Be careful what you ask for.

Disagreeing with them doesn’t make them illegitimate.

Oy.

the added side-benefit of the death of the state of Israel
And the death of all the Jews who live there. And here. And everywhere. It’s not a side-benefit to those people at all…it’s their main goal. Hamas is just the latest sheepskin they drape over it.

If you want to argue against the creation & history of the nation of Israel, I’m sure you can find plenty of places on the interweb to do it. It won’t be here.

(I love your hypothetical - it’s outrageously irrational, not least because Texas kicked Mexico’s ass right across the Rio Grande for daring to deny them their right to existence. Something like what the Israelis have done to the Arabs every time they’ve tried the same thing since 1948.)

Hamas is not an illegitimate organization, therefore it’s a problem to simply state, “they’re terrorists, we don’t talk to them.” So long as they are the political representatives of a majority of Palestinians, refusing to acknowledge Hamas is akin to demanding full Palestinian capitulation to Israel.

I don’t much like any religious fundamentalist group claiming political authority to speak for its people, and I like them even less when they engage in asymmetrical strikes against the people instead of the government they oppose. But the fact remains that Hamas political representatives have been democratically elected to speak for Palestinians. My point is that, much like the Taliban, if you want to get rid of a ruling faction that the people aren’t going to disavow themselves, you have to count on a third party to remove them from power by any means necessary, and prevent the people who democratically elected them from doing so again.

So either remove them or give them the opportunity to negotiate in good faith (on good behavior) towards the political ends they seek. Because, you know, these are the people the Palestinians have chosen to represent them. The violence that is done in the name of Hamas is a direct result of two things - Israel’s violence against Palestinians and the fierce nationalism of Palestinians looking for the restoration of the Palestinian state (with the added side-benefit of the death of the state of Israel). It helps to acknowledge these points when diagnosing why there is a Hamas and what might be done about them, because these are NOT irrational political goals.

(Would it be irrational for Texans to form a political party based solely on the goal of reacquiring territory lost if the UN unilaterally gave San Antonio back to Mexico? Would it be irrational for two generations of Texans to grow up behind razor wire in the San Antonio hinterlands their families were relocated to, believing all the while that the UN’s decision was illegitimate and that territory was rightfully and righteously theirs? Now, add a history of war to the mix, plus regular violent demonstrations and violent Mexican army reactions to violent demonstrations, plus a Mexican special forces unit who hunted down the leaders of your rebellion groups in their homes while they slept (or just lobbed missles into your neighborhoods), and I don’t think it’s a big leap to say that a political party could rise from this framework that encouraged the extinction of these Mexican invaders by any means necessary.)

Hamas has legitimate rational political grievances which, if addressed, could significantly reduce violence (including Hamas-sponsored attacks) in Israel. Obviously, suicide bombing and car bombs are an abhorrent strategy for airing these grievances, but peace without ethnic cleansing can’t be achieved by pretending those grievances don’t exist.

(I will state that it’s a dumb political move in this election environment to have any connection in your advisor organization to Hamas. Whether or not you want to influence our policy to adopt different principles once elected, it’s pretty clear all candidates have to do the hyper-pro-Israel tap routine while on the trail.)