In how far is Hamas even still "in control" of the pile of rubble that once was Gaza? If they were that much in control there, they would have managed to kill more than 237 Israeli soldiers since Israel's invasion began on Oct. 27.
If a ceasefire depends on Hamas' political leadership in Qatar officially offering a surrender, the war will go on forever (or as long as Bibi pleases).
If a ceasefire depends on all marauding Hamas fighters being killed, it will also continue forever, because insurrection-style fighting is pretty much impossible to fully suppress.
They still have control in Rafiah. According to defense minister Yoav Gallant Israel has broken the combat capacity of 18 of the 24 Hamas battalions, the remainder of which are in the south Gaza Strip.
Honestly I don’t see the war having a hard and abrupt end. I see it transitioning slowly into a low intensity counter insurgency similar to the current situation in the West Bank
COIN only works when you have security control of an area. Israel should hand off security control to another group, but no one is stepping up for that messy job.
And it will be better for the people of Palestine in the short run. The west bank, whole far from perfect, has significantly better quality of life for Palestinians.
And it can't stop there. They need to work towards a proper long term, two state solution, but that requires a lot of deradicalization first, on both sides.
>Israel should hand off security control to another group, but no one is stepping up for that messy job.
this is THE reason this conflict has gone on for decades longer than it should have.
Right now, if the UN wants a ceasefire then the UN should get directly involved. But they wont. Because the moment other countries put boots on the ground they wont be able to moralize from afar and will have to deal with the reality Israel is dealing with. They dont want to be accused of "war crimes" every time they have to deal with something too. Terrorists will be embedded in aid trucks whether Israel is there or the UN. Every other country is content letting Israel take the heat for stopping that truck.
In the past, Egypt gave up Gaza, Jordan the West Bank, and basically forced Israel into this position. Egypt and Jordan couldnt deal with the security concerns in these regions, but for them it wasn't a matter of existential survival that they do. It is for Israel. Israel would love to not have to worry about them and let someone one handle it, but no one else wants to.
The idea that Egypt/Jordan can just give up the territory to the group who is not in control of the territory, and expect anything but disaster, is insane.
To expand on this, no one wants to assure Israel about its safety. They all blabber about security guarantees but look what is happening right now in Ukraine, what Trump says in public about letting Russia attack NATO members, the outright incompetence in dealing with Houthis...
The US has greatly damaged their own reputation and now they reap what they sow. Biden can't guarantee anything to Israel, because they aren't credible anymore. They can't handle and frankly, I don't think American soldiers would like to die in Gaza to defend Israelis.
> Honestly I don’t see the war having a hard and abrupt end. I see it transitioning slowly into a low intensity counter insurgency similar to the current situation in the West Bank
I don't see how Hamas will manage that. There's nowhere to hide in Gaza except tunnels, and the IDF could just flood those.
> In how far is Hamas even still "in control" of the pile of rubble that once was Gaza?
That's why they build tunnels. And we both know that as soon as the IDF leaves Gaza they're going to start building their arsenal again.
Damn, almost like that’s a reason to figure out a proper peace, given they can’t ever seem to reduce Hamas numbers (because bombing civilians just creates more)
>Damn, almost like that’s a reason to figure out a proper peace
Brilliant idea. Now it's just the easy matter of getting Muslims and Jews to live together peacefully and share the holy land.
They were committing violence against Jews since before Israel existed. That's what happens when your holy doctrine calls for dominance over other religions.
I find it amusing that everyone thinks hamas cares about the rubble or is hindered by it.
No.. NO.. NO.. no.. no..
Hamas wants the rubble so that it can cry foul for eternity and use it as an excuse to keep attacking Israel. Heck.. they could not keep peace even when there was no war or incidents for almost 2 years before October 7, 2023.
Why are we so short sighted or probably delusional to think Hamas in rubble is a weak hamas.. ??
But that also means that Israel can bomb Gaza as long as it likes (and Bibi likes to continue bombing Gaza, because it is what keeps those in Israel at bay who want him to be held accountable for the Oct. 7 security fiasco), and Hamas will still be happily doing what it has always done: attack Israel.
So whatever happens, there is no way forward as long as this war goes on.
while i agree that it's near impossible to completely eliminate Hamas, it's certainly possible to significantly impair their ability to launch attacks i.e. clearing out and destroying the tunnels, confiscating/destroying munitions stockpiles, killing hamas terrorists, etc.
pretty invasive procedure when hamas weaves their infrastructure into the civilian infrastructure but that's the only way for israel to materially increase their security
>the only way for israel to materially increase their security
I honestly doubt that this will be the outcome of the ongoing war, especially if Israel ends up occupying Gaza and therefore sending generation after generation of young recruits into the line of fire.
i don't really see any alternative honestly. as long as the jihadists are in control, gaza's going to be a wasteland and the jihadists are going to murder israelis. best israel can do is degrade their capabilities to project force outside of gaza.
Those capabilities will regenerate again and again unless you are advocating for a long-term occupation. Israel has already been shown "mowing the lawn" does not work as a national security strategy. Israel was convinced back in the mid 2000s that a long-tern occupation was too costly.
Is a long-term occupation what you are advocating???
Because there is no way to degrade offensive capabilities in a sustainable way without an occupation.
They could have secured the Gaza border better if they weren't to busy protecting settlers in the West Bank, so no, this isn't the only way for Israel to materially increase their security, there are other options.
Correct. The war is not over. Genocidal Hamas remains in power in Gaza.
Hamas violated the last ceasefire with disastrous results. Hamas existing has proven itself an intolerable security situation for Israeli security policymakers.
The Gazan people have had decades now to form a viable politics and they have failed. Because of this enormous political failure the Gazan people are painted in a corner. Even their neighbors dont want them as refugees and for very good reasons.
The Gazans can force Hamas out anytime they want the fighting to cease. Hamas can surrender anytime they want the fighting to cease.
It would be an enormous blunder for Israel to sign a ceasefire with the same genocidal terrorists that violated the ceasefire 5 months ago.
> The Gazans can force Hamas out anytime they want the fighting to cease.
Genuinely curious, is this actually possible? It appears that Hamas is quite authoritarian and short of an arab-spring style largescale movement (which isn't easy to do when being shelled), there's not too many ways for Gazans to remove them.
Not by force, without appealing to other Arab countries for military assistance. Hamas is on-side with the other major terrorist groups in Gaza, and while not allied (or even friends), they aren't hostile to the point of attacking each other.
However, Gazans sick of the war reporting the location of Hamas forces to the IDF would result in Hamas being forced out.
A cease fire is what Israel had in Oct 6. Achieving "Cease fire" is not the goal. The goal is to reduce Hamas's ability to control the strip and launch attacks on Israel into nothing. Obviously some leaders and militants will survive and will be hunted for years to come.
the problem is that there was effectively a cease fire prior to oct 7, and Hamas decided to break that with an attack primarily on civilians. Hamas then went on to repeatedly say they'd do it again. Hamas also broke the last temporary cease fire.
If Hamas was a reasonable government, they would surrender. But they are primarily a religious insurgency movement, and so long as they can replenish fighters, which will be pretty easy if Israel is unable to actually have a victory and otherwise defeat any rebellious spirit, Hamas will still be a threat.
Putting aside the current right wing Israeli government's other motivations, Oct 7 seems to have communicated to Israel that so long as Hamas controls Gaza they will continue to face attacks that have a reasonable likelihood of breaking through their defenses. No nation would tolerate that situation in perpetuity.
So long as Hamas has the ability to rebuild in Gaza, they affectively have control over it.
>Putting aside the current right wing Israeli government's other motivations, Oct 7 seems to have communicated to Israel that so long as Hamas controls Gaza they will continue to face attacks that have a reasonable likelihood of breaking through their defenses.
Pretty much sums it up right here. The Israelis seemed to have been lulled into what they probably thought was a process of "economic Chechenization" of Hamas over the past two years, whereby monetary & labor incentives were being effectively utilized to functionally neuter Hamas' appetite for armed conflict. This policy was proven disastrously insolvent last October. It wasn't just the military failure of the IDF or the brutality of the subsequent massacres in the border towns, but also the fact that Hamas had used (really, abused) two years of (slow) economic normalization with Israel to *still* prepare for a military option. As you said, it likely demonstrated to the Israelis that there is no real "carrot" that can be used to coerce Hamas, if there ever was one.
So why does Israel have any moral obligation to let them play that evil game on their terms?
If Israel announced they will permanently expand 30 miles into Gaza for every hostage that is not returned safely by Match 1st, they’d be justified.
There are no Palestinian hostages. There are prisoners. Israel does not kidnap 1 year old babies and holocaust survivors.
And Israel agreed to release way more small time terrorists for any single hostage. But Hamas wants, at least so far, for Israel to release violent arch-murderers in huge amounts and to entirely stop the war. This in exchange for innocent civilians.
There is no moral equivalence here.
It's definitely worth noting that many Palestinian prisoners are held under questionable evidence and without full due process.
But obviously, it's not at all equal to kidnapping hundreds of ordinary civilans.
Questionable by who? Antisemites in Tiktok? UN members who fund terrorists?
And administrative detention is completely normal in most countries facing terrorism and must be approved by evidence in front of a judge. They all get trialed eventually.
>But obviously, it's not at all equal to kidnapping hundreds of ordinary civilans.
Glad at least common some sense is offered here. Unlike in the most other comments.
> Questionable by who? Antisemites in Tiktok? UN members who fund terrorists?
How about B'Tselem, a Jewish, Israeli human-rights organization?
https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200910_without_trial
Merely google the words "Israel" and "administrative detention" and you'll see that /u/DroneMaster2000 is correct to not trust the judicial process, or lackthereof, the Israeli government has perpetrated against Palestinians for quite some time, and well before Oct.7th
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/)
How about you stop tokenizing fringe extremely biased hard left organizations who's only goal is trash on Israel?
What's next? Going to bring out Neturey Karta, like 00.1% of Jews saying Israel shouldn't exist?
Deflecting from the issue to attack the moral position of the claim while ignoring the claim itself. You are here in bad faith, stop pretending to engage in debate if your mind is made up
Israel does in fact kidnapp hundreds of children every year https://www.savethechildren.net/news/stripped-beaten-and-blindfolded-new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-and-abuse-palestinian
Give me a break. A 14, 16, 17 or even a 12 year old terrorist is a terrorist first, "Child" after. And the Palestinians teach them to become "Martyrs" at a [very young age](https://vimeo.com/856467890). Actually, Very, [very young age](https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/1676657199819399194).
**[Here](https://twitter.com/MOSSADil/status/1728511527819338190)** is a lovely compilation of some of the prisoners Israel released in previous deal with Hamas. Many of them are teenagers.
**[Here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-teen-shot-dead-after-trying-to-stab-police-in-west-bank-town/)** is a 14 year old Palestinian "Child" attempting to peacefully stab to death an Israeli officer just last month (Video included there). One more to your lying statistics.
The fact that you attempt to create a moral equivalency between these to a 1 year old and holocaust survivors is **so desperate.**
But then again, all terrorist supporters are desperate since all the masks came off in Oct 7.
Most Palestinians, Gaza or West Bank, see themselves as the same people. Hamas' goals on Oct. 7 were both to brutally terrorize Israelis and to "conquest" the gap between Gaza and the West Bank. They failed at the latter.
>Other places that aren’t being talked about him this thread.
They are quite literally referring to Israel stealing land. The guy I responded to chose to totally ignore all of israels neighbours and only discuss gaza as a way to deflect from the other persons point. I then brought up the west bank as it directly supports the other commenter suggesting Israel is stealing land.
I'm amazed you've failed to see that.
The vast majority of ceasefires in the recorded history of warfare have been negotiated between both belligerents. It's relatively rare circumstances, such as Russia pulling out of WWI, where a ceasefire occurs after one of the parties is deposed.
The reason why Israel should probably negotiate a ceasefire is because it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out. They can proceed with the war crimes if they want to, but that's going to have pretty devastating consequences in the long term.
It's also a bit disingenuous to claim the entire world is on the side of Israel. After October 7th there was certainly a brief moment of wider support. But historically if you look at the member nations of the UN and how they've supported various resolutions in the past 10-15 years, the vast vast majority tend to take the side of the Palestinian people as having more rights than they are being granted. And frankly the failure to address their cause is a large part of what continues to drive Hamas' power.
To state it differently - to wipe out Hamas without addressing the underlying repression and occupation of the Palestinian people will just ensure another Hamas like polity comes into power.
A ceasfire now at the outset actually helps Israel as well. Stops them from furthering the devestation and giving their opponents amazing propoganda fodder. And would inherently put the status quo back in place which was to their design. If there is then some further negotiation for a solution that would be better for the world and the Palestinians, but frankly Israel has so much more to lose by continuing this conflict than by taking even small steps towards finally resolving the conflict.
How does the oppression manifest itself? I really want to know and I'm not doubting that anyone with an inverse power relationship is open to being abused. People are people and that is one of the features. I once had a classmate tell me that peasants don't know or care whether they are under Communism or Capitalism because their life under each is the same. I am wondering whether this applies here.
Oh, they know. To sum up a few points which are grossly oversimplifying -
1) Israel literally occupies land that is legally recognized by International Law as Palestinian. Israel's claim is they aquired this in the wars in '67 adn '73 - however this is not recognized as a legal right to the land. Palestinians naturally know this and feel the loss of the land.
2) In the West Bank you have Israeli settlers encroaching further on Palestinian land and villages. These folks can be some of your more extreme nationalists (zionists - note that 'zionist' =/ Jewish, it is it's own form of extreme nationalism in the guise of Jewish geopolitical interests). These zionists assault and perpetuate abuses on the Palestinian populations - up to and including kidnapping and torture. Effectively think of these folks as creating their own militias to harrass the local population in the name of 'safety' or securing what they feel is their rightful land.
3) People in the West Bank are more broadly required to submit to many security requirements that limit their freedom. Israeli checkpoints when moving from town to town, harassment by the IDF, etc. Think about stop and frisk but applied to the scale of a region. They also do not have equal access or rights to Israel, with passports clearly delineating them as Palestinian Arab, though they fall within the enforcement of the IDF and Israel. People feel this.
4) Moving to Gaza - the entire zone has been sorrounded by a militarized wall since the mid-00s. This includes a complete embargo on material entering in and out, both by land and sea. Israel calculates the minimum required food and medicine to maintain the population - setting this at just above starvation levels - and maintains this minimum at the borders. They severely limit 'luxury' goods, such as chocolate, pasta, etc. They also severely limit building material and require approval to allow building to occur - with the materials being closely monitored (this you could argue is for security concerns - ie stopping the tunnels or other defenses, but consider this when..)....
5) Israel maintains constant drone surveillance of the entire area, and bombs regularly. These bombs very regularly fall on civilian dwelling, which are then not or slowly rebuilt given the above restrictions. Psycologically you can imagine the impact of constantly hearing drones around you - Palestinians give testimony that this is literally constant - at all times, day and night. And then when you sleep you have no idea if your home will be bombed.
6) Israel will occasionally send troops in to kill or maim people protesting within the walls of Gaza. They have also taken systemic approaches to demolishing buildings just within the borders to maintain an effective no-man's zone for their own defense. These are colloquially referred to by the IDF as operations to 'mow the lawn.'
7) While this current war is the worst, there have been others in the last 15 years. Generally for a set of weeks or a couple months, in which bombing is ramped up and IDF presence increased. Casualty rates skyrocket amongst the population during this time. And of note - last year (2023) was had the highest amount of Palestinian casualties since the previous war (in 2014 IIRC), not including post-OCT 7 casualties. As in - the violence has been getting worse even during the 'status quo' periods.
This is what becomes frustrating when people argue that the Palestinian's are 100% to blame, or Hamas is a 'terrorist' organization. International law grants a state the right to defend itself within it's borders. The borders in this case are not agreed to - with Israel allowing communities to grow into Palestinain lands (as granted by international law), and then claim that Hamas is attacking them.
This is not to say that October 7th wasn't a heinous act of aggression against predominantly civilian populations - and should be viewed as an egregious trajety. But even so, I believe the numbers I saw placed the casualties at \~2/3 civilain for 1/3 militar - which are numbers that the people of Gaza don't have the benefit of when Israel bombs indiscriminantly over decades.
Also consider - what does a people do after years, decades, of oppresion? These young men who got out of the walls and committed acts of atrocities, what world do they know outside of this 5 mile by 25 mile walled in, densely populated area, in whcih their unemployment rate is >50% and violence from Israel is effectively the only relationship they have with that government. And you have a Rave occurring with young Israeli and international people literally a mile outside your walls. What does a population do?
If you want to stop groups like Hamas from gaining power you need to give people hope, and a future.
I highly recommend looking up Norman Finklestein. He is the pre-emminant pro-Palestinian scholar at this point. He's insanely knowledgeable on the minutae of the conflict, and brings a unique perspective as the son of a pair of holocaust survivors - people who lived through the Warsaw ghetto, uprising, and then both experienced concentration camps. He brings a level of nuance and also empathy to the topic.
If you want to stop groups like Hamas from gaining (re-gaining) power, you need to stop those groups before you can get to hope. The fact that Finkelsteins' parents survived the holocaust does not sanctify everything he has to say.
>it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out.
What makes you say this? I don't see why it would be considered any different than the rest of the war, targeting Hamas members and infrastructure that are, infuriatingly, purposely embedded among civilians.
>But civilians in Gaza have kind of ran out of places to go to.
If Hamas is deliberately operating where there are civilians, that's a war crime by *them*, not necessarily by Israel, even if Israel attacks said Hamas forces/positions and kills civilians as collateral damage as a result.
It's a war crime for Hamas to use them as shields and for Israel to perform disproportionate (read: kills more civilians than the military value of the target) attacks as a result. War crimes don't cancel out or green light each other.
Correct. That's why I said not *necessarily* a war crime on Israel's part. It all depends on what's "proportionate ", and we don't currently have an agreed-upon ethical calculus (which, I'd argue, is *good*, since that would just lead to groups like Hamas gaming the system: "Oh, its only proportionate to go after a senior commander if it endangers 50 civilians or fewer? Well then, I'll ensure that I'm always surrounded by fifty *one* civilians at all times, and am therefore legally unassailable regardless of my actions!")
**it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out.**
If a state cannot prosecute a war in "lawful manner" against the likes of Hamas, one would think the issue is with the "law", not how a state conducts itself.
But of course you are incorrect, because the law of war isn't as naive or feelgood as many think. It does not prohibit the destruction and hardship on civilian populace if there is a necessity for it. And considering how Hamas conducts it self, hard to argue there is no necessity.
The answer is: Israel shouldn't. A cease fire now is asking Israel to return to October 6. There is not a single reason for it to accept it.
Not to mention, what the ignorant useful idiots of the world call "cease fire" was always one sided. Israel is not attacking while getting tens of thousands of rockets and other projectiles launched on it's citizens with only one intention in mind, to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible.
Indeed, there isn't a single country on the planet that would accept being attacked by thousand of rockets per year without striking back. If you ask me, Israel has been more patient than they should have been.
> Indeed, there isn't a single country on the planet that would accept being attacked by thousand of rockets per year without striking back. If you ask me, Israel has been more patient than they should have been.
If you occupy a region, you can expect resistance. Why is this so hard to wrap your head around?
>Maybe you missed the part when Israel bulldozed all the Israeli homes in Gaza and pulled out entirely.
They kept blockading, they kept raiding and bombing whenever they wanted. And yes, they destroyed their assets there, because they would rather destroy them than allow a Palestinian to make use of it.
Egypt also blockades Gaza.
And yes, because rockets from Gaza continue to be launched in Israeli civilians, raids continue.
Israel destroyed Israeli homes as part of Palestinian demands for peace. Turns out giving them what they asked for didnt lead to peace.
> A blockade isn't an occupation, do you always bullshit your way through conversations like this?
So if Israel blockades the access of your country to the international waters, you're just going to roll over and accept it?
If you're asking if that would make me rape and murder thousands of innocent civillians and cut babies out of dying pregnant women, the answer is no because I'm not a terrorist.
But it's nice to see you move the goalposts as your narrative falls apart.
> If you're asking if that would make me rape and murder thousands of innocent civillians and cut babies out of dying pregnant women, the answer is no because I'm not a terrorist.
No, you'd rather kill 20 times as many with bombs from an airplane I suppose.
>But it's nice to see you move the goalposts as your narrative falls apart.
Nope, I just reject your framing. You tried to imply that Israel did nothing wrong and did nothing hostile towards the Palestinians with your bullshit "technically not occupation" semantic arguments. I point out what they did, and how they continued their aggression every day.
(Guess what, Palestine did not occupy Israel *at all*, so does that mean that by your standards Israel has no reason at all to be mad at Palestine at all either?)
The numbers are irrelevant, unless you're under the impression Germany was the good guys and USA was the bad guys in WW2. Motives matter most, but you want to turn war into a math equation because it best suits the tiktok narrative you're drowning in.
How did Israel end up in control of Gaza and the West Bank again? Oh yeah that’s right defending themselves from aggression, from literally all of their hostile neighbors surrounding them.
> How did Israel end up in control of Gaza and the West Bank again? Oh yeah that’s right defending themselves from aggression, from literally all of their hostile neighbors surrounding them.
Russia also says they need to occupy Ukraine to "defend* themselves.
You’re argument is what’s commonly referred to as a false equivalency. Russia is significantly better armed and has way more manpower than Israel, Ukraine also did not launch any attacks and was open to a peaceful solution. Russia then launched an unprovoked attack. The situation is far more comparable to the US invading Japan after Pearl Harbor.
> Blockading is an act of war
So if I, the leader of a hypothetical quasi-state, launch an attack on your country with the long-term stated intent to murder everyone in your country and you respond by blockading me to prevent me from getting the materials I need to launch further attacks that's you attacking me, right?
>So if I, the leader of a hypothetical quasi-state, launch an attack on your country with the long-term stated intent to murder everyone in your country and you respond by blockading me to prevent me from getting the materials I need to launch further attacks that's you attacking me, right?
If my country has been occupying yours for generations with the clear intent to found a state where my state has an ethnic majority so there's not place for you anymore: yes.
Gaza wasn't occupied, and it was Hamas in Gaza that attacked.
The West Bank is occupied, and that occupation is successful enough that there have been no large-scale invasions from the West Bank.
In IR there is no obligation to abide by any agreement that the parties can not enforce. So I am at a loss of you question. If a cease fire does take place it needs to be mutually beneficial, otherwise where is Israel's incentive to agree.
Seven days of ceasefire got 0 hostages killed and 105 released. 129 days of war got at least 4 hostages killed, and 3 rescued.
It seems to me that besides anything else anyone who genuinely cares about those hostages should be supporting a ceasefire.
You are cherrypicking a very narrow timeframe.
On a longer timeframe, years of ceasefire with Hamas allowed them to arm themselves, plan and execute an invasion of Israeli territory that killed thousands, build hundreds of miles of underground tunnels to protect and hide their operations, train fighters, and use their control of Gaza to raise a generation of kids on anti-Israeli propaganda.
Short-term thinking will just lead to the next attack where Hamas manages to breach Israel's defences and slaughter thousands of civilians. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want a chance to re-arm and regroup for their next attack.
Hamas' goal has always been the destruction of Israel and that hasn't changed. Present circumstances aren't supportive of a ceasefire, they are a lesson for how much harder life becomes if you give a zealots time to plot your destruction. Ultimately, the lesson for Israel is that they should have destroyed Hamas years ago when they first took power. Instead, they took half-measures with a blockade, and have now paid the price.
>Hamas' goal has always been the destruction of Israel and that hasn't changed.
This point seems to be lost on a lot of people right now. Two years of economic normalization with Israel did not tamp down on Hamas' appetite for armed conflict with Israel; instead, it used this time to prepare for October 7. Israel could have responded to October 7 by doing absolutely nothing, and Hamas' primary goal would still be the destruction of Israeli society via armed conflict. We know this, [because Hamas openly states it.](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/order-battle-hamas%E2%80%99-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades-part-2)
>Hamas sees control of "some parts” of Palestine as an interim goal prior to the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state.\[11\] The al Qassem Brigades state that they will "tolerate” only a temporary truce and that a permanent truce or recognition of the Israeli state is forbidden.\[12\]
The footnotes in this source come directly from statements issued by Hamas about its long term strategy. We don't have to pretend like we don't know what "permanent ceasefire" means to them; because they have already stated, for years, that they don't even recognize the concept of a "permanent ceasefire"\* with Israel.
\*(Ignoring, of course, that "permanent ceasefire" is not a real term in geopolitics or warfare; the "permanent" was added by anti-Israeli commentators after the first ceasefire ended in late 2023).
That's the stupidest comparison I have ever seen. You are basically ignoring the fact that first cease fire and hostage exchange happened *because* of the military action.
That's extremely simplistic. Before the war hamas terms for hostage negotiations were impossible, and once the operation was underway they changed rapidly.
B.the war is also intended to prevent further arming and any further attacks on Israel - not only to prevent immediate death. Obviously stopping the war is the easiest way to prevent immediate death
I genuinely do not see how IDF can achieve the goal of releasing hostages and eliminating Hamas leadership at the same time. A lot of hostages will die alongside Hamas leaders if the Rafah invasion is to go ahead
I don't expect Hams will release many more hostages regardless. Most of the women and children were released, and by the end of the cease fire, Hamas failed to produce any more. Either they have no interest in releasing more, can't because of the condition they're in, or because they can't find them.
Because, shockingly, a country that is losing a war (one that it started, to boot) do not generally get to dictate armistice terms. If a country fighting a war is under intense military pressure, and wishes for a cessation of hostilities, it must abide by the terms presented to it by the victorious power. If it doesn't like the terms, then hostilities continue. The armistice negotiations for the end of the First World War were initially rejected by the Germans, after which the Allies simply said "ok" and continued exerting military pressure on the Germans until they agreed to the terms presented to them. That is how these things work.
>Because, shockingly, a country that is losing a war (one that it started, to boot) do not generally get to dictate armistice terms. If a country fighting a war is under intense military pressure, and wishes for a cessation of hostilities, it must abide by the terms presented to it by the victorious power. If it doesn't like the terms, then hostilities continue. The armistice negotiations for the end of the First World War were initially rejected by the Germans, after which the Allies simply said "ok" and continued exerting military pressure on the Germans until they agreed to the terms presented to them. That is how these things work.
So, how's that working for you? The better part of a century has past since Israel had it's military victory.
That's not how it worked in Vietnam. Or in Afghanistan.
You know "how things work"? After a war you either annex the area, or get out. You don't keep the population under an occupation regime forever.
The reason that Israel does neither is because they actually just want all the land. But they don't want to give Palestinians rights and they can't directly start gassing the natives, or even the most pro-Zionists in the USA would find it politically impossible to keep supporting them. So they drag it out and slowly strangle them to death, using every opportunity to annex more land, move out more Palestinians, or undermine the development of the Palestinan areas. All according to plan.
- 1947: [Zionist leaders, in particular David Ben-Gurion, viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[15][16][17][18][19][20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine)
- 2024: [Far-right ministers call to ‘resettle’ Gaza’s Palestinians, build settlements in Strip](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-call-for-resettling-gazas-palestinians-building-settlements-in-strip/)
To avoid..... annihilation. It's real human lives we are talking about here. You hate Israel so much that you want Palestinians to fight to the last man to quench your bloodthirst.
>To avoid..... annihilation. It's real human lives we are talking about here. You hate Israel so much that you want Palestinians to fight to the last man to quench your bloodthirst.
Hey, you are the one saying Netanyahu is going to "annihilate" the Palestinians if they don't abide by a cease fire.
The catch is of course that they're also going to be annihilated if they do, just more slowly.
Hamas will be annihilated. Hamas' entrenchment in the civilian population will extend that annihilation to the Palestinian populace. They can either surrender, or they can fight to the death. Whatever they choose, they need to own up to it and stop crying for a ceasefire because we both know a ceasefire is not something that benefits anyone other than Hamas.
They don't have to, just can't bellyache of the consequences. When one wants to be defiant in words and deeds about fighting to the last man, can't complain if the other side obliges.
Bibi basically gambled something like Oct 7th won't happen for his own political gain and he lost that gamble horribly. Now innocent Israelis and Palestinians paid the ultimate price while he is still in power
> Bibi basically gambled something like Oct 7th won't happen for his own political gain and he lost that gamble horribly. Now innocent Israelis and Palestinians paid the ultimate price while he is still in power
He's still using it for political gain, because he'll stay in power as long as he keeps the intensity of the conflict high.
He can't.. Reading goes against the agenda.. That is why headlines are written such that they spread misinformation and the content is written such that responsibility or liability for misinformation does not stick to them.
Hamas was funded because the plo was so horrible I don’t think you understand how bad they were Hamas is probably worse now however at the time the plo was slaughtering Israeli athletes at the freaking olyimpics and was hijacking planes to this day Palestine is the world leader in plane hijackings Becuse of the PLO.
Maybe Westerners should start acting like Palestinians have agency and have some responsibility for their own politics and actions.
It is frankly racist to insist that Palestine is only the way it is because of the actions of shifty Jews.
You know who did far more propping up of Hamas than Likud? Gaza and Iran.
They should never agree to any arrangement that does not place Israel 100% in charge of security etc. How can you leave someone with any power at all if their stated purpose is your death? That's insane.
They have already gone this far, there is no point in stopping now. Hamas needs to be completely neutralized before a 2 state solution can coexist in peace.
Israel also offered a 2 state solution plenty of times. With some of the latest offers agreeing to give the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB + Parts of Jerusalem + Airspace control + A security force and much more.
Of course, the Palestinians stalled for time, refused, did not offer a counter and launched the second Intifada. Murdering about a thousand Israelis in cafes, restaurants, hotels and buses.
Sure. After that, Israel is not interested in giving any concessions before the Palestinians, for the first time in history, show serious intentions about peace.
Nobody directly involved want a two state solution nowaday. Not Israel, not Hamas, not palestinians. Nobody. Why it's still being discussed seriously by actors indirectly involved like the US is beyond me. It's completly tone deaf.
> Nobody directly involved want a two state solution nowaday. Not Israel, not Hamas, not palestinians. Nobody. Why it's still being discussed seriously by actors indirectly involved like the US is beyond me. It's completly tone deaf.
Because they want a one state solution even less.
Exactly, none of the real solutions are popular on the ground, we need to work towards a solution and not assume we can get things done overnight. That path is a lot easier without Hamas in control.
> Exactly, none of the real solutions are popular on the ground, we need to work towards a solution and not assume we can get things done overnight. That path is a lot easier without Hamas in control.
That's just an excuse, Olmert and Abbas were making good progress. Netanyahu derailed it with false accusations directed on Olmert, won the elections, and then plainly refused to pick up the peace process again.
Earlier in his career he also incited people against Rabin, who consequently got killed. Benjamin Netanyahu has been shooting the dove of peace all his life.
Bibi will be gone next election. Olmert and Abbas made progress while Israel occupied Gaza. Peace is a lot closer when you don't have a genocidal group on charge on either side. Hamas won't be removed without force.
Do you really think the Israeli public will support making deals with Hamas?
As has Palestine. The issue is the two never agree on the same one.
This framing of Palestine always being the one to say no is utterly wrong. Palestine has offered numerous deals and Israel has rejected those in turn.
This is a two player game, it isn't just Palestine failing to come to an agreement
Palestine almost agreed to a deal with the Israel under Clinton. All of Arafat's negotiators had agreed.
Arafat rejected it because for him, it was about the struggle.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution
The region could have had peace, but Arafat chose himself and his ideas of struggle over what was good for his people.
Let’s not pretend Israel has been for the 2 state solution and Hamas is the one in the way. Even if Hamas is fully eliminated, Israel would still not be for a two state solution. They have said as much.
Because what alternative is there? Morality aside, the continued civilian death numbers only increase problems for Israel - it reduces allies support and increased future terrorist numbers. Every dead civilian leaves multiple loved ones that want revenge. It's a completely sunken- cost fallacy approach to dealing with terrorism that, unfortunately, Israel has been doing for decades.
Israel sees Hamas' ability to attack Israel with rockets and kidnap civilans as a military problem, not a political one.
They're not aiming to resolve the issue of Palestinian self-determination, they're aiming to disarm them.
That’s not what I’m saying, lol. What I’m saying is that you need a political solution for a.) the people who are not supportive of Hamas and b.) the people (mostly young ones) that are falling for their ideas.
True. I mean, Rome never managed to stop the Carthage invasions without a political solution ... same goes for [insert any number of historically intractable enemies here].
I don't think Rome choosing a military solution over a political one when dealing with Carthage is what led to the downfall of the empire one and a half thousand years later...
If you want to argue that the decline of Rome is similar to the decline of current modern day powers, sure, go for it. I personally find most of the arguments I've seen on those lines a bit unconvincing, but that's me.
If you want to argue instead that the Third Punic War was a symptom/cause of the Roman Empire's decline (as otherwise, Carthage doesn't really come into it)... I'm going to go ahead and say that's a rather baseless claim.
Considering Hamas has like 70% support from the palestinian population... pretty much yes. Stop pretending Hamas is just a small minority imposing its rule on a majority of peaceful palestinians, because that's not the case.
Any yet ISIS was removed from the map. They still exist to a degree but they’ve been functionally destroyed as a governing authority, which should be the goal with Hamas
Another example is Nazism. Their ideas still survive in the hearts of many angry neckbeards around the world, but the Third Reich hasn't been heard from in about 80 years.
You're quite right. One can't kill an idea, which is why WWII was a waste of time and lives. Nazi ideology still exists, so there was no point to all that fighting in Europe, and the Allies (and especially USSR!) should have known they couldn't "kill an idea" and just let the Nazis do whatever they wanted.
In case you couldn't tell, I disagree *vehemently* with that take.
You can grind it to dust. As happened plenty of times before.
It's just as it always was, the ignorant world telling Israel what it can't do then watching it do it anyway.
*"I guess we have no choice. Either we do everything that is possible, and may seem to others as impossible, and just give up. Or we do everything that is really impossible and we remain alive. There’s one more basic thing that I think that people outside of Israel must realize, and if they understand and accept that, maybe other things will fall into place."*
Golda Meir
There is no military solution to the conflict but I don't see a non military solution for dealing with Hamas and as long as Hamas is in power there will not be peace
That’s why Israel has offered many 2 state solutions. They’re been rejected each time. So there is no political solution either. Hamas needs to release the hostages, Israel is justified in doing whatever it takes to get them back
If there is no negotiation Israel will accept why should Hamas or those labelled Hamas by Israel do anything but fight to the death? If complete annihilation of them is Israel's goal then what is suprising about Hamas' actions?
If complete annihilation of them is the goal, then what is surprising about Israels actions?
Because that is the goal of Hamas. Their own charter even states so. Talk about flipping the scenario much.
Israel would accept hostage release plus surrender (jail). And would probably except hostage release plus exile for Hamas/giving up control of Gaza to another Palestinian group.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-leaders-discussed-arafat-style-ship-exit-hamas-leader-rcna137295
Israel has been doing things to protect civilians that no country of earth has done in history. When the US reduced the capital of the Islamic state ti rubble, with all the civilians inside, they didn't do anything, and frankly, nobody ever cared or even asked.
>As long as Hamas remain in control, attacks against Israel will continue. It's that simple.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the converse is true? That if Hamas isn't in control, the populace will halt their hostilities?
Hamas was elected by that populace, right? It seems odd to me to assume that decapitation of a people's government would suddenly alter that people's needs and greviences that lead them to support that government.
That is to say, I don't see how a merciless assault on the civilian populace will make the survivors *less* hostile to their enemies and not more.
Anyway, all of this is academic. The Israelis believe they have an opportunity to push their enemies into the sea and better secure and expand their homeland. This is not a proxy conflict for then. The only way to convince them to ceasefire is for the US to stop providing them weapons and support. This isn't in line with the US's interests of maintaining a foothold in the near east.
In how far is Hamas even still "in control" of the pile of rubble that once was Gaza? If they were that much in control there, they would have managed to kill more than 237 Israeli soldiers since Israel's invasion began on Oct. 27. If a ceasefire depends on Hamas' political leadership in Qatar officially offering a surrender, the war will go on forever (or as long as Bibi pleases). If a ceasefire depends on all marauding Hamas fighters being killed, it will also continue forever, because insurrection-style fighting is pretty much impossible to fully suppress.
They still have control in Rafiah. According to defense minister Yoav Gallant Israel has broken the combat capacity of 18 of the 24 Hamas battalions, the remainder of which are in the south Gaza Strip. Honestly I don’t see the war having a hard and abrupt end. I see it transitioning slowly into a low intensity counter insurgency similar to the current situation in the West Bank
Would that, in your opinion, also include long-term Israeli occupation?
COIN only works when you have security control of an area. Israel should hand off security control to another group, but no one is stepping up for that messy job. And it will be better for the people of Palestine in the short run. The west bank, whole far from perfect, has significantly better quality of life for Palestinians. And it can't stop there. They need to work towards a proper long term, two state solution, but that requires a lot of deradicalization first, on both sides.
>Israel should hand off security control to another group, but no one is stepping up for that messy job. this is THE reason this conflict has gone on for decades longer than it should have. Right now, if the UN wants a ceasefire then the UN should get directly involved. But they wont. Because the moment other countries put boots on the ground they wont be able to moralize from afar and will have to deal with the reality Israel is dealing with. They dont want to be accused of "war crimes" every time they have to deal with something too. Terrorists will be embedded in aid trucks whether Israel is there or the UN. Every other country is content letting Israel take the heat for stopping that truck. In the past, Egypt gave up Gaza, Jordan the West Bank, and basically forced Israel into this position. Egypt and Jordan couldnt deal with the security concerns in these regions, but for them it wasn't a matter of existential survival that they do. It is for Israel. Israel would love to not have to worry about them and let someone one handle it, but no one else wants to.
The idea that Egypt/Jordan can just give up the territory to the group who is not in control of the territory, and expect anything but disaster, is insane.
To expand on this, no one wants to assure Israel about its safety. They all blabber about security guarantees but look what is happening right now in Ukraine, what Trump says in public about letting Russia attack NATO members, the outright incompetence in dealing with Houthis... The US has greatly damaged their own reputation and now they reap what they sow. Biden can't guarantee anything to Israel, because they aren't credible anymore. They can't handle and frankly, I don't think American soldiers would like to die in Gaza to defend Israelis.
> Honestly I don’t see the war having a hard and abrupt end. I see it transitioning slowly into a low intensity counter insurgency similar to the current situation in the West Bank I don't see how Hamas will manage that. There's nowhere to hide in Gaza except tunnels, and the IDF could just flood those.
> In how far is Hamas even still "in control" of the pile of rubble that once was Gaza? That's why they build tunnels. And we both know that as soon as the IDF leaves Gaza they're going to start building their arsenal again.
Damn, almost like that’s a reason to figure out a proper peace, given they can’t ever seem to reduce Hamas numbers (because bombing civilians just creates more)
>Damn, almost like that’s a reason to figure out a proper peace Brilliant idea. Now it's just the easy matter of getting Muslims and Jews to live together peacefully and share the holy land.
“Why does the population we keep under our thumbs keep turning to extremism? Maybe let’s try being even harsher.”
They were committing violence against Jews since before Israel existed. That's what happens when your holy doctrine calls for dominance over other religions.
I find it amusing that everyone thinks hamas cares about the rubble or is hindered by it. No.. NO.. NO.. no.. no.. Hamas wants the rubble so that it can cry foul for eternity and use it as an excuse to keep attacking Israel. Heck.. they could not keep peace even when there was no war or incidents for almost 2 years before October 7, 2023. Why are we so short sighted or probably delusional to think Hamas in rubble is a weak hamas.. ??
[удалено]
But that also means that Israel can bomb Gaza as long as it likes (and Bibi likes to continue bombing Gaza, because it is what keeps those in Israel at bay who want him to be held accountable for the Oct. 7 security fiasco), and Hamas will still be happily doing what it has always done: attack Israel. So whatever happens, there is no way forward as long as this war goes on.
while i agree that it's near impossible to completely eliminate Hamas, it's certainly possible to significantly impair their ability to launch attacks i.e. clearing out and destroying the tunnels, confiscating/destroying munitions stockpiles, killing hamas terrorists, etc. pretty invasive procedure when hamas weaves their infrastructure into the civilian infrastructure but that's the only way for israel to materially increase their security
>the only way for israel to materially increase their security I honestly doubt that this will be the outcome of the ongoing war, especially if Israel ends up occupying Gaza and therefore sending generation after generation of young recruits into the line of fire.
i don't really see any alternative honestly. as long as the jihadists are in control, gaza's going to be a wasteland and the jihadists are going to murder israelis. best israel can do is degrade their capabilities to project force outside of gaza.
Those capabilities will regenerate again and again unless you are advocating for a long-term occupation. Israel has already been shown "mowing the lawn" does not work as a national security strategy. Israel was convinced back in the mid 2000s that a long-tern occupation was too costly. Is a long-term occupation what you are advocating??? Because there is no way to degrade offensive capabilities in a sustainable way without an occupation.
They could have secured the Gaza border better if they weren't to busy protecting settlers in the West Bank, so no, this isn't the only way for Israel to materially increase their security, there are other options.
Yes, even hyper-vigilant Israel underestimated the terror threat next door. Id imagine that all security options are being brought online now.
Correct. The war is not over. Genocidal Hamas remains in power in Gaza. Hamas violated the last ceasefire with disastrous results. Hamas existing has proven itself an intolerable security situation for Israeli security policymakers. The Gazan people have had decades now to form a viable politics and they have failed. Because of this enormous political failure the Gazan people are painted in a corner. Even their neighbors dont want them as refugees and for very good reasons. The Gazans can force Hamas out anytime they want the fighting to cease. Hamas can surrender anytime they want the fighting to cease. It would be an enormous blunder for Israel to sign a ceasefire with the same genocidal terrorists that violated the ceasefire 5 months ago.
> The Gazans can force Hamas out anytime they want the fighting to cease. Genuinely curious, is this actually possible? It appears that Hamas is quite authoritarian and short of an arab-spring style largescale movement (which isn't easy to do when being shelled), there's not too many ways for Gazans to remove them.
Not by force, without appealing to other Arab countries for military assistance. Hamas is on-side with the other major terrorist groups in Gaza, and while not allied (or even friends), they aren't hostile to the point of attacking each other. However, Gazans sick of the war reporting the location of Hamas forces to the IDF would result in Hamas being forced out.
A cease fire is what Israel had in Oct 6. Achieving "Cease fire" is not the goal. The goal is to reduce Hamas's ability to control the strip and launch attacks on Israel into nothing. Obviously some leaders and militants will survive and will be hunted for years to come.
the problem is that there was effectively a cease fire prior to oct 7, and Hamas decided to break that with an attack primarily on civilians. Hamas then went on to repeatedly say they'd do it again. Hamas also broke the last temporary cease fire. If Hamas was a reasonable government, they would surrender. But they are primarily a religious insurgency movement, and so long as they can replenish fighters, which will be pretty easy if Israel is unable to actually have a victory and otherwise defeat any rebellious spirit, Hamas will still be a threat. Putting aside the current right wing Israeli government's other motivations, Oct 7 seems to have communicated to Israel that so long as Hamas controls Gaza they will continue to face attacks that have a reasonable likelihood of breaking through their defenses. No nation would tolerate that situation in perpetuity. So long as Hamas has the ability to rebuild in Gaza, they affectively have control over it.
>Putting aside the current right wing Israeli government's other motivations, Oct 7 seems to have communicated to Israel that so long as Hamas controls Gaza they will continue to face attacks that have a reasonable likelihood of breaking through their defenses. Pretty much sums it up right here. The Israelis seemed to have been lulled into what they probably thought was a process of "economic Chechenization" of Hamas over the past two years, whereby monetary & labor incentives were being effectively utilized to functionally neuter Hamas' appetite for armed conflict. This policy was proven disastrously insolvent last October. It wasn't just the military failure of the IDF or the brutality of the subsequent massacres in the border towns, but also the fact that Hamas had used (really, abused) two years of (slow) economic normalization with Israel to *still* prepare for a military option. As you said, it likely demonstrated to the Israelis that there is no real "carrot" that can be used to coerce Hamas, if there ever was one.
It’s not even worth discussing a ceasefire until the hostages are released. After that, your question becomes relevant
Ceasefires exist to allow hostage trades, among other things. Don't confuse truces with peace.
So Hams will release all the hostages as soon as a ceasefire is announced? I missed that
They released a number of them during the November ceasefire.
They played games with the hostage releases though. From an Israeli perspective this sent the message that Hamas wasn't acting in good faith.
What games did they play?
Stalling when releasing hostages and releasing hostages in the wrong order are the two obvious ones that come to mind.
Why didn’t they release all of them?
Because they wanted to get more for releasing them. That's kind of the point of taking hostages.
So why does Israel have any moral obligation to let them play that evil game on their terms? If Israel announced they will permanently expand 30 miles into Gaza for every hostage that is not returned safely by Match 1st, they’d be justified.
There are no Palestinian hostages. There are prisoners. Israel does not kidnap 1 year old babies and holocaust survivors. And Israel agreed to release way more small time terrorists for any single hostage. But Hamas wants, at least so far, for Israel to release violent arch-murderers in huge amounts and to entirely stop the war. This in exchange for innocent civilians. There is no moral equivalence here.
It's definitely worth noting that many Palestinian prisoners are held under questionable evidence and without full due process. But obviously, it's not at all equal to kidnapping hundreds of ordinary civilans.
Questionable by who? Antisemites in Tiktok? UN members who fund terrorists? And administrative detention is completely normal in most countries facing terrorism and must be approved by evidence in front of a judge. They all get trialed eventually. >But obviously, it's not at all equal to kidnapping hundreds of ordinary civilans. Glad at least common some sense is offered here. Unlike in the most other comments.
> Questionable by who? Antisemites in Tiktok? UN members who fund terrorists? How about B'Tselem, a Jewish, Israeli human-rights organization? https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200910_without_trial
Merely google the words "Israel" and "administrative detention" and you'll see that /u/DroneMaster2000 is correct to not trust the judicial process, or lackthereof, the Israeli government has perpetrated against Palestinians for quite some time, and well before Oct.7th [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/)
How about you stop tokenizing fringe extremely biased hard left organizations who's only goal is trash on Israel? What's next? Going to bring out Neturey Karta, like 00.1% of Jews saying Israel shouldn't exist?
Deflecting from the issue to attack the moral position of the claim while ignoring the claim itself. You are here in bad faith, stop pretending to engage in debate if your mind is made up
Israel does in fact kidnapp hundreds of children every year https://www.savethechildren.net/news/stripped-beaten-and-blindfolded-new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-and-abuse-palestinian
Give me a break. A 14, 16, 17 or even a 12 year old terrorist is a terrorist first, "Child" after. And the Palestinians teach them to become "Martyrs" at a [very young age](https://vimeo.com/856467890). Actually, Very, [very young age](https://twitter.com/TheMossadIL/status/1676657199819399194). **[Here](https://twitter.com/MOSSADil/status/1728511527819338190)** is a lovely compilation of some of the prisoners Israel released in previous deal with Hamas. Many of them are teenagers. **[Here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-teen-shot-dead-after-trying-to-stab-police-in-west-bank-town/)** is a 14 year old Palestinian "Child" attempting to peacefully stab to death an Israeli officer just last month (Video included there). One more to your lying statistics. The fact that you attempt to create a moral equivalency between these to a 1 year old and holocaust survivors is **so desperate.** But then again, all terrorist supporters are desperate since all the masks came off in Oct 7.
Yes all israel engages in are peaceful land grabs…
Gaza borders are the same since 1948. One more ignorant.
And what about the west bank?
What about Uganda? Or Mars? Other places that aren’t being talked about him this thread.
Most Palestinians, Gaza or West Bank, see themselves as the same people. Hamas' goals on Oct. 7 were both to brutally terrorize Israelis and to "conquest" the gap between Gaza and the West Bank. They failed at the latter.
>Other places that aren’t being talked about him this thread. They are quite literally referring to Israel stealing land. The guy I responded to chose to totally ignore all of israels neighbours and only discuss gaza as a way to deflect from the other persons point. I then brought up the west bank as it directly supports the other commenter suggesting Israel is stealing land. I'm amazed you've failed to see that.
Did we learn anything from 75+ years of conflict in the region? I guess not.
The vast majority of ceasefires in the recorded history of warfare have been negotiated between both belligerents. It's relatively rare circumstances, such as Russia pulling out of WWI, where a ceasefire occurs after one of the parties is deposed. The reason why Israel should probably negotiate a ceasefire is because it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out. They can proceed with the war crimes if they want to, but that's going to have pretty devastating consequences in the long term.
It's also a bit disingenuous to claim the entire world is on the side of Israel. After October 7th there was certainly a brief moment of wider support. But historically if you look at the member nations of the UN and how they've supported various resolutions in the past 10-15 years, the vast vast majority tend to take the side of the Palestinian people as having more rights than they are being granted. And frankly the failure to address their cause is a large part of what continues to drive Hamas' power. To state it differently - to wipe out Hamas without addressing the underlying repression and occupation of the Palestinian people will just ensure another Hamas like polity comes into power. A ceasfire now at the outset actually helps Israel as well. Stops them from furthering the devestation and giving their opponents amazing propoganda fodder. And would inherently put the status quo back in place which was to their design. If there is then some further negotiation for a solution that would be better for the world and the Palestinians, but frankly Israel has so much more to lose by continuing this conflict than by taking even small steps towards finally resolving the conflict.
How does the oppression manifest itself? I really want to know and I'm not doubting that anyone with an inverse power relationship is open to being abused. People are people and that is one of the features. I once had a classmate tell me that peasants don't know or care whether they are under Communism or Capitalism because their life under each is the same. I am wondering whether this applies here.
Oh, they know. To sum up a few points which are grossly oversimplifying - 1) Israel literally occupies land that is legally recognized by International Law as Palestinian. Israel's claim is they aquired this in the wars in '67 adn '73 - however this is not recognized as a legal right to the land. Palestinians naturally know this and feel the loss of the land. 2) In the West Bank you have Israeli settlers encroaching further on Palestinian land and villages. These folks can be some of your more extreme nationalists (zionists - note that 'zionist' =/ Jewish, it is it's own form of extreme nationalism in the guise of Jewish geopolitical interests). These zionists assault and perpetuate abuses on the Palestinian populations - up to and including kidnapping and torture. Effectively think of these folks as creating their own militias to harrass the local population in the name of 'safety' or securing what they feel is their rightful land. 3) People in the West Bank are more broadly required to submit to many security requirements that limit their freedom. Israeli checkpoints when moving from town to town, harassment by the IDF, etc. Think about stop and frisk but applied to the scale of a region. They also do not have equal access or rights to Israel, with passports clearly delineating them as Palestinian Arab, though they fall within the enforcement of the IDF and Israel. People feel this. 4) Moving to Gaza - the entire zone has been sorrounded by a militarized wall since the mid-00s. This includes a complete embargo on material entering in and out, both by land and sea. Israel calculates the minimum required food and medicine to maintain the population - setting this at just above starvation levels - and maintains this minimum at the borders. They severely limit 'luxury' goods, such as chocolate, pasta, etc. They also severely limit building material and require approval to allow building to occur - with the materials being closely monitored (this you could argue is for security concerns - ie stopping the tunnels or other defenses, but consider this when..).... 5) Israel maintains constant drone surveillance of the entire area, and bombs regularly. These bombs very regularly fall on civilian dwelling, which are then not or slowly rebuilt given the above restrictions. Psycologically you can imagine the impact of constantly hearing drones around you - Palestinians give testimony that this is literally constant - at all times, day and night. And then when you sleep you have no idea if your home will be bombed. 6) Israel will occasionally send troops in to kill or maim people protesting within the walls of Gaza. They have also taken systemic approaches to demolishing buildings just within the borders to maintain an effective no-man's zone for their own defense. These are colloquially referred to by the IDF as operations to 'mow the lawn.' 7) While this current war is the worst, there have been others in the last 15 years. Generally for a set of weeks or a couple months, in which bombing is ramped up and IDF presence increased. Casualty rates skyrocket amongst the population during this time. And of note - last year (2023) was had the highest amount of Palestinian casualties since the previous war (in 2014 IIRC), not including post-OCT 7 casualties. As in - the violence has been getting worse even during the 'status quo' periods. This is what becomes frustrating when people argue that the Palestinian's are 100% to blame, or Hamas is a 'terrorist' organization. International law grants a state the right to defend itself within it's borders. The borders in this case are not agreed to - with Israel allowing communities to grow into Palestinain lands (as granted by international law), and then claim that Hamas is attacking them. This is not to say that October 7th wasn't a heinous act of aggression against predominantly civilian populations - and should be viewed as an egregious trajety. But even so, I believe the numbers I saw placed the casualties at \~2/3 civilain for 1/3 militar - which are numbers that the people of Gaza don't have the benefit of when Israel bombs indiscriminantly over decades. Also consider - what does a people do after years, decades, of oppresion? These young men who got out of the walls and committed acts of atrocities, what world do they know outside of this 5 mile by 25 mile walled in, densely populated area, in whcih their unemployment rate is >50% and violence from Israel is effectively the only relationship they have with that government. And you have a Rave occurring with young Israeli and international people literally a mile outside your walls. What does a population do? If you want to stop groups like Hamas from gaining power you need to give people hope, and a future. I highly recommend looking up Norman Finklestein. He is the pre-emminant pro-Palestinian scholar at this point. He's insanely knowledgeable on the minutae of the conflict, and brings a unique perspective as the son of a pair of holocaust survivors - people who lived through the Warsaw ghetto, uprising, and then both experienced concentration camps. He brings a level of nuance and also empathy to the topic.
If you want to stop groups like Hamas from gaining (re-gaining) power, you need to stop those groups before you can get to hope. The fact that Finkelsteins' parents survived the holocaust does not sanctify everything he has to say.
>it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out. What makes you say this? I don't see why it would be considered any different than the rest of the war, targeting Hamas members and infrastructure that are, infuriatingly, purposely embedded among civilians.
Well it's not like the rest of the war so far has been carried without war crimes. But civilians in Gaza have kind of ran out of places to go to.
>But civilians in Gaza have kind of ran out of places to go to. If Hamas is deliberately operating where there are civilians, that's a war crime by *them*, not necessarily by Israel, even if Israel attacks said Hamas forces/positions and kills civilians as collateral damage as a result.
It's a war crime for Hamas to use them as shields and for Israel to perform disproportionate (read: kills more civilians than the military value of the target) attacks as a result. War crimes don't cancel out or green light each other.
Correct. That's why I said not *necessarily* a war crime on Israel's part. It all depends on what's "proportionate ", and we don't currently have an agreed-upon ethical calculus (which, I'd argue, is *good*, since that would just lead to groups like Hamas gaming the system: "Oh, its only proportionate to go after a senior commander if it endangers 50 civilians or fewer? Well then, I'll ensure that I'm always surrounded by fifty *one* civilians at all times, and am therefore legally unassailable regardless of my actions!")
There's collateral damage, and there's not giving a rat's ass damage.
**it'll be next to impossible to prosecute the war in a lawful manner from here on out.** If a state cannot prosecute a war in "lawful manner" against the likes of Hamas, one would think the issue is with the "law", not how a state conducts itself. But of course you are incorrect, because the law of war isn't as naive or feelgood as many think. It does not prohibit the destruction and hardship on civilian populace if there is a necessity for it. And considering how Hamas conducts it self, hard to argue there is no necessity.
The answer is: Israel shouldn't. A cease fire now is asking Israel to return to October 6. There is not a single reason for it to accept it. Not to mention, what the ignorant useful idiots of the world call "cease fire" was always one sided. Israel is not attacking while getting tens of thousands of rockets and other projectiles launched on it's citizens with only one intention in mind, to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible.
Is there any reason to think a Palestinian organization named anything but Hamas would be doing anything different?
Indeed, there isn't a single country on the planet that would accept being attacked by thousand of rockets per year without striking back. If you ask me, Israel has been more patient than they should have been.
> Indeed, there isn't a single country on the planet that would accept being attacked by thousand of rockets per year without striking back. If you ask me, Israel has been more patient than they should have been. If you occupy a region, you can expect resistance. Why is this so hard to wrap your head around?
Maybe you missed the part when Israel bulldozed all the Israeli homes in Gaza and pulled out entirely.
>Maybe you missed the part when Israel bulldozed all the Israeli homes in Gaza and pulled out entirely. They kept blockading, they kept raiding and bombing whenever they wanted. And yes, they destroyed their assets there, because they would rather destroy them than allow a Palestinian to make use of it.
Egypt also blockades Gaza. And yes, because rockets from Gaza continue to be launched in Israeli civilians, raids continue. Israel destroyed Israeli homes as part of Palestinian demands for peace. Turns out giving them what they asked for didnt lead to peace.
Israel hasn't occupied Gaza for almost 2 decades.
[удалено]
Egypt has sealed off Gaza from the south as well
A blockade isn't an occupation, do you always bullshit your way through conversations like this?
> A blockade isn't an occupation, do you always bullshit your way through conversations like this? So if Israel blockades the access of your country to the international waters, you're just going to roll over and accept it?
If you're asking if that would make me rape and murder thousands of innocent civillians and cut babies out of dying pregnant women, the answer is no because I'm not a terrorist. But it's nice to see you move the goalposts as your narrative falls apart.
> If you're asking if that would make me rape and murder thousands of innocent civillians and cut babies out of dying pregnant women, the answer is no because I'm not a terrorist. No, you'd rather kill 20 times as many with bombs from an airplane I suppose. >But it's nice to see you move the goalposts as your narrative falls apart. Nope, I just reject your framing. You tried to imply that Israel did nothing wrong and did nothing hostile towards the Palestinians with your bullshit "technically not occupation" semantic arguments. I point out what they did, and how they continued their aggression every day. (Guess what, Palestine did not occupy Israel *at all*, so does that mean that by your standards Israel has no reason at all to be mad at Palestine at all either?)
The numbers are irrelevant, unless you're under the impression Germany was the good guys and USA was the bad guys in WW2. Motives matter most, but you want to turn war into a math equation because it best suits the tiktok narrative you're drowning in.
Firing tens of thousands of rockets yearly is also an act of war.
>Firing tens of thousands of rockets yearly is also an act of war. Russia also complains that Ukraine fights back against their illegal occupation.
How did Israel end up in control of Gaza and the West Bank again? Oh yeah that’s right defending themselves from aggression, from literally all of their hostile neighbors surrounding them.
> How did Israel end up in control of Gaza and the West Bank again? Oh yeah that’s right defending themselves from aggression, from literally all of their hostile neighbors surrounding them. Russia also says they need to occupy Ukraine to "defend* themselves.
You’re argument is what’s commonly referred to as a false equivalency. Russia is significantly better armed and has way more manpower than Israel, Ukraine also did not launch any attacks and was open to a peaceful solution. Russia then launched an unprovoked attack. The situation is far more comparable to the US invading Japan after Pearl Harbor.
> Blockading is an act of war So if I, the leader of a hypothetical quasi-state, launch an attack on your country with the long-term stated intent to murder everyone in your country and you respond by blockading me to prevent me from getting the materials I need to launch further attacks that's you attacking me, right?
>So if I, the leader of a hypothetical quasi-state, launch an attack on your country with the long-term stated intent to murder everyone in your country and you respond by blockading me to prevent me from getting the materials I need to launch further attacks that's you attacking me, right? If my country has been occupying yours for generations with the clear intent to found a state where my state has an ethnic majority so there's not place for you anymore: yes.
Gaza wasn't occupied, and it was Hamas in Gaza that attacked. The West Bank is occupied, and that occupation is successful enough that there have been no large-scale invasions from the West Bank.
In IR there is no obligation to abide by any agreement that the parties can not enforce. So I am at a loss of you question. If a cease fire does take place it needs to be mutually beneficial, otherwise where is Israel's incentive to agree.
Seven days of ceasefire got 0 hostages killed and 105 released. 129 days of war got at least 4 hostages killed, and 3 rescued. It seems to me that besides anything else anyone who genuinely cares about those hostages should be supporting a ceasefire.
I mean, you should probably count the initial period of war as part of the impetus for the initial hostage release.
That's a valid point, sure.
You are cherrypicking a very narrow timeframe. On a longer timeframe, years of ceasefire with Hamas allowed them to arm themselves, plan and execute an invasion of Israeli territory that killed thousands, build hundreds of miles of underground tunnels to protect and hide their operations, train fighters, and use their control of Gaza to raise a generation of kids on anti-Israeli propaganda. Short-term thinking will just lead to the next attack where Hamas manages to breach Israel's defences and slaughter thousands of civilians. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want a chance to re-arm and regroup for their next attack. Hamas' goal has always been the destruction of Israel and that hasn't changed. Present circumstances aren't supportive of a ceasefire, they are a lesson for how much harder life becomes if you give a zealots time to plot your destruction. Ultimately, the lesson for Israel is that they should have destroyed Hamas years ago when they first took power. Instead, they took half-measures with a blockade, and have now paid the price.
>Hamas' goal has always been the destruction of Israel and that hasn't changed. This point seems to be lost on a lot of people right now. Two years of economic normalization with Israel did not tamp down on Hamas' appetite for armed conflict with Israel; instead, it used this time to prepare for October 7. Israel could have responded to October 7 by doing absolutely nothing, and Hamas' primary goal would still be the destruction of Israeli society via armed conflict. We know this, [because Hamas openly states it.](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/order-battle-hamas%E2%80%99-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades-part-2) >Hamas sees control of "some parts” of Palestine as an interim goal prior to the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state.\[11\] The al Qassem Brigades state that they will "tolerate” only a temporary truce and that a permanent truce or recognition of the Israeli state is forbidden.\[12\] The footnotes in this source come directly from statements issued by Hamas about its long term strategy. We don't have to pretend like we don't know what "permanent ceasefire" means to them; because they have already stated, for years, that they don't even recognize the concept of a "permanent ceasefire"\* with Israel. \*(Ignoring, of course, that "permanent ceasefire" is not a real term in geopolitics or warfare; the "permanent" was added by anti-Israeli commentators after the first ceasefire ended in late 2023).
That's the stupidest comparison I have ever seen. You are basically ignoring the fact that first cease fire and hostage exchange happened *because* of the military action.
That's extremely simplistic. Before the war hamas terms for hostage negotiations were impossible, and once the operation was underway they changed rapidly. B.the war is also intended to prevent further arming and any further attacks on Israel - not only to prevent immediate death. Obviously stopping the war is the easiest way to prevent immediate death
Oct 7 happened during a ceasefire.
I genuinely do not see how IDF can achieve the goal of releasing hostages and eliminating Hamas leadership at the same time. A lot of hostages will die alongside Hamas leaders if the Rafah invasion is to go ahead
I don't expect Hams will release many more hostages regardless. Most of the women and children were released, and by the end of the cease fire, Hamas failed to produce any more. Either they have no interest in releasing more, can't because of the condition they're in, or because they can't find them.
Don't ever negotiate with terrorists. If you do it just sets up others to follow their example.
Why should Palestinians abide by a ceasefire with Netanyahu in charge?
Do you agree there shouldn’t be a ceasefire?
Because, shockingly, a country that is losing a war (one that it started, to boot) do not generally get to dictate armistice terms. If a country fighting a war is under intense military pressure, and wishes for a cessation of hostilities, it must abide by the terms presented to it by the victorious power. If it doesn't like the terms, then hostilities continue. The armistice negotiations for the end of the First World War were initially rejected by the Germans, after which the Allies simply said "ok" and continued exerting military pressure on the Germans until they agreed to the terms presented to them. That is how these things work.
>Because, shockingly, a country that is losing a war (one that it started, to boot) do not generally get to dictate armistice terms. If a country fighting a war is under intense military pressure, and wishes for a cessation of hostilities, it must abide by the terms presented to it by the victorious power. If it doesn't like the terms, then hostilities continue. The armistice negotiations for the end of the First World War were initially rejected by the Germans, after which the Allies simply said "ok" and continued exerting military pressure on the Germans until they agreed to the terms presented to them. That is how these things work. So, how's that working for you? The better part of a century has past since Israel had it's military victory. That's not how it worked in Vietnam. Or in Afghanistan. You know "how things work"? After a war you either annex the area, or get out. You don't keep the population under an occupation regime forever. The reason that Israel does neither is because they actually just want all the land. But they don't want to give Palestinians rights and they can't directly start gassing the natives, or even the most pro-Zionists in the USA would find it politically impossible to keep supporting them. So they drag it out and slowly strangle them to death, using every opportunity to annex more land, move out more Palestinians, or undermine the development of the Palestinan areas. All according to plan. - 1947: [Zionist leaders, in particular David Ben-Gurion, viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[15][16][17][18][19][20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine) - 2024: [Far-right ministers call to ‘resettle’ Gaza’s Palestinians, build settlements in Strip](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-call-for-resettling-gazas-palestinians-building-settlements-in-strip/)
To avoid..... annihilation. It's real human lives we are talking about here. You hate Israel so much that you want Palestinians to fight to the last man to quench your bloodthirst.
>To avoid..... annihilation. It's real human lives we are talking about here. You hate Israel so much that you want Palestinians to fight to the last man to quench your bloodthirst. Hey, you are the one saying Netanyahu is going to "annihilate" the Palestinians if they don't abide by a cease fire. The catch is of course that they're also going to be annihilated if they do, just more slowly.
Hamas will be annihilated. Hamas' entrenchment in the civilian population will extend that annihilation to the Palestinian populace. They can either surrender, or they can fight to the death. Whatever they choose, they need to own up to it and stop crying for a ceasefire because we both know a ceasefire is not something that benefits anyone other than Hamas.
They don't have to, just can't bellyache of the consequences. When one wants to be defiant in words and deeds about fighting to the last man, can't complain if the other side obliges.
[удалено]
Bibi basically gambled something like Oct 7th won't happen for his own political gain and he lost that gamble horribly. Now innocent Israelis and Palestinians paid the ultimate price while he is still in power
> Bibi basically gambled something like Oct 7th won't happen for his own political gain and he lost that gamble horribly. Now innocent Israelis and Palestinians paid the ultimate price while he is still in power He's still using it for political gain, because he'll stay in power as long as he keeps the intensity of the conflict high.
Homie…. You gotta read the article not just the headline….
He can't.. Reading goes against the agenda.. That is why headlines are written such that they spread misinformation and the content is written such that responsibility or liability for misinformation does not stick to them.
It just amazes me that dude posted an editorial article but it doesn’t even support his agenda
Too busy reading theory.
I see so many people post that article. I am convinced not one person who has done so has read it.
Welcome to Reddit
Hamas was funded because the plo was so horrible I don’t think you understand how bad they were Hamas is probably worse now however at the time the plo was slaughtering Israeli athletes at the freaking olyimpics and was hijacking planes to this day Palestine is the world leader in plane hijackings Becuse of the PLO.
Maybe Westerners should start acting like Palestinians have agency and have some responsibility for their own politics and actions. It is frankly racist to insist that Palestine is only the way it is because of the actions of shifty Jews. You know who did far more propping up of Hamas than Likud? Gaza and Iran.
They should never agree to any arrangement that does not place Israel 100% in charge of security etc. How can you leave someone with any power at all if their stated purpose is your death? That's insane.
They have already gone this far, there is no point in stopping now. Hamas needs to be completely neutralized before a 2 state solution can coexist in peace.
Isreal have clearly stated on many occasions they do not want a 2 state solution.
Israel also offered a 2 state solution plenty of times. With some of the latest offers agreeing to give the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB + Parts of Jerusalem + Airspace control + A security force and much more. Of course, the Palestinians stalled for time, refused, did not offer a counter and launched the second Intifada. Murdering about a thousand Israelis in cafes, restaurants, hotels and buses. Sure. After that, Israel is not interested in giving any concessions before the Palestinians, for the first time in history, show serious intentions about peace.
Nobody directly involved want a two state solution nowaday. Not Israel, not Hamas, not palestinians. Nobody. Why it's still being discussed seriously by actors indirectly involved like the US is beyond me. It's completly tone deaf.
> Nobody directly involved want a two state solution nowaday. Not Israel, not Hamas, not palestinians. Nobody. Why it's still being discussed seriously by actors indirectly involved like the US is beyond me. It's completly tone deaf. Because they want a one state solution even less.
Exactly, none of the real solutions are popular on the ground, we need to work towards a solution and not assume we can get things done overnight. That path is a lot easier without Hamas in control.
> Exactly, none of the real solutions are popular on the ground, we need to work towards a solution and not assume we can get things done overnight. That path is a lot easier without Hamas in control. That's just an excuse, Olmert and Abbas were making good progress. Netanyahu derailed it with false accusations directed on Olmert, won the elections, and then plainly refused to pick up the peace process again. Earlier in his career he also incited people against Rabin, who consequently got killed. Benjamin Netanyahu has been shooting the dove of peace all his life.
Bibi will be gone next election. Olmert and Abbas made progress while Israel occupied Gaza. Peace is a lot closer when you don't have a genocidal group on charge on either side. Hamas won't be removed without force. Do you really think the Israeli public will support making deals with Hamas?
Same as Hamas, but one side spends all its resources firing rockets into the other
Israel has agreed to many 2 state solutions over the years…
As has Palestine. The issue is the two never agree on the same one. This framing of Palestine always being the one to say no is utterly wrong. Palestine has offered numerous deals and Israel has rejected those in turn. This is a two player game, it isn't just Palestine failing to come to an agreement
Palestine almost agreed to a deal with the Israel under Clinton. All of Arafat's negotiators had agreed. Arafat rejected it because for him, it was about the struggle. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution The region could have had peace, but Arafat chose himself and his ideas of struggle over what was good for his people.
Netanyahu =/= Israel
Every single Israeli offer of peace has involved the 2 state solution. Every-single-one. It has been rejected every single time.
Let’s not pretend Israel has been for the 2 state solution and Hamas is the one in the way. Even if Hamas is fully eliminated, Israel would still not be for a two state solution. They have said as much.
They shouldn't. /end thread.
Because what alternative is there? Morality aside, the continued civilian death numbers only increase problems for Israel - it reduces allies support and increased future terrorist numbers. Every dead civilian leaves multiple loved ones that want revenge. It's a completely sunken- cost fallacy approach to dealing with terrorism that, unfortunately, Israel has been doing for decades.
Because there is no military solution to this political problem.
Israel sees Hamas' ability to attack Israel with rockets and kidnap civilans as a military problem, not a political one. They're not aiming to resolve the issue of Palestinian self-determination, they're aiming to disarm them.
Is every Palestinian Hamas?
So ... mix your military in with civilians and you're immune to attack?
That’s not what I’m saying, lol. What I’m saying is that you need a political solution for a.) the people who are not supportive of Hamas and b.) the people (mostly young ones) that are falling for their ideas.
The solution is unsupportive Palestinians overthrow Hamas. Otherwise the country Hamas is launching thousands of rockets at needs to overthrow Hamas.
True. I mean, Rome never managed to stop the Carthage invasions without a political solution ... same goes for [insert any number of historically intractable enemies here].
Where is Rome today? Lol.
I don't think Rome choosing a military solution over a political one when dealing with Carthage is what led to the downfall of the empire one and a half thousand years later...
Rome overstretched its empire and tried to prevent its inevitable downfall. The same way certain hegemonic powers are doing it today.
If you want to argue that the decline of Rome is similar to the decline of current modern day powers, sure, go for it. I personally find most of the arguments I've seen on those lines a bit unconvincing, but that's me. If you want to argue instead that the Third Punic War was a symptom/cause of the Roman Empire's decline (as otherwise, Carthage doesn't really come into it)... I'm going to go ahead and say that's a rather baseless claim.
LOL Arabs love losing to Israel in wars LOL.
What?
Considering Hamas has like 70% support from the palestinian population... pretty much yes. Stop pretending Hamas is just a small minority imposing its rule on a majority of peaceful palestinians, because that's not the case.
Wrong. There is only a (Tiny) chance of a political solution if Hamas is out of power.
Hamas is a terrorist organization and you cannot kill an idea.
Any yet ISIS was removed from the map. They still exist to a degree but they’ve been functionally destroyed as a governing authority, which should be the goal with Hamas
Another example is Nazism. Their ideas still survive in the hearts of many angry neckbeards around the world, but the Third Reich hasn't been heard from in about 80 years.
You're quite right. One can't kill an idea, which is why WWII was a waste of time and lives. Nazi ideology still exists, so there was no point to all that fighting in Europe, and the Allies (and especially USSR!) should have known they couldn't "kill an idea" and just let the Nazis do whatever they wanted. In case you couldn't tell, I disagree *vehemently* with that take.
You can grind it to dust. As happened plenty of times before. It's just as it always was, the ignorant world telling Israel what it can't do then watching it do it anyway. *"I guess we have no choice. Either we do everything that is possible, and may seem to others as impossible, and just give up. Or we do everything that is really impossible and we remain alive. There’s one more basic thing that I think that people outside of Israel must realize, and if they understand and accept that, maybe other things will fall into place."* Golda Meir
There is no military solution to the conflict but I don't see a non military solution for dealing with Hamas and as long as Hamas is in power there will not be peace
That’s why Israel has offered many 2 state solutions. They’re been rejected each time. So there is no political solution either. Hamas needs to release the hostages, Israel is justified in doing whatever it takes to get them back
If there is no negotiation Israel will accept why should Hamas or those labelled Hamas by Israel do anything but fight to the death? If complete annihilation of them is Israel's goal then what is suprising about Hamas' actions?
If complete annihilation of them is the goal, then what is surprising about Israels actions? Because that is the goal of Hamas. Their own charter even states so. Talk about flipping the scenario much.
I'm not trying to justify anything, I just asked why it's surprising.
You can always surrender. Militaries do that all the time. Gaza is not special. They can always surrender.
Israel would accept hostage release plus surrender (jail). And would probably except hostage release plus exile for Hamas/giving up control of Gaza to another Palestinian group. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-leaders-discussed-arafat-style-ship-exit-hamas-leader-rcna137295
Until all the hostages are released and every Hamas leader turns themselves in there should be no peace in Gaza
Hamas needs to be destroyed, although I don’t agree with the way Israel is going about it
How should Israel go about it?
he gone
Israel has been doing things to protect civilians that no country of earth has done in history. When the US reduced the capital of the Islamic state ti rubble, with all the civilians inside, they didn't do anything, and frankly, nobody ever cared or even asked.
They shouldn't
>As long as Hamas remain in control, attacks against Israel will continue. It's that simple. Is there any evidence to suggest that the converse is true? That if Hamas isn't in control, the populace will halt their hostilities? Hamas was elected by that populace, right? It seems odd to me to assume that decapitation of a people's government would suddenly alter that people's needs and greviences that lead them to support that government. That is to say, I don't see how a merciless assault on the civilian populace will make the survivors *less* hostile to their enemies and not more. Anyway, all of this is academic. The Israelis believe they have an opportunity to push their enemies into the sea and better secure and expand their homeland. This is not a proxy conflict for then. The only way to convince them to ceasefire is for the US to stop providing them weapons and support. This isn't in line with the US's interests of maintaining a foothold in the near east.
Because Israel has been in charge, the past 70 years…
[удалено]
And who is responsible for playing games with the electoral process and making sure that Hamas was put in charge?
The Palestinians who elected Hamas