crazy the USA was on 9/11. Imagine every single person knew someone personally... Imagine some of them were still missing. It would have been at a different level.
I don't think that's a valid interpretation of the question. I'm guessing the people committing the crime consider it justified. But that doesn't make sense and I didn't read that in the question.
The goal of the Hamas terrorists was to start a war and kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The end goal is to destroy the state of Israel. Thinking that something like this could be justified by anyone doesn't make sense to me.
Why not just ask the unambiguous question in the poll? That would have been better, I think we can agree.
My take on it has always been that this is the result of allowing crazy fucks to become professors at universities. It is now beyond obvious just how damaging this has been. We have allowed our youth to be indoctrinated by crazy idiots for decades. Given this context nothing I see today surprises me.
The damage will take decades to repair.
I'm thinking that plenty of younger people - especially ones frustrated or angry at the seemingly-poor prospects which the existing social order seemed to offer for their futures - were biased in favor of violent rebels long before there were such things as "professors" or "universities".
Maybe you should actually learn about it too. Rather than calling people who disagree with your view of history crazy or idiotic.
I am not calling “people” idiots. Get it right. I am calling people indoctrinated into believing Che was anything less than a monster idiots.
Ask cubans what they think of someone wearing a Che t-shirt.
Better yet, if you are so confident that you know the truth, go get yourself a bright Che t-shirt and walk around Little Havanna for a day. And then, if you are still able to walk, jump over to Cuba and do the same.
Good luck.
The only thing worse I can imagine would be a Hitler shirt or a communist shirt of some kind (Over 60 million people killed).
I forgot to add that he was a racist (he thought blacks were, well, animals, to be used and abused) and a homophobe (he just wanted to kill them all).
That, among other things, is why I say idolizing this monster is a monumental display of stupidity, ignorance or both.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkYIW6NUxXo
https://www.libertaddigital.com/cultura/historia/2017-10-09/...
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-41513971
https://www.cubanet.org/noticias/che-guevara-un-sociopata-as...
https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Milco-Baute/dp/B08BWFKBPG
Etc.
Wait, you don't speak Spanish? Well. Do you really think the material published by deranged American communist academics even remotely approximates reality? Look at what they have done to our kids. You have a professor --on video-- saying that what Hamas did to kids in Israel was "exhilarating". These people have serious mental illness.
Also Spanish is one of the easiest languages to translate so it’s pretty easy to verify.
Oh and you should drop the “deranged American communist academics” line. You anticommunist, right wing ideologues are always so obvious.
No.
You don't have to be right wing to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that communism has been one of the most destructive ideologies on this planet.
I am not a right wing anything. I am a classical liberal/libertarian and an atheist. Which, if I am to generalize, means I tend to use critical thinking and logic to guide my view of the world to the extent possible. It isn't always black and white. With regards to communism, it very much is. It is a failed murderous ideology. It has destroyed everything it has touched.
Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
To say those teaching it as a virtuous ideology are deranged would only be wrong if they were proven to be more ignorant than a brick. It's stupid beyond measurement.
BTW, my family survived this shit. I am not regurgitating something a professor or TV pundit told me. My grandparents saw members of their family murdered by their government. So, yeah, think what you wish. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go live in one of these shitholes for a decade and see what you come back with.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/un-official-re...
It seems like you sincerely can't understand why he'd be seen as heroic. Here's an account of his last moments. For context, the Bolivian government had captured Guevera, but wanted to make it look like he'd been killed in a firefight, rather than executed.
--
A few minutes later, Sergeant Terán entered the hut to shoot him, whereupon Guevara reportedly stood up and spoke to Terán what were his last words: "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward! You are only going to kill a man!" Terán hesitated, then pointed his self-loading M2 carbine at Guevara and opened fire, hitting him in the arms and legs. Then, as Guevara writhed on the ground, apparently biting one of his wrists to avoid crying out, Terán fired another burst, fatally wounding him in the chest. Guevara was pronounced dead at 1:10 PM local time according to Rodríguez. In all, Guevara was shot nine times by Terán. This included five times in his legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, and once in the chest and throat.
Honest question: Is there any answer to OP's question that would not get downvoted? Is my original answer being downvoted because it's articulated poorly, or because people don't like the answer?
> it might be worth considering Che Guevara - who is a "ubiquitous countercultural symbol" [Wikipedia] and yet had a fairly atrocious record on human rights
My reply to that comment is an attempt to explain why Guevara became a "ubiquitous countercultural symbol" -- because of the substance of his life's work and his tragic death.
Is that a tangent, or an irrelevant detail?