Collusion between the State of Israel and Hamas

I haven't seen any evidence regarding Israel's support for Hamas around the time of the First Intifada, though it is certainly true that Israel supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, out of which Hamas and Islamic Jihad emerged. Part of Israel’s goal in supporting such religious groups was to use them as a deterrent against the more secular Palestine Liberation Organization, but of course that did not work out. The Muslim Brotherhood formed Hamas during the First Intifada, partly in order to remain relevant amid the spontaneous uprising that had broken out.

I’ve seen quite a few people claim that Israel supported Hamas from the very beginning, with some even arguing that Israel “founded Hamas.” (I think they might just be confusing Israel’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.) If people are going to make such claims, then it would be nice if they actually shared/cited their sources.

Netanyahu’s support for Hamas, in order to sow divisions between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, is an entirely different matter, which seems to be substantiated by far more evidence. Besides Israel possibly having advance knowledge of the Hamas attack on 7 October, one could also note how Netanyahu is alleged to have said that he was interested in using Hamas to avoid a two-state solution. There also seems to be some evidence that Netanyahu allowed money to flow into Gaza in order to prop up the Hamas regime and prevent peaceful negotiations. Here’s two articles in Haaretz that touch on this issue, though I don't agree with every aspect of the articles (here and here). From the second article,

According to the Jerusalem Post, in a private meeting with members of his Likud party on March 11, 2019, Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state (as reported in former cabinet member Haim Ramon’s Hebrew-language book “Neged Haruach”, p. 417).

Funnily enough, some Israeli officials have also claimed that Western news organizations had foreknowledge of the Hamas attack, such as by citing photojournalists who covered the Hamas assault, in order to paint such media outlets as sympathizing with Hamas.

Benny Gantz, a former defence minister who sits in Israel’s war cabinet, said on X, formerly Twitter: “Journalists found to have known about the massacre, and [who] still chose to stand as idle bystanders while children were slaughtered, are no different than terrorists and should be treated as such.”

Danny Danon, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, said Israel had a list of people it would “eliminate” for participating in the raid, and that journalists who recorded the assault would be “added to that list”. He added: “We will hunt them down together with the terrorists.”

The Israeli prime minister’s office said: “These journalists were accomplices in crimes against humanity; their actions were contrary to professional ethics.”

Putting aside how ridiculous it is to deny Western media's strong Israeli bias, the Netanyahu government is essentially accusing such news outlets of being guilty of something that they are likely guilty of themselves.

adri wrote: I’ve seen quite a few people claim that Israel supported Hamas from the very beginning, with some even arguing that Israel “founded Hamas.” (I think they might just be confusing Israel’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Here's an article in the Nation in which the author also seems to confuse the Muslim Brotherhood with Hamas (or at least not correct the person they're quoting),

A 2006 article from United Press International reporter Richard Sale noted, “Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.” The article quoted a former CIA official as saying Israel financed Hamas, as “a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.”

It's impossible for Israel to have supported Hamas in the 1970s, because Hamas was only founded in 1987 during the First Intifada. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood were two completely separate organizations. The entire reason Israel supported religious groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place was because they were opposed to struggling against Israel, unlike the PLO at the time. There were even Muslim Brothers who disagreed with forming Hamas as an armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood during the First Intifada, seeing as how it went against their previous positions.

If it's of any interest, this article by Ziad Abu-Amr on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is quite illuminating,

Abu-Amr wrote: Moreover, while the occupation authorities were expending considerable energies on dismantling and repressing the resistance organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was not involved in armed resistance, was able to build its organizational structure and pursue its work among the masses with little Israeli interference (Abu-Amr 7-8).

Abu-Amr wrote: On the other hand, it was not easy for the group [the Muslim Brotherhood] to justify suddenly joining the intifada when its previous positions were well known; until the very eve of the uprising, Yasin and the other leaders had been arguing that the time had not yet come for the actual jihad. According to their oft-stated views, the Brotherhood was still in the phase of educating the Muslim generation in preparation for the restructuring of the Muslim community; this in turn would be the prelude to the declaration of jihad against Israel (Abu-Amr 11).

Not my choice of words but yeah. (Stay away from me MI5/6.)

Neturei Karta are reactionary, homophobic, sexist ultra-Orthodox religious lunatics. I don't understand why anyone from the left quotes or promotes them. It's like elevating the Westboro Baptist Church because there's some coincidence they have one position that crosses over with the left.

Neturei Karta are reactionary, homophobic, sexist ultra-Orthodox religious lunatics. I don't understand why anyone from the left quotes or promotes them. It's like elevating the Westboro Baptist Church because there's some coincidence they have one position that crosses over with the left.

I was more concerned about the "death" part of his comment... but yes I agree that it would be strange for socialists/communists to promote Neturei Karta. However, I don't think it's so strange to quote them in terms of their opposition to the State of Israel. This opposition actually echoes the historical Orthodox and Reform position towards Zionism, which is still shared, in a more moderate/neutral form, by other Jewish organizations like the American Council for Judaism. NK are largely correct when they note how the State of Israel violates Jewish tradition and Biblical interpretation, in which Jews were supposed to live in exile (or the diaspora) until the coming of the Messiah. Political Zionism had absolutely nothing to do with Judaism and was largely rejected by the Jewish community up until the 1930s, partly in response to the rise of Nazi Germany. The First Congress of the World Zionist Organization, held in 1897, even had to relocate from Munich to Switzerland owing to the intense opposition of German Jews. The only real exception to this rejection of Zionism was Eastern Europe, where the condition of Jews in the Pale was much worse.

I personally don't have any problems invoking the Bundists either, even though I might not agree with them on everything politically. They correctly pointed out (as did others) that the Zionist project, rather than creating a refuge for the Jewish diaspora, would only lead to more conflict with the Arabs already living in Palestine.

Not exactly evidence and I don't know Jock's source, as it is not listed under the article, but it does confirm collusion between Hamas and the State of Israel:

It doesn't "confirm" anything. He's likely also just confusing the Muslim Brotherhood for Hamas—again two entirely separate organizations. As I mentioned, the entire reason Israel supported the Brotherhood in the first place was because they were less militant than Fatah and the PLO. The Brotherhood formed Hamas in order to remain relevant during the First Intifada.

The only real evidence, if you can even call it that, I've come across regarding Israel's support for Hamas during the First Intifada is this American State Department document from 1988:

MANY WEST BANKERS BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL
ACTIVELY SUPPORTS HAMAS IN AN EFFORT TO DIVIDE
PALESTINIANS AND WEAKEN THE INTIFADA. THEY
POINT TO THE FACT THAT HAMAS OPERATIVES ACT
BOLDLY IN DISTRIBUTING THEIR LEAFLETS.
SHOPKEEPERS IN JERUSALEM AND NABLUS REPORT THAT,
WHEREAS UNLU LEAFLETS ARE DISTRIBUTED SECRETLY
FOR FEAR OF ISRAELI SECURITY FORCES, HAMAS
OPERATIVES WALK INTO SHOPS AND PRESENT THEIR
LEAFLETS DIRECTLY TO THE OWNERS. MAYOR FREIJ OF
BETHLEHEM CLAIMS THAT MEMBERS OF SOME WELL KNOWN
FAMILIES WHO COLLABORATE WITH ISRAELI OFFICIALS
HAVE BEEN SEEN AMONG HAMAS STREET GANGS IN
BETHLEHEM. FURTHERMORE, DESPITE MASSIVE
ARRESTS--AND THE PUBLIC IDENTITY OF MANY MB
LEADERS--RELATIVELY FEW HAMAS LEADERS HAVE BEEN
DETAINED. IN RECENT WEEKS, FUNDAMENTALIST
LEADERS HAVE GIVEN INTERVIEWS TO ISRAELI
PUBLICATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE LANDED SECULARIST
LEADERS IN DETENTION. WE BELIEVE THAT, WHILE
ISRAELI FORCES MAY BE TURNING A BLIND EYE TO
HAMAS ACTIVITIES, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO CONCLUDE THAT ISRAEL IS PROVIDING ACTIVE
SUPPORT.

The author might just be referring to Muslim Brothers when he mentions Hamas members, which would explain why Israel was turning a blind eye to their activities, just as they had done prior to the First Intifada. I'm not for certain and wouldn't mind seeing some other (actual) sources if people have any.

To bring a little context; the source for Ali's claim seems to be US Republican Senator McCaul, with no hard evidence shown so far to support it. No public verification from the Egyptian state. May be true or not, either way probably part of competing political agendas to either repeat or deny it. Whenever events of such significance take place (eg, 9/11) there will always be conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, mixing fact, speculation and outright falsehood.

Put simply, these material interests are to lower the cost to capital of employing labour power. If this means decimating a portion of the labour force, so be it. If needs be, destruction of the housing stock aids the same interests.

Please explain how the levelling of Gaza "lowers the cost of employing labour power".