And to add to that, these people did not say "Hamas did nothing wrong". 58% said they saw Hamas as very or "somewhat" positive. This is an organisation who on one hand is a terrorist organisation, but who on the other hand operates social services. People living in deep poverty who are exposed to the social services aspect will naturally to some extent be willing to tick a box saying "somewhat positive" (38%, vs 20% "very positive") for an organization who they personally have first-hand positive interactions with.

Despite that, and at the same time, the same survey also points out that 70% of the population in Gaza wants Hamas to give up separate armed units and hand power over the the Palestinian Authority, which should give some insight into how "somewhat positive" does not mean "agree with brutal terrorism against civilians" given that it in fact doesn't even mean "thinks Hamas should stay in charge or have control of armed units".

This person keeps grossly misrepresenting the level of support actually expressed.

Imagine that 57% of Palestinians supports Hamas

It's cute when someone posts claims contradicted by their own source. The link actually says that "57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas".

Consider that while Hamas is a terrorist organisation it also runs social programs, exactly to effectively buy this kind of support. For some poor family in Gaza struggling to survive it's unsurprising that if given handouts by Hamas that some will express that kind of muted positive views even for a dictatorial regime that 70% of Gazans wants removed from power per the same link (see below).

To try to twist that into "supports" is victim-blaming of the worst sort.

Should we meanwhile talk about Israel, where there actually are regular elections and majorities keep voting in regimes that perpetuate an apartheid regime and commits gross crimes against humanity? Or is it only people in Gaza who are responsible for their governments actions, despite the fact that the majority of those of voting age in Gaza were not old enough to be part of the electorate that brought Hamas to power (in an election where they got a minority of votes).

some of ya’ll are defending them

Just like some are defending the mass murderous apartheid regime of Israel or try to implicate Palestinian civilians for actions they had no party in.

Meanwhile most of us think Hamas are terrorists but also recognise that Israel is an oppressive apartheid state and the only party with the power to actually end this, and yet is doubling down on crimes against humanity.

To focus on Hamas is deflection.

Same as for South Africa, basically. Segregation started in 1908. Formal apartheid in 1948. Full on boycotts with government support late 1980's, and 1990 the regime fell.

When you're engaged in oppressing a whole population for decades, then you should be surprised when people get desperate enough to lash out in brutal ways. That the other side also commits war crimes does not give you any right to commit even more war crimes.

It's not about Israel having to take it lying down. It's about Israel not retaliating against civilians who have already been victims of both Israeli and Hamas oppression their entire lives for actions carried out by a tiny proportion who won a minority of the votes so long ago that the vast majority of the current Gaza population were not even of voting age when the last election were held, and that a majority would like to get rid of (see below).

Had Israel engaged with any kind of humanity, instead of with prominent people calling Palestinians animals and instigating brutal additional oppression, and instead aimed to take on just Hamas and showed they were serious even a lot of people who see Israel as the brutal apartheid state it is would be a lot more sympathetic to their legitimate right to fight back against Hamas.

As it stands, Israel is demonstrating that like Hamas, its government are far-right extremist war criminals who thrives on dehumanizing and victimizing civilians, and whereas Israeli civilians are not legitimate targets, and should have our sympathy, nobody should have any sympathy for their Apartheid government.

To preempt the inevitable attempt to conflate Palestinians with Hamas:

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

Extermination is first stage 9 out of 10 of Stantons 10 stages of genocide. And as the article also points out, extermination is only one approach to genocide, and not required to meet the UN definition.

That you conflate genocide with inherently requires mass murder just demonstrates that you don't know what genocide is.

Maybe you should actually read and try to understand the article.

It went a similar way with South African apartheid. It took decades of things getting worse before the rest of the world even took notice - the first segregation laws were passed in 1908. It was first 40 years later the official Apartheid laws came into force. In the 1960's, more than half a century after segregation started, the ANC gave up being peaceful. In the late 70's they went from sabotage to starting to kill people. In the 1980's ANC was consider a terrorist organization by the US and UK governments, and in 1987 Mandela was explicitly called a terrorist by Thatcher.

In 1990 the regime gave in.

Because the pressure had finally built to an unsustainable level, despite the fact that just a few years prior some of the most powerful countries in the world were still calling their main opponents terrorists.

This, by the way, is not intended to compare Hamas with ANC; ANC did also carry out terror, but not at nearly that scale, and of what they did carry out it's unclear which parts of the leadership approved what

The point is the timescale. How long it took before people started giving more than lip service to turning their back to an Apartheid regime that had gotten worse for their entire lives while they ignored the oppression, and how rapidly it snowballed once it first became accepted to turn your back on the regime, and then expected, and then a necessity to prevent people from turning their backs on you.

I agree with you there's more open criticism of Israel this time. In part, I think because there's been a slow drip of increasingly prominent organisations applying the Apartheid label in recent years from sources that are harder and harder to dismiss, and particularly the slowly growing acceptance that Gaza and the West Bank functions as bantustans. It makes it harder to just shout down critics.

And this can, and likely will, turn really fast once things truly starts to accelerate. A couple of big PR missteps and Israel will risk the opposition to BDS crumbling as well, and then the regime will be well and truly fucked.

Totally normal behaviour from a totally not authoritarian or far-right extremist apartheid government.

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.

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.

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?