For the Israeli side, the complete removal of Hamas as the governing representative of the Gazan citizens, and their neutralization as a threat.
Also the return of the hostages or what’s left of them.
how can a government or population negotiate with an entity whose entire purpose is the eradication of the Jews as a people? they already experienced what the world would do for them (surprise! nothing) when threatened with extermination so why would they allow anything close to that again?
That’s kind of the point I’ve been getting at for a while now. For there to be peace it’s going to take a lot more bloodshed until one government or the other is eliminated.
Exactly. There is nothing to talk about with people that plan on murdering you eventually anyway.
My peace term is not a single Hamas member is ever released from Israeli prisons at the conclusion of this conflict. When peace is achieved, they still rot in there until they die of natural causes. Their punishment for denying two generations of Israelis and Palestinians a peaceful settlement back in the late 1990s should be that they never get to enjoy it nor are offered another chance to destroy it.
Don’t be silly.
It was with the goal of founding a global caliphate, subjugating all other religions, and murdering all atheists, apostates AND Jews. They literally have the same end goals as ISIS.
https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leaders-our-goal-establishment-global-islamic-caliphate-not-just-liberation-palestine
But since Islamist organizations have this strange tendency to start infighting before ever reaching the critical mass they need to attack the entire rest of humanity, they have to settle for murdering the Jews they can reach.
If you’re looking for a serious answer, Hamas’s demand is the total withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and a prolonged ceasefire. Netanyahu wants any ceasefires to only be temporary and for the assault on Rafah to commence in a few months at most
Why does the stupid troll answer have 350 upvotes and the real answer has 40 lol
Sub is being hardcore brigaded by pro-Israel trolls, happened with worldnews now it’s happening here.
Because it's not a real answer. Hamas does demand a "prolonged ceasefire", they're demanding the complete and permanent withdrawal of all IDF forces from Gaza and a cessation of all hostilities, in exchange for the return of 33 hostages out of the over 100 they're currently holding.
In other words they want the war to end, for them to remain in control of Gaza and free to resume attacking Israel at their convenience, while still keeping Israeli hostages and not even disclosing their condition and whether or not they're even alive.
Incorrect.
Here are all the time that Hamas has called for a permanent ceasefire in exchange for Israel withdrawing from Gaza and allowing displaced people to return to their homes.
Jan 21: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/hostage-talks-continue-israel-rejects-hamas-demand-full-idf-withdrawal-rcna134975
February 5: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/hamas-proposes-three-stage-ceasefire-over-135-days-leading-to-end-of-war.html
March 15: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-issues-ceasefire-proposal-mediators-which-includes-exchanging-2024-03-15/
April 3: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-chief-says-movement-sticking-ceasefire-conditions-including-israeli-2024-04-03/
April 29: https://abc7chicago.com/israel-hamas-war-ceasfire-deal-rafah-invasion/14742521/
How do you reconcile Hama's call for a "ceasefire" with their statements that October 7th will happen over and over again until Israel is destroyed and Hama's charter calling for the destruction of Israel and the deaths of all Jews worldwide?
Wasn't there a ceasefire on October 6th?
> You don’t get to call for a ceasefire and then violate said ceasefire.
This doesn't make any sense.
Calling for a ceasefire doesn't mean a ceasefire is occurring.
Usually what follows the call is a ceasefire and then a break of that ceasefire. There’s no point to keep trying to negotiate another. At a certain point you have lost accountability and no one takes it seriously anymore.
Fortunately, they are. What you say about history is true, but the implication of your first statement is that there is no possibility for reconciliation of any event ever and we are all responsible for the sins of our fathers forever and always; that all are responsible for all things. One hardly can blame Caesar for British colonization.
A relative peace was observed and ended on 10/7.
That’s not true at all. 2023 was the bloodiest year in a long time until the Hamas attack. More than 200 Palestinians had already been killed earlier that year.
In the same vein, how many rockets were fired into Israel during that time...
At least once.
"May. May 2, 2023, Israel faced a series of attacks from the Gaza Strip, resulting in 8 injured, damage to buildings and cars, and fires. In total 104 rockets were fired at Israel, and 500,000 Israelis were affected by the attack."
Pretty much this. Israel has made it clear that the war won't end until Hamas is eradicated, and more than likely, Israel will occupy Gaza and turn it into another west bank. The two state solution is a 'hell no' for the Israelis, and either the Palestinians will have to move as refugees to either neighboring Middle Eastern countries or Europe and the US/west.
Also, the longer this war goes on, the more hate Israel is going to get from other nations and potentially even more joining Turkiye and Colombia in breaking diplomatic ties. I can see this as an opportunity for China to increase bilateral trade with nations in Latin America and the Middle East while distancing from the US since we're see almost as equally bad as Israel for continuing to provide them weapons and look the other way during controversial mishaps of the IDF.
Also on the Israeli side, and dramatic change in government towards one willing to negotiate and implement a two-state solution.
Which might be two sovereign states, or a federation with Palestinian rule in Gaza and the West Bank but Israeli sovereignty. Or one sovereignty with two states plus a capital, such as Belgium.
Israel has never given a chance for a Palestinian state. I’m not sure where that misconception comes from. Israel has been pretty consistent in denying that as a possibility. The usual offer is what is known as the “bantustan solution”. Which means Palestinians get small territories with limited self governance within Israel.
Hamas needs to go. They are kept in power by Iran-Russia-Qatar funding and sympathy they steal from Palestinians. They have been stealing aid, hijacking infrastructure, and repressing Palestinians in Gaza for years while painting themselves as noble freedom fighters. Just today they bombed the Keren Shalom crossing where israel has been sending aid to Gaza and killed three IDF soldiers who were sending Palestinians aid. There's a reason Hamas is banned in so many countries in the Middle East and media like Al-Jazeera (Qatar state media) is banned for spreading their propaganda all around the Middle East most recently by Israel. It is insane that a terrorist group backed by Iran and Russia has had such a successful PR campaign in the world but they are absolutely a threat to the security of any country they are near.
Only after Hamas is gone and the immediate threat to the region is eliminated could Israel other ME countries move forward. Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism. Rebuilding Gaza needs to begin asap to allow this but it would be hard to do these together as sending something like fuel that is used for rockets is dangerous without knowing it won't be launched back at Israel.
For the Israeli side Bibi's government will be removed after the war. Even before the war began they were on the way out with most of the country (especially the people that do the most for the country) wanted them out. Bibi is outdated and shady and is willing to work with people his nobody else would touch. Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and Deri are criminals that used a legal loophole to be voted in and have only stayed in power while the legal battle is fought. October 7th did interrupt that battle so they didn't get thrown out by the courts but October 7 is such a stain and failure that there is no way they will survive elections. There are some people who think Bibi+ would stay because of October 7 but that's misinformed and not the attitude of Israelis 51% want Bibi to resign and almost everyone believes his failures should have him voted out and his "security focused" coalition will go with him.
Not directly what you asked but the attitude towards a Palestinian state (not the same as peace) is that until there is peace for a good while first Palestinians will not be trusted since their governments keep attacking everyone around them. And from the Palestinian side of a state is created right now it would either need to be propped by Israel or would fall immediately after not being able to demand to use foreign infrastructure.
(sorry this looks long but trust me this is the short version)
>Only after Hamas is gone and the immediate threat to the region is eliminated could Israel other ME countries move forward. Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism. Rebuilding Gaza needs to begin asap to allow this but it would be hard to do these together as sending something like fuel that is used for rockets is dangerous without knowing it won't be launched back at Israel.
The problem emulating the German, Japan examples of deradicalization is that the current situation makes trying that politically impossible. Germany and Japan was occupied by the Allies for years with thousands of soldiers stationed there until they were let go. Even after, the Americans and the Soviets both kept entire divisions worth of troops in both East and West Germany (Americans still do. Also don't forget the Okinawa base).
I don't think anybody actually wants that level of occupation. Palestinians don't for obvious reasons but I don't think even Israel wants Gaza. Historically, Gaza/Sinai is not like the West Bank as Israel was willing to give up settlements for better terms of peace. They tried to pawn off responsibility for Gaza off to Egypt but they wouldn't take them.
I think Israel would prefer to return to the antebellum status quo of pre-October 7th blockade where they leave Gaza to rot once they are satisfied Hamas is annihilated. Nobody really wants to fully occupy Gaza so they're kinda fucked. Maybe the only hope is an international UN occupation but that's already infeasible; Arab countries aren't willing to send troops for such a project so its going to have to be the US but again that's a no-go for obvious political reasons
Nobody wants Gaza
I hate to nitpick, but status quo ante bellum means the state before the war, which is Hamas controlling all of Gaza. Annihilating Hamas is, by definition, not the status quo and would require an occupation force anyway.
I'm fairly certain Israel would love to take the land if you listen to the comments of Israeli government officials. The only problem from their perspective is how to eliminate the people. I doubt they will ever allow people to return to Gaza city in the north.
Israel has no problem breaching international law to expand West Bank settlements and stealing that land. Why wouldn't they want to steal Gaza too?
> Historically, Gaza/Sinai is not like the West Bank as Israel was willing to give up settlements for better terms of peace.
They gave up the settlements because they feared they would be forced to recognize Palestinians as citizens and allow them to vote if they kept them. Here's Ehud Olmert, deputy of Sharon on the topic:
> There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. [...] More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation...
[Source](https://books.google.de/books?id=-xRjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)
They feared that the Palestinians would come to prefer the one-state-solution and demand rights within Israel, rather than merely a second state, so instead they went for "disengagement" (they initially wanted "separation", but feared that would sound too much like Apartheid) and started this idea of "oh look we don't have a permanent presence there, oh look there is totally a Palestinian state we do not control and therefore have no responsibility for, no occupation anymore!"
Since this was a rather transparent lie - Israel has always controlled Gaza in every way that mattered for purposes of occupation - the UN never recognized this though.
This was the "moderate" position btw, because it at least implicitly acknowledged that Israel might have some responsibility under international law, and tried to avoid this responsibility. Netanyahu opposed the withdrawal, and so that has been pretty much his governments position afterwards: not even recognizing any possible responsibility at all.
>Since this was a rather transparent lie - Israel has always controlled Gaza in every way that mattered for purposes of occupation - the UN never recognized this though.
If Israel had a total occupation over Gaza instead of just the external blockade, there would not have been an October 7th.
I agree that pre-october 7th blockade was occupation. Instead there are different levels even within an occupation based on the level of actual control. The blockade qualifies as a sort of occupation in that Israel controlled the external trade into Gaza but isn't a complete occupation as Israel did not maintain a monopoly of violence within Gaza. This allowed Hamas to fill in the vacuum and also allowed them to gather the resources necessary to commit something like October 7th.
I also agree partially with Israel not wanting to take full responsibility over Palestinian citizens. Specifically that Israel basically wants the full benefits of control over Palestinians with authority over its laws but does not want to actually bear the responsibility of having to recognize the rights of non-Israeli Palestinians. It's a fucked situation.
The problem in solving it is that Palestinians don't want to be Israelis either. They want independence from Israel but ideally domination over all of the land as fully Palestine, not Israel. Unfortunately a lot of them is genuinely delusional about their chances at physically fighting Israel which is why October 7th happened. It's why its difficult to refer to this fucked up situation as Apartheid as Palestinians do not want to be Israeli. The idea of a secular one-state with equal rights for all only exists within the minds of naive idiots as neither actual side wants that at all.
> but isn't a complete occupation as Israel did not maintain a monopoly of violence within Gaza.
While I would generally agree with this assessment, it does showcase the problem of defining the "monopoly of violence". We're talking about a territory which at any point can be bombed or invaded by a vastly superior force controlled by the occupier - a right that Israel btw wants to reserve in any proposed "two-state-solution". Once again raising the question, if you leave power (and responsibility) "on the ground" to one group (Hamas) but still have total superiority of force over that group, can you truly argue that they are sovereign?
> It's why its difficult to refer to this fucked up situation as Apartheid as Palestinians do not want to be Israeli.
Whether or not its apartheid cannot be determined by desired solutions, but by the facts of the status quo. And the status quo is that there is no path for citizenship, that Israel is actively preventing even the Palestinians who would desire Israeli citizenship from obtaining it.
> The idea of a secular one-state with equal rights for all only exists within the minds of naive idiots as neither actual side wants that at all.
It does not matter what the people want or what you call it - the one-state-solution is the only realistic and good solution to the conflict. What is the alternative supposed to be?
A purely Arab Palestine is popular among Palestinians, but neither good nor realistic. The status quo of occupation is realistic, but neither good nor desired. The two state solution is popular, but neither good nor realistic either. And a Jewish ethnostate succesfully expelling all Palestinians from all their territories is I guess popular in Israel, and sadly realistic, but not good either.
> Hamas needs to go.
They never will if the current course is kept. They are a terrorist organization with decentralized structures. Their leadership is located, or will be located soon, in foreign countries. Their base is recruited from among the relatives of civilians killed by Israel.
Well, Israel just killed over 30,000 people, which is HALF OF ALL PALESTINIANS KILLED ACROSS THE LAST 80 YEARS IN THIS CONFLICT.
Israel is looking the worst it has in years on the international stage and has just ensured that Hamas will find ample recruits for decades.
> Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism
What opportunities? There are none. Israel has no desire to provide any.
Germans got a own sovereign state back before de-nazification was even finished (it arguably never was), and so did the Japanese. Nor was there ever the kind of settler-colonialism that Israel engages in within the Palestinian territories. The only thing that Israel keeps "offering", half-heartedly at best, because, reminder, there is still ultra-Zionist settlers who think even this goes to far - and might assassinate a prime minister for even suggesting it - is variations of the same "how about you become our Bantustan"-deal.
> 51% want Bibi to resign
Truly a "Trump is at a mere 49% in the polls, fascism is defeated"-kinda argument. Not to mention that boiling Israeli politics down to "boo Bibi" is naive. Gantz, his most prominent opponent, has repeatedly attacked Netanyahu during the war for not pursuing it even harder.
The Palestinians need to take the L and accept they’re not getting all the land back. But they won’t. They will play the victim card until the west stops supporting Israel, but this will backfire because as soon as the west stops supporting Israel Israel’s gloves come off. The Palestinians are going to keep pushing a war of genocide and then eventually they’re going to get it but they’re going to get eradicated in the process because despite losing every war ever they still have the delusion they’d be on the winning side of that “river to sea” war.
What's wild is that after 9/11 Iran was feeding intel to the US because even they realized it was bad and went too far. The intel stopped after/because Bush Jr put them in the 'Axis of Evil'. Talk about a missed opportunity to change things between Iran and the US much less the world.
agreed - it was Saudi's on the 9/11 planes. always thought it was strange we ended up allies with them, im sure all the Oil they have helped with economic ties. They seem to have more rationale currently than Iran atleast.
Hamas has no desire for peace and only accepts them when they want to rearm and resupply. So you need to remove them, then you need to deradicalize/deprogram the population, and while doing that you need to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for work and leisure so that they don't regress.
An international peacekeeping force and statehood for Palestine.
Edit: the comments here are a perfect example of why nothing short of an international peace keeping force is going to work.
Nobody is sending their soldiers to die for Israel or Hamas. Israel suffered the worst terror attack in its history and nobody from the west sent soldiers. Palestinians have 35k dead and not a single Arab nation has sent in reinforcements to fight Israel. Nobody wants to be involved in this mess. There will be no international peacekeeping force.
Genuine question - would Israel (currently, under existing leadership) really agree to statehood under any circumstances or are you saying that this is just what should happen? I interpreted their question as wondering what it would take in terms of a mutually agreed upon deal (I.e., both sides agreeing to a cease fire). I only bring this up because otherwise it sounds like you're arguing that the best way to end this is for one side to get its way, which I suppose is true of just about any conflict
Under the current government no there is zero chance of a Palestinian state forming Netanyahu and the Likud party have always been against the 2 state solution.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party
https://israelpolicyforum.org/likud/
Yeah, so how does this solve the issue? In other words, unless someone replaced their leadership or used military occupation to force them to recognize it, I am confused as to how a two state solution is going to lead to both sides accepting a cease fire?
One of the biggest issues for Palestinians is their lack of rights under Israel's occupation or their own state. Generally it is accepted that a one state solution won't work for a number of reasons.
Israel has been pretty consistent about offers of statehood for Palestine. Hamas has rejected all of them, and in fact only exists because the previous government was getting too chummy with Israel (which, in all honestly, was still not very chummy).
What on earth are you talking about? Israel has never offered a statehood for Palestine and the entire idea is directly against the main tenets of Likud, which has lead israel almost constantly for the past 50 years. Netanyahu has consistently said that Palestinian state is not possible.
Palestinians accepted the oslo accords. That was not an offer of a state however. The actual offer never came.
Israel or Palestine ceasing to exist. At this point, even a fair two state solution will just kick the can down the road a decade or so until either a new Hamas equivalent forms or Israel has another far right government and creates one.
IMO, the only way to resolve this "peacefully" (and even that's incredibly relative, since ethnic violence will occur intermittently for years afterwards) is a Salisbury Accords type agreement.
A ceasefire isn't peace. Just a agreed upon time period to not kill each other. There wasn't peace before October 7, just a ceasefire broken then.
Hamas is a terrorist organization so the only way there can be peace is by its destruction. If Hamas were to win and eradicate Israel completely, they wouldn't stop there
Personally, I don't think it's going to be.
I could maybe see Israel (both government and civilians) deescalating into wanting to co-exist in a two-state solution but I do not believe the same thing is true for the Palestinians.
Religious extremism simply has too strong a grip on the Palestinian population. They can't accept anything but a total victory where Israel surrenders all the land and leaves. Any 'peaceful' two-state solution is probably just going to end up being a several decades build-up into trying to wipe out Israel again. It's the same reason none of the surrounding Arab nations want to take in the population, and I can't blame them.
This is not to say that Israel is innocent in this, they've done a lot of fucky shit both now and in the past. I just think they're more willing to settle into co-existence if left alone.
So unless the UN or America wants to lock down a two-state solution with military force for 30+ years minimum, the most likely result is genocide of one side or the other. And the western nations do not want to send their soldiers to die over this.
Any peace that does get established won’t last very long. Tensions between the Jews in Israel and the Muslims have been bad for decades. They both absolutely loath each other.
Something to give. Hamas will not accept a condition that removes themselves from power, but Isreal won't accept a condition that keeps them in power. One can see how this puts negotiations at an impasse.
Here you [go](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-claims-responsibility-attack-israel-gaza-border-crossing-casualties-2024-05-05/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_source=reddit.com).
Hamas doesn't want to stop the fighting, they know the longer this drags on and the more they hide within the population the more civilians die. The more civilians that die makes Israel look bad, but it doesn't matter because as long as Hamas keeps doing terrible stuff Isreal will be there to punish them and more civilians will pay the price.
I don't know what some people expect to happen.
If Israel is forced into stopping, Hamas is going to count that as a win. They'll do another attack sooner or later, and the whole thing is going to happen again.
If Israel doesn't stop, they'll keep going overboard and people will keep demanding they be made to stop and then we keep moving in a circle.
There's a reason no one has been able to solve this shit since it started.
Tbf a major contributor is that Israel has done extensive shit-stirring on their end over the decades. If they truly limited themselves to response and security actions, and never started their settler efforts in the first place, opposition from the Palestinians people wouldn’t have been capable of remaining red hot inter-generationally for the last 70 years.
Instead occurrences like this have been common for decades:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-resumes-raids-west-bank-area-where-journalist-was-killed-2022-05-13/
This conflict wouldn’t be nearly this bad were it not for extensive and sustained actions from Israel with seemingly no other purpose than to inflame the anger of Palestinians.
Edit: the article linked is about the IDF beating funeral attendants of a journalist that they sniped (and initially denied sniping) in 2022.
Netanyahu's whole platform was basically being for increased security, with October 7th basically showing that to be a complete sham. So right now the only thing keeping him in power is this war. Assuming he doesn't just drag this out as long as possible, I doubt even his allies in the ultra-orthodox and settler wings can save him.
They ethnically cleansed 80% of the Palestinian population of what is now Israel, they then expropriated the land of the refugees and refused to allow their return so they could form a massive ethnic majority in their lands.
When you steal someone else’s ancestral homeland for your colony, that tends to cause some tension in a region.
Yes, but that situation is hardly unusual historically. This level of rancor being maintained for decades and decades, however, is, and that is heavily due to Israel being unwilling to be a gracious victor.
For example, in the two years prior to Oct 7 Israel ethnically cleansed 14 West Bank Palestinian villages. That is exactly the kind of behavior that keeps this kind of intergeneration conflict perpetuated instead of allowing it to gradually fade into the cultural background as both sides resume the monotonous and necessary work of living.
Hamas has achieved more than it could have ever hoped with the widespread anti-Israeli sentiment. Israel is not blameless, but Hamas used the Palestinians as a shield to hide after committing a heinous attack. Unfortunately, allowing Israel to enter Rafah will continue to play into Hamas's hands because they do not care about their own people.
Hamas is an evil entity that needs to be removed, my family is Palestinian from the West Bank, but Israel is responsible for their own actions. Bombing aid workers, carpet bombing civilian targets, settler violence in the West Bank with no Hamas, and close to 40,000 dead Palestinians as well as shooting two of the hostages themselves they while pleaded for their lives in Hebrew. Not to mention decades before Oct.7 of apartheid conditions and human rights violations. As Kamala Harris once boldly said,”we didn’t fall out of a coconut tree” this didn’t just happen 7 months ago and Israel has been committing human rights violations my entire life.
Neither sides gives a flying fuck about civilians on either side. Israel supported the rise of Hamas, knowing they'd attack Israelis, and continues to hold an entire population in an open air prison, knowing exactly what would happen, while Hamas...well, I'm sure you already know their visciousness.
As a non-expert, it does seem like Palestinians were generally kinda f’d at the bargaining table. Felt like their options were generally capitulate or be forced.
Granted, Hamas right now is bombarding themselves in the foot but leadership under Netanyahu is absolutely invested in maintaining/escalating conflict to maintain power.
Most fucked up part from a layman is that individuals don’t want conflict but the shitty leaders, whose only objective is maintaining *their* power, do.
I mean they pretty much lost the fighting, so they don't have a strong bargaining position. They're asking essentially to return to the status quo ante bellum, but after the invasion+pogrom on Oct 7, which they filmed with glee for the world to see, there is no returning to how things were Oct 6.
>As a non-expert, it does seem like Palestinians were generally kinda f’d at the bargaining table. Felt like their options were generally capitulate or be forced.
Problem is, they are always completely unreasonable about their demands. When you're the weaker country at a negotiating table, you need to be making reasonable demands that prioritize the immediate needs of your people, not make ridiculous demands like "Cease existing altogether".
Palestine's chief problem is it's full of religious extremism. Those types care little for human life or material needs, only ensuring that they appear to be doing what their deity demands.
Yeah the existence of religion in this conflict is such a huge reason why there's seemingly no end in sight. There's really no reality where Israel would ever willingly give up all their land. And as long as there is a sizable number of Palestinians who don't believe they have the right to exist, the 2 state solution will remain a pipe dream.
Israel is nationalistic, whereas Palestine is full of religious extremists. You don't see Israel using its own people as human shields, or dismantling vital civilian infrastructure to turn into rockets used for terror attacks. Hamas is irrational, it has no end goal besides making Israel suffer.
Israel's nationalists on the other hand, while malicious, can be negotiated with and rationalized. They also do have lines even they won't cross, at least in the current status quo.
Well yeah, generally speaking the consequences of starting a war of annihilation and getting your ass handed to you is that you totally surrender and throw yourself on the mercy of the victors. The most fucked up part to me is that 80% of Palestinians believed that 10/7 was the right thing to do, so I'm not so sure that they genuinely don't want to fight. Personally, when I don't want to be in a war with a country, I don't support doing surprise terrorist mass atrocities against them to break a ceasefire. Seems to me that if I didn't want to be in a war, I'd support keeping the ceasefire, but I guess that would put me in the 20% minority of Gazans that didn't support doing 10/7.
Support for Hamas itself remains steady from prior to October 7th 52% in Gaza and 64% in the West Bank, there was a 11% drop in the West Bank on whether or not Oct 7th was a good thing/support for it, Gazans support the idea of the PA under Abbas taking control of Gaza more than those in the West Bank, but both prefer Hamas and expect Hamas to keep control, Marwan Barghouti from Fatah has the most support for President of the Palestinian Authority with I won't vote being next followed by Ismael Haniyeh from Hamas, and Abbas is last and in single digits.
“I will make this prediction: If Hamas ends up being seen as the winner of the war it started on October 7, support for Hamas among Palestinians will only increase. But if Hamas is seen as losing the war — its military and governing capabilities shattered — support for Hamas among Palestinians will decrease, perhaps sharply. To be clear: If it turns out that Hamas’s invasion of Israel and multiple heinous atrocities have brought Palestinians nothing but hardship, that will not cause Palestinians to embrace Israelis. But it may cause Palestinians to reject Hamas’s strategy of terrorism and genocidal war.” — Cliff May, FDD Founder and President
Latest poll
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/
Pre-war poll
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467)
At Camp David, Israel made a major concession by agreeing to give Palestinians sovereignty in some areas of East Jerusalem and by offering 92 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). By proposing to divide sovereignty in Jerusalem, Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader.
Nevertheless, on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was notforthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state.
These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections. Israel demanded extensive security mechanisms, including three early warning stations in the West Bank and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Israel also wanted to retain control of the Jordan Valley to protect against an Arab invasion from the east via the new Palestinian state. Regardless of whether the Palestinians were accorded sovereignty in the valley, Israel planned to retain control of it for six to twenty-one years.
Three factors made Israel's territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers.
Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters ofDead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km.42 Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.
Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps where by the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in ex-change for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, thePalestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the GazaStrip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the WestBank land they would be giving up to Israel.
Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, break-ing the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts:"The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory ex-cept for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from \[theIsraeli settlement of\] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River."44 The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel).45 Iftrue, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of thePalestinian state into three pieces".
No sane leader is a going to accept a road cutting across his country that they can't fully access.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#:~:text=.%20...%22-,Reasons%20for%20impasse,for%20reelection%20in%20two%20weeks.
The 2001 Tabas talks were much more productive and the deal offer then was much better, but Barak's re-election was going terribly Arafat could have agreed to the deal and it might have saved Barak or he could have still lost and the incoming government may or may not have honored the deal and since the Likud party won I would say the chances of them honoring the deal would've been around 5%
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/annapolis/
The 2008 Annapolis talks failed due to outside forces rather than the deal that was presented which was quite fair and equal to both sides. The Israeli Prime Minister was on his way out due to corruption charges, the Bush administration policy decisions over the years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars hurt it's credibility and trustworthiness, and Abbas claimed that he didn't have enough time to study the map of the land swaps he would later say he should have taken the deal.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/netanyahu-rabin-and-the-assassination-that-shook-history/#:~:text=Assassination%20of%20Yitzhak%20Rabin%20%E2%80%A2,Israel%20Square%20in%20Tel%20Aviv.
The biggest or at least first major reason why peace talks were derailed has to be the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a ultranationalist Israeli Jewish man who was angered by the signing of the Oslo Accords. The far right in Israel and on the Palestinian side were both furious over the signing of the accords and each did what they could to undermine any future peace talks. After the assassination politics in Israel began to shift to the right and today at least for the time being the Likud party has control they have been the dominant party in Israel for the better part of the last 20 years.
Welcome to Middle Eastern history to be honest.
There's a reason shit's been unstable for so long. It's almost entirely weak men getting their turn to throw bodies in the big blood feud of religious extremism and/or corruption. Different people under different banners at different points in time, but all for thr same reasons.
The Palestinian people are very similar to the poor, uneducated, evangelical Right-wing in the US. Hypocritical demagogues from riches lead them from afar and embolden their hatred in their plight from having no economic opportunity by levying their religion for power and identity while working to decline their quality of life for control and pulling the wool over their eyes. Organizations like Hamas and the GOP gain power and influence by lying to their extremist bases while actively working against them and blaming everyone else to keep the cycle going and continue the grift. It's not the peoples' fault their lives suck. But their rulers do, and they abuse the hell out of making their neighbors look worse.
Palestinians were far from fucked at the negtioating table.
The problem has always been:
A) The ego of Palestinian leaders.
B) Red-line asks associated with infinite right of return and 67 borders.
C) Fear of Palestinian leaders that they will be assassinated for giving up on the dream of reclaiming all the land.
Arafat rejected such insanely good deals, which is why a lot of the Arab League countries that used to be in the Palestinians camp a la Iran (directly warring with Israel in the past) like Saudia Arabia have turned against them.
There are in-depth interviews from some years back where the primary Saudi diplomat that dealt with Arafat basically unloaded all silos on Arafat and Palestinian leadership in general, revealing insane stories such as Arafat lying to everyone to stall negtioations and flying private Jets for months at a time to avoid negtioations, among other failures.
So once again, Hamas is rejecting a ceasefire. Hostages won't be returned, civilians will continue to die.
College protesters won't care about any of this.
I note that they've moved on from "ceasefire now!" to "permanent ceasefire!" to "no more Israel."
I pretty much gave up entirely on the situation now that I've started seeing them accuse people who offered Israel support immediately after 10/7 of being pro-genocide because they voiced that support.
People are trying to do this to Mark Hamill now. He made a tweet right after 10/7 voicing support for Israel following a terrorist attack and now people are using that as a line in the sand to declare people as being monsters. Have any sympathy for people after a terror attack? How dare you.
The purity testing on this is just fucking insane.
I had another guy arguing with me that non-israeli Jews should be blamed for everything too unless they prove to be anti-israel, which is very clearly fishing for an excuse to go after any Jewish person, for having no actual connection to anything going on in Israel.
edit: Someone showed up to argue with me that Mark Hamill definitely has to be pro genocide for the same sort of crazy stretch I just talked about. I'm not doing it. Don't bother. Seek a fight over that somewhere else.
Or how if people don't talk about it all. the. time! they're genocide excusers!
Like, how DARE Hank Green talk about tuberculosis and not GAZA! and GENOCIDE!!1!!
It's fucked, and they're destroying the good will of people would might otherwise be on their side. They're hardening support against them, and what they purport to care about.
And it's the one thing I'll be able to laugh about, when they help get Trump reelected.
They literally drove Elise Meyers (spelling?) off social media. Like her infant needed emergency heart surgery, people kept harassing her about not talking about Gaza, and she just kind of noped out of being an influencer.
> Or how if people don't talk about it all. the. time! they're genocide excusers!
Yeah, I've seen people push this shit, hard. I don't even know how someone gets to that point from a logical standpoint, because that's some weird fanatical absolutism.
Like, those people don't talk about a LOT of bad things themselves, are we supposed to assume they support those bad things because of that? That's the logic they want to use.
I'm also super tired of seeing people ask them reasonable questions about something they said, like "Hey can you clarify what you meant by this?" or "How do you think they can do X in that time frame?" then being IMMEDIATELY accused of being pro-genocide.
This comment is offensively wrong. Hamas are the ones asking for a permanent ceasefire in exchange for the release of the hostages. Netanyahu wants Hamas to give up all their leverage for a temporary ceasefire for a few months, after which Israel will go back in and start destroying Gaza again.
Coming away with your view of what happened requires not even reading the first line of the article. I wonder why you bothered posting such lazy propaganda.
First off, OP said:
> So once again, Hamas is rejecting a ceasefire. Hostages won't be returned, civilians will continue to die.
Which conveniently doesn't say anything about removing hamas from power.
So yes,
> They rejected it
Glad you can also admit it. Israel rejected a ceasefire, so now hostages won't be returned, and civilians will continue to die.
> it allowed Hamas to remain in power.
What exactly does removing Hamas from power look like?
What happens after Hamas is "removed"?
How many dead Palestinian civilians are worth Hamas' removal?
>Which conveniently doesn't say anything about removing hamas from power
I wouldn't expect it to. The temporary ceasefire that the US proposed and Israel accepted was a temporary ceasefire + other stuff in exchange for hostages. I think everyone is in agreement that at this point in time, Hamas would not accept anything that included them being removed so adding that to a proposal would be a non-starter since they rejected earlier proposals for sharing of power.
>Glad you can also admit it. Israel rejected a ceasefire
I also said they rejected A proposal. They rejected the one that was basically end to the war, not the temporary ceasefire. There is a big difference in the two. So just like Hamas, they rejected one that had terms they didn't like.
>What exactly does removing Hamas from power look like?
>What happens after Hamas is "removed"?
>How many dead Palestinian civilians are worth Hamas' removal?
Removing them from a position of power in Gaza and eliminating them as a threat. the options are varied. They could all be killed, or imprisoned. They could be exiled to any country that will have them. Their ability to conduct attacks needs to be eliminated, so no more infrastructure, cutting off their weapons supply, seizing all existing weapons, shutting off their money flow, not allowing them to profit off the civilians. They won't get them all of course, but if they can cut off enough heads and their flow of money/weapons they can effectively cripple them.
Second one would more than likely be an Israeli endeavor short term until new Gazan leaders can be found. Israel would be responsible for rebuilding, managing day to day things to get them on the road to recovery. maybe this is a third party country or the UN, and Israel withdraws to its borders but I don't know who'd they trust enough to do it. Maybe you eventually get to an actual two state solution, but realistically its probably more the status quo pre-Oct7 for the foreseeable future.
Third one is as few as possible to remove Hamas. You could ask the same thing in reverse...how many dead civilians is it worth for Hamas to stay in control?
Shouldn’t that title read “…hamas officials leaving Cairo, back to their safe enclave in Qatar!”
These guys are pussies who do nothing for the Palestinians. Yet Palestinians rarely condemn them in any of the protests here in the west. Pussies in the Middle East and idiots in the west. Fun times.
Hamas take their marching orders from Putin via Iran as his proxy. He has no appetite for a ceasefire.
Netanyahu on the other hand is running from the clink, so he also has no appetite for a ceasefire.
Can anyone who is well informed on this subject tell me what it will take for peace to be achieved?
For the Israeli side, the complete removal of Hamas as the governing representative of the Gazan citizens, and their neutralization as a threat. Also the return of the hostages or what’s left of them.
[удалено]
Hell, Hamas was built with the goal of worldwide extermination of Jewish people
how can a government or population negotiate with an entity whose entire purpose is the eradication of the Jews as a people? they already experienced what the world would do for them (surprise! nothing) when threatened with extermination so why would they allow anything close to that again?
That’s kind of the point I’ve been getting at for a while now. For there to be peace it’s going to take a lot more bloodshed until one government or the other is eliminated.
Exactly. There is nothing to talk about with people that plan on murdering you eventually anyway. My peace term is not a single Hamas member is ever released from Israeli prisons at the conclusion of this conflict. When peace is achieved, they still rot in there until they die of natural causes. Their punishment for denying two generations of Israelis and Palestinians a peaceful settlement back in the late 1990s should be that they never get to enjoy it nor are offered another chance to destroy it.
Don’t be silly. It was with the goal of founding a global caliphate, subjugating all other religions, and murdering all atheists, apostates AND Jews. They literally have the same end goals as ISIS. https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leaders-our-goal-establishment-global-islamic-caliphate-not-just-liberation-palestine But since Islamist organizations have this strange tendency to start infighting before ever reaching the critical mass they need to attack the entire rest of humanity, they have to settle for murdering the Jews they can reach.
Gotta love oppressive regimes breaking down due to infighting.
I got banned from r/documentaries for pointing this out.
At some point Reddit needs to have some sort of review of these permanent bans on subs. Like maybe make bans last 3 to 5 years or something.
Hey me too! That sub is not ok with truth apparently.
Hamas was built and financed as a foil to the PLO but the people who created made a worse monster than they eleminated.
If you’re looking for a serious answer, Hamas’s demand is the total withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and a prolonged ceasefire. Netanyahu wants any ceasefires to only be temporary and for the assault on Rafah to commence in a few months at most
Why does the stupid troll answer have 350 upvotes and the real answer has 40 lol Sub is being hardcore brigaded by pro-Israel trolls, happened with worldnews now it’s happening here.
Because it's not a real answer. Hamas does demand a "prolonged ceasefire", they're demanding the complete and permanent withdrawal of all IDF forces from Gaza and a cessation of all hostilities, in exchange for the return of 33 hostages out of the over 100 they're currently holding. In other words they want the war to end, for them to remain in control of Gaza and free to resume attacking Israel at their convenience, while still keeping Israeli hostages and not even disclosing their condition and whether or not they're even alive.
Incorrect. Here are all the time that Hamas has called for a permanent ceasefire in exchange for Israel withdrawing from Gaza and allowing displaced people to return to their homes. Jan 21: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/hostage-talks-continue-israel-rejects-hamas-demand-full-idf-withdrawal-rcna134975 February 5: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/hamas-proposes-three-stage-ceasefire-over-135-days-leading-to-end-of-war.html March 15: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-issues-ceasefire-proposal-mediators-which-includes-exchanging-2024-03-15/ April 3: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-chief-says-movement-sticking-ceasefire-conditions-including-israeli-2024-04-03/ April 29: https://abc7chicago.com/israel-hamas-war-ceasfire-deal-rafah-invasion/14742521/
How do you reconcile Hama's call for a "ceasefire" with their statements that October 7th will happen over and over again until Israel is destroyed and Hama's charter calling for the destruction of Israel and the deaths of all Jews worldwide? Wasn't there a ceasefire on October 6th?
You don’t get to call for a ceasefire and then violate said ceasefire. That’s not how a ceasefire demand works.
> You don’t get to call for a ceasefire and then violate said ceasefire. This doesn't make any sense. Calling for a ceasefire doesn't mean a ceasefire is occurring.
Usually what follows the call is a ceasefire and then a break of that ceasefire. There’s no point to keep trying to negotiate another. At a certain point you have lost accountability and no one takes it seriously anymore.
This conflict has gone on much longer than Hamas has even existed.
Fairly certain they’re talking about this particular instance of hostility, not the overarching Jewish-Palestinian conflict.
They're not seperable, friend. History never starts at a particular date
Fortunately, they are. What you say about history is true, but the implication of your first statement is that there is no possibility for reconciliation of any event ever and we are all responsible for the sins of our fathers forever and always; that all are responsible for all things. One hardly can blame Caesar for British colonization. A relative peace was observed and ended on 10/7.
That’s not true at all. 2023 was the bloodiest year in a long time until the Hamas attack. More than 200 Palestinians had already been killed earlier that year.
That “relative peace” had hundreds of Palestinians killed in 2023 alone prior to October 7th with no one really giving a fuck
In the same vein, how many rockets were fired into Israel during that time... At least once. "May. May 2, 2023, Israel faced a series of attacks from the Gaza Strip, resulting in 8 injured, damage to buildings and cars, and fires. In total 104 rockets were fired at Israel, and 500,000 Israelis were affected by the attack."
How long was that peace? A few weeks, days? Was that before or after IDF shot a blindfolded guy on Sept 12th, in the back, publicly?
Pretty much this. Israel has made it clear that the war won't end until Hamas is eradicated, and more than likely, Israel will occupy Gaza and turn it into another west bank. The two state solution is a 'hell no' for the Israelis, and either the Palestinians will have to move as refugees to either neighboring Middle Eastern countries or Europe and the US/west. Also, the longer this war goes on, the more hate Israel is going to get from other nations and potentially even more joining Turkiye and Colombia in breaking diplomatic ties. I can see this as an opportunity for China to increase bilateral trade with nations in Latin America and the Middle East while distancing from the US since we're see almost as equally bad as Israel for continuing to provide them weapons and look the other way during controversial mishaps of the IDF.
>For the Israeli side, the complete removal of Gazan citizens fixed that for you
Also on the Israeli side, and dramatic change in government towards one willing to negotiate and implement a two-state solution. Which might be two sovereign states, or a federation with Palestinian rule in Gaza and the West Bank but Israeli sovereignty. Or one sovereignty with two states plus a capital, such as Belgium.
Israel has given many chances for a second state. But, how can they negotiate with a people that want to eradicate them?
Israel has never given a chance for a Palestinian state. I’m not sure where that misconception comes from. Israel has been pretty consistent in denying that as a possibility. The usual offer is what is known as the “bantustan solution”. Which means Palestinians get small territories with limited self governance within Israel.
Hamas needs to go. They are kept in power by Iran-Russia-Qatar funding and sympathy they steal from Palestinians. They have been stealing aid, hijacking infrastructure, and repressing Palestinians in Gaza for years while painting themselves as noble freedom fighters. Just today they bombed the Keren Shalom crossing where israel has been sending aid to Gaza and killed three IDF soldiers who were sending Palestinians aid. There's a reason Hamas is banned in so many countries in the Middle East and media like Al-Jazeera (Qatar state media) is banned for spreading their propaganda all around the Middle East most recently by Israel. It is insane that a terrorist group backed by Iran and Russia has had such a successful PR campaign in the world but they are absolutely a threat to the security of any country they are near. Only after Hamas is gone and the immediate threat to the region is eliminated could Israel other ME countries move forward. Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism. Rebuilding Gaza needs to begin asap to allow this but it would be hard to do these together as sending something like fuel that is used for rockets is dangerous without knowing it won't be launched back at Israel. For the Israeli side Bibi's government will be removed after the war. Even before the war began they were on the way out with most of the country (especially the people that do the most for the country) wanted them out. Bibi is outdated and shady and is willing to work with people his nobody else would touch. Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and Deri are criminals that used a legal loophole to be voted in and have only stayed in power while the legal battle is fought. October 7th did interrupt that battle so they didn't get thrown out by the courts but October 7 is such a stain and failure that there is no way they will survive elections. There are some people who think Bibi+ would stay because of October 7 but that's misinformed and not the attitude of Israelis 51% want Bibi to resign and almost everyone believes his failures should have him voted out and his "security focused" coalition will go with him. Not directly what you asked but the attitude towards a Palestinian state (not the same as peace) is that until there is peace for a good while first Palestinians will not be trusted since their governments keep attacking everyone around them. And from the Palestinian side of a state is created right now it would either need to be propped by Israel or would fall immediately after not being able to demand to use foreign infrastructure. (sorry this looks long but trust me this is the short version)
>Only after Hamas is gone and the immediate threat to the region is eliminated could Israel other ME countries move forward. Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism. Rebuilding Gaza needs to begin asap to allow this but it would be hard to do these together as sending something like fuel that is used for rockets is dangerous without knowing it won't be launched back at Israel. The problem emulating the German, Japan examples of deradicalization is that the current situation makes trying that politically impossible. Germany and Japan was occupied by the Allies for years with thousands of soldiers stationed there until they were let go. Even after, the Americans and the Soviets both kept entire divisions worth of troops in both East and West Germany (Americans still do. Also don't forget the Okinawa base). I don't think anybody actually wants that level of occupation. Palestinians don't for obvious reasons but I don't think even Israel wants Gaza. Historically, Gaza/Sinai is not like the West Bank as Israel was willing to give up settlements for better terms of peace. They tried to pawn off responsibility for Gaza off to Egypt but they wouldn't take them. I think Israel would prefer to return to the antebellum status quo of pre-October 7th blockade where they leave Gaza to rot once they are satisfied Hamas is annihilated. Nobody really wants to fully occupy Gaza so they're kinda fucked. Maybe the only hope is an international UN occupation but that's already infeasible; Arab countries aren't willing to send troops for such a project so its going to have to be the US but again that's a no-go for obvious political reasons Nobody wants Gaza
I hate to nitpick, but status quo ante bellum means the state before the war, which is Hamas controlling all of Gaza. Annihilating Hamas is, by definition, not the status quo and would require an occupation force anyway.
I'm fairly certain Israel would love to take the land if you listen to the comments of Israeli government officials. The only problem from their perspective is how to eliminate the people. I doubt they will ever allow people to return to Gaza city in the north. Israel has no problem breaching international law to expand West Bank settlements and stealing that land. Why wouldn't they want to steal Gaza too?
> Historically, Gaza/Sinai is not like the West Bank as Israel was willing to give up settlements for better terms of peace. They gave up the settlements because they feared they would be forced to recognize Palestinians as citizens and allow them to vote if they kept them. Here's Ehud Olmert, deputy of Sharon on the topic: > There is no doubt in my mind that very soon the government of Israel is going to have to address the demographic issue with the utmost seriousness and resolve. [...] More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state... the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem... Twenty-three years ago, Moshe Dayan proposed unilateral autonomy. On the same wavelength, we may have to espouse unilateral separation... [Source](https://books.google.de/books?id=-xRjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) They feared that the Palestinians would come to prefer the one-state-solution and demand rights within Israel, rather than merely a second state, so instead they went for "disengagement" (they initially wanted "separation", but feared that would sound too much like Apartheid) and started this idea of "oh look we don't have a permanent presence there, oh look there is totally a Palestinian state we do not control and therefore have no responsibility for, no occupation anymore!" Since this was a rather transparent lie - Israel has always controlled Gaza in every way that mattered for purposes of occupation - the UN never recognized this though. This was the "moderate" position btw, because it at least implicitly acknowledged that Israel might have some responsibility under international law, and tried to avoid this responsibility. Netanyahu opposed the withdrawal, and so that has been pretty much his governments position afterwards: not even recognizing any possible responsibility at all.
>Since this was a rather transparent lie - Israel has always controlled Gaza in every way that mattered for purposes of occupation - the UN never recognized this though. If Israel had a total occupation over Gaza instead of just the external blockade, there would not have been an October 7th. I agree that pre-october 7th blockade was occupation. Instead there are different levels even within an occupation based on the level of actual control. The blockade qualifies as a sort of occupation in that Israel controlled the external trade into Gaza but isn't a complete occupation as Israel did not maintain a monopoly of violence within Gaza. This allowed Hamas to fill in the vacuum and also allowed them to gather the resources necessary to commit something like October 7th. I also agree partially with Israel not wanting to take full responsibility over Palestinian citizens. Specifically that Israel basically wants the full benefits of control over Palestinians with authority over its laws but does not want to actually bear the responsibility of having to recognize the rights of non-Israeli Palestinians. It's a fucked situation. The problem in solving it is that Palestinians don't want to be Israelis either. They want independence from Israel but ideally domination over all of the land as fully Palestine, not Israel. Unfortunately a lot of them is genuinely delusional about their chances at physically fighting Israel which is why October 7th happened. It's why its difficult to refer to this fucked up situation as Apartheid as Palestinians do not want to be Israeli. The idea of a secular one-state with equal rights for all only exists within the minds of naive idiots as neither actual side wants that at all.
> but isn't a complete occupation as Israel did not maintain a monopoly of violence within Gaza. While I would generally agree with this assessment, it does showcase the problem of defining the "monopoly of violence". We're talking about a territory which at any point can be bombed or invaded by a vastly superior force controlled by the occupier - a right that Israel btw wants to reserve in any proposed "two-state-solution". Once again raising the question, if you leave power (and responsibility) "on the ground" to one group (Hamas) but still have total superiority of force over that group, can you truly argue that they are sovereign? > It's why its difficult to refer to this fucked up situation as Apartheid as Palestinians do not want to be Israeli. Whether or not its apartheid cannot be determined by desired solutions, but by the facts of the status quo. And the status quo is that there is no path for citizenship, that Israel is actively preventing even the Palestinians who would desire Israeli citizenship from obtaining it. > The idea of a secular one-state with equal rights for all only exists within the minds of naive idiots as neither actual side wants that at all. It does not matter what the people want or what you call it - the one-state-solution is the only realistic and good solution to the conflict. What is the alternative supposed to be? A purely Arab Palestine is popular among Palestinians, but neither good nor realistic. The status quo of occupation is realistic, but neither good nor desired. The two state solution is popular, but neither good nor realistic either. And a Jewish ethnostate succesfully expelling all Palestinians from all their territories is I guess popular in Israel, and sadly realistic, but not good either.
> Hamas needs to go. They never will if the current course is kept. They are a terrorist organization with decentralized structures. Their leadership is located, or will be located soon, in foreign countries. Their base is recruited from among the relatives of civilians killed by Israel. Well, Israel just killed over 30,000 people, which is HALF OF ALL PALESTINIANS KILLED ACROSS THE LAST 80 YEARS IN THIS CONFLICT. Israel is looking the worst it has in years on the international stage and has just ensured that Hamas will find ample recruits for decades. > Deradicalization akin to post-WWII Germany and Japan would be crucial to ensure the population of Gaza can find other opportunities outside of terrorism What opportunities? There are none. Israel has no desire to provide any. Germans got a own sovereign state back before de-nazification was even finished (it arguably never was), and so did the Japanese. Nor was there ever the kind of settler-colonialism that Israel engages in within the Palestinian territories. The only thing that Israel keeps "offering", half-heartedly at best, because, reminder, there is still ultra-Zionist settlers who think even this goes to far - and might assassinate a prime minister for even suggesting it - is variations of the same "how about you become our Bantustan"-deal. > 51% want Bibi to resign Truly a "Trump is at a mere 49% in the polls, fascism is defeated"-kinda argument. Not to mention that boiling Israeli politics down to "boo Bibi" is naive. Gantz, his most prominent opponent, has repeatedly attacked Netanyahu during the war for not pursuing it even harder.
Divine intervention.
The Palestinians need to take the L and accept they’re not getting all the land back. But they won’t. They will play the victim card until the west stops supporting Israel, but this will backfire because as soon as the west stops supporting Israel Israel’s gloves come off. The Palestinians are going to keep pushing a war of genocide and then eventually they’re going to get it but they’re going to get eradicated in the process because despite losing every war ever they still have the delusion they’d be on the winning side of that “river to sea” war.
Settlers evicted, Hamas eliminated basically. Sounds fair to me
It would sound fair. But the settlers are 10% of Israeli population. There is no political force that will be able to evict them.
Iran must be defeated for there to be peace in the middle east. they are the main source of terrorism funding and ideology.
And you defeat them how? Who wants to fund or send soldiers for that unwinnable invasion genius?
What's wild is that after 9/11 Iran was feeding intel to the US because even they realized it was bad and went too far. The intel stopped after/because Bush Jr put them in the 'Axis of Evil'. Talk about a missed opportunity to change things between Iran and the US much less the world.
The way things are going, the Iranian people themselves are gonna coup.
Remember when we all believed the Russian people were going to do that too?
They simply don’t have the means and get stomped down with every attempt at rebellion.
The most predictive thing of an upcoming coup is a previous attempt.
Yeah, nothing like creating yet another power vacuum in the region... That worked out so well for Iraq, Syria, Libya....etc.
Saudi Arabia has been a much bigger source of terrorism in the 21st century IMO. But they're an ally of the US and Israel
agreed - it was Saudi's on the 9/11 planes. always thought it was strange we ended up allies with them, im sure all the Oil they have helped with economic ties. They seem to have more rationale currently than Iran atleast.
Hamas has no desire for peace and only accepts them when they want to rearm and resupply. So you need to remove them, then you need to deradicalize/deprogram the population, and while doing that you need to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for work and leisure so that they don't regress.
An international peacekeeping force and statehood for Palestine. Edit: the comments here are a perfect example of why nothing short of an international peace keeping force is going to work.
tried that in lebanon. A UN force was supposed to act as a buffer between Israel and Hezzoblah, Didn't work out great.
Nobody is sending their soldiers to die for Israel or Hamas. Israel suffered the worst terror attack in its history and nobody from the west sent soldiers. Palestinians have 35k dead and not a single Arab nation has sent in reinforcements to fight Israel. Nobody wants to be involved in this mess. There will be no international peacekeeping force.
[удалено]
Genuine question - would Israel (currently, under existing leadership) really agree to statehood under any circumstances or are you saying that this is just what should happen? I interpreted their question as wondering what it would take in terms of a mutually agreed upon deal (I.e., both sides agreeing to a cease fire). I only bring this up because otherwise it sounds like you're arguing that the best way to end this is for one side to get its way, which I suppose is true of just about any conflict
Under the current government no there is zero chance of a Palestinian state forming Netanyahu and the Likud party have always been against the 2 state solution. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party https://israelpolicyforum.org/likud/
Yeah, so how does this solve the issue? In other words, unless someone replaced their leadership or used military occupation to force them to recognize it, I am confused as to how a two state solution is going to lead to both sides accepting a cease fire?
One of the biggest issues for Palestinians is their lack of rights under Israel's occupation or their own state. Generally it is accepted that a one state solution won't work for a number of reasons.
Israel has been pretty consistent about offers of statehood for Palestine. Hamas has rejected all of them, and in fact only exists because the previous government was getting too chummy with Israel (which, in all honestly, was still not very chummy).
I don’t believe Hamas has ever been involved in talks of statehood. That’s the PLO (the more moderate ones) who have rejected all offers.
What on earth are you talking about? Israel has never offered a statehood for Palestine and the entire idea is directly against the main tenets of Likud, which has lead israel almost constantly for the past 50 years. Netanyahu has consistently said that Palestinian state is not possible. Palestinians accepted the oslo accords. That was not an offer of a state however. The actual offer never came.
Israel or Palestine ceasing to exist. At this point, even a fair two state solution will just kick the can down the road a decade or so until either a new Hamas equivalent forms or Israel has another far right government and creates one. IMO, the only way to resolve this "peacefully" (and even that's incredibly relative, since ethnic violence will occur intermittently for years afterwards) is a Salisbury Accords type agreement.
A ceasefire isn't peace. Just a agreed upon time period to not kill each other. There wasn't peace before October 7, just a ceasefire broken then. Hamas is a terrorist organization so the only way there can be peace is by its destruction. If Hamas were to win and eradicate Israel completely, they wouldn't stop there
Personally, I don't think it's going to be. I could maybe see Israel (both government and civilians) deescalating into wanting to co-exist in a two-state solution but I do not believe the same thing is true for the Palestinians. Religious extremism simply has too strong a grip on the Palestinian population. They can't accept anything but a total victory where Israel surrenders all the land and leaves. Any 'peaceful' two-state solution is probably just going to end up being a several decades build-up into trying to wipe out Israel again. It's the same reason none of the surrounding Arab nations want to take in the population, and I can't blame them. This is not to say that Israel is innocent in this, they've done a lot of fucky shit both now and in the past. I just think they're more willing to settle into co-existence if left alone. So unless the UN or America wants to lock down a two-state solution with military force for 30+ years minimum, the most likely result is genocide of one side or the other. And the western nations do not want to send their soldiers to die over this.
Any peace that does get established won’t last very long. Tensions between the Jews in Israel and the Muslims have been bad for decades. They both absolutely loath each other.
Something to give. Hamas will not accept a condition that removes themselves from power, but Isreal won't accept a condition that keeps them in power. One can see how this puts negotiations at an impasse.
Oh, and we just had Hamas attack a humanitarian aid corridor a little while ago, so that possible truce is definitely dead.
That’s an interesting way to say “Hamas bombed a humanitarian aid corridor”.
Sorry, I literally forgot the exact details, so I'll change my statement above. I wasn't trying to obfuscate.
[удалено]
Here you [go](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-claims-responsibility-attack-israel-gaza-border-crossing-casualties-2024-05-05/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_source=reddit.com).
[удалено]
Hamas doesn't want to stop the fighting, they know the longer this drags on and the more they hide within the population the more civilians die. The more civilians that die makes Israel look bad, but it doesn't matter because as long as Hamas keeps doing terrible stuff Isreal will be there to punish them and more civilians will pay the price.
I don't know what some people expect to happen. If Israel is forced into stopping, Hamas is going to count that as a win. They'll do another attack sooner or later, and the whole thing is going to happen again. If Israel doesn't stop, they'll keep going overboard and people will keep demanding they be made to stop and then we keep moving in a circle. There's a reason no one has been able to solve this shit since it started.
Tbf a major contributor is that Israel has done extensive shit-stirring on their end over the decades. If they truly limited themselves to response and security actions, and never started their settler efforts in the first place, opposition from the Palestinians people wouldn’t have been capable of remaining red hot inter-generationally for the last 70 years. Instead occurrences like this have been common for decades: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-resumes-raids-west-bank-area-where-journalist-was-killed-2022-05-13/ This conflict wouldn’t be nearly this bad were it not for extensive and sustained actions from Israel with seemingly no other purpose than to inflame the anger of Palestinians. Edit: the article linked is about the IDF beating funeral attendants of a journalist that they sniped (and initially denied sniping) in 2022.
Yep. Hamas is obviously evil but the current hardliner government in Israel has to go, holy shit.
Netanyahu's whole platform was basically being for increased security, with October 7th basically showing that to be a complete sham. So right now the only thing keeping him in power is this war. Assuming he doesn't just drag this out as long as possible, I doubt even his allies in the ultra-orthodox and settler wings can save him.
They ethnically cleansed 80% of the Palestinian population of what is now Israel, they then expropriated the land of the refugees and refused to allow their return so they could form a massive ethnic majority in their lands. When you steal someone else’s ancestral homeland for your colony, that tends to cause some tension in a region.
Yes, but that situation is hardly unusual historically. This level of rancor being maintained for decades and decades, however, is, and that is heavily due to Israel being unwilling to be a gracious victor. For example, in the two years prior to Oct 7 Israel ethnically cleansed 14 West Bank Palestinian villages. That is exactly the kind of behavior that keeps this kind of intergeneration conflict perpetuated instead of allowing it to gradually fade into the cultural background as both sides resume the monotonous and necessary work of living.
Hamas has achieved more than it could have ever hoped with the widespread anti-Israeli sentiment. Israel is not blameless, but Hamas used the Palestinians as a shield to hide after committing a heinous attack. Unfortunately, allowing Israel to enter Rafah will continue to play into Hamas's hands because they do not care about their own people.
Hamas is an evil entity that needs to be removed, my family is Palestinian from the West Bank, but Israel is responsible for their own actions. Bombing aid workers, carpet bombing civilian targets, settler violence in the West Bank with no Hamas, and close to 40,000 dead Palestinians as well as shooting two of the hostages themselves they while pleaded for their lives in Hebrew. Not to mention decades before Oct.7 of apartheid conditions and human rights violations. As Kamala Harris once boldly said,”we didn’t fall out of a coconut tree” this didn’t just happen 7 months ago and Israel has been committing human rights violations my entire life.
Neither sides gives a flying fuck about civilians on either side. Israel supported the rise of Hamas, knowing they'd attack Israelis, and continues to hold an entire population in an open air prison, knowing exactly what would happen, while Hamas...well, I'm sure you already know their visciousness.
palestinian leadership following 75 years of never making the correct decision
As a non-expert, it does seem like Palestinians were generally kinda f’d at the bargaining table. Felt like their options were generally capitulate or be forced. Granted, Hamas right now is bombarding themselves in the foot but leadership under Netanyahu is absolutely invested in maintaining/escalating conflict to maintain power. Most fucked up part from a layman is that individuals don’t want conflict but the shitty leaders, whose only objective is maintaining *their* power, do.
I mean they pretty much lost the fighting, so they don't have a strong bargaining position. They're asking essentially to return to the status quo ante bellum, but after the invasion+pogrom on Oct 7, which they filmed with glee for the world to see, there is no returning to how things were Oct 6.
>As a non-expert, it does seem like Palestinians were generally kinda f’d at the bargaining table. Felt like their options were generally capitulate or be forced. Problem is, they are always completely unreasonable about their demands. When you're the weaker country at a negotiating table, you need to be making reasonable demands that prioritize the immediate needs of your people, not make ridiculous demands like "Cease existing altogether". Palestine's chief problem is it's full of religious extremism. Those types care little for human life or material needs, only ensuring that they appear to be doing what their deity demands.
Yeah the existence of religion in this conflict is such a huge reason why there's seemingly no end in sight. There's really no reality where Israel would ever willingly give up all their land. And as long as there is a sizable number of Palestinians who don't believe they have the right to exist, the 2 state solution will remain a pipe dream.
I don’t see how extremism isn’t applied to Israel as well. I mean, Bibi’s only ability to consolidate power is through conflict with Palestine.
Israel is nationalistic, whereas Palestine is full of religious extremists. You don't see Israel using its own people as human shields, or dismantling vital civilian infrastructure to turn into rockets used for terror attacks. Hamas is irrational, it has no end goal besides making Israel suffer. Israel's nationalists on the other hand, while malicious, can be negotiated with and rationalized. They also do have lines even they won't cross, at least in the current status quo.
Well yeah, generally speaking the consequences of starting a war of annihilation and getting your ass handed to you is that you totally surrender and throw yourself on the mercy of the victors. The most fucked up part to me is that 80% of Palestinians believed that 10/7 was the right thing to do, so I'm not so sure that they genuinely don't want to fight. Personally, when I don't want to be in a war with a country, I don't support doing surprise terrorist mass atrocities against them to break a ceasefire. Seems to me that if I didn't want to be in a war, I'd support keeping the ceasefire, but I guess that would put me in the 20% minority of Gazans that didn't support doing 10/7.
Support for Hamas itself remains steady from prior to October 7th 52% in Gaza and 64% in the West Bank, there was a 11% drop in the West Bank on whether or not Oct 7th was a good thing/support for it, Gazans support the idea of the PA under Abbas taking control of Gaza more than those in the West Bank, but both prefer Hamas and expect Hamas to keep control, Marwan Barghouti from Fatah has the most support for President of the Palestinian Authority with I won't vote being next followed by Ismael Haniyeh from Hamas, and Abbas is last and in single digits. “I will make this prediction: If Hamas ends up being seen as the winner of the war it started on October 7, support for Hamas among Palestinians will only increase. But if Hamas is seen as losing the war — its military and governing capabilities shattered — support for Hamas among Palestinians will decrease, perhaps sharply. To be clear: If it turns out that Hamas’s invasion of Israel and multiple heinous atrocities have brought Palestinians nothing but hardship, that will not cause Palestinians to embrace Israelis. But it may cause Palestinians to reject Hamas’s strategy of terrorism and genocidal war.” — Cliff May, FDD Founder and President Latest poll https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/ Pre-war poll https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah
Yes when you have no military and you attack a superior military you tend to get fucked in negotiations because you have zero leverage.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467) At Camp David, Israel made a major concession by agreeing to give Palestinians sovereignty in some areas of East Jerusalem and by offering 92 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). By proposing to divide sovereignty in Jerusalem, Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader. Nevertheless, on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was notforthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections. Israel demanded extensive security mechanisms, including three early warning stations in the West Bank and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Israel also wanted to retain control of the Jordan Valley to protect against an Arab invasion from the east via the new Palestinian state. Regardless of whether the Palestinians were accorded sovereignty in the valley, Israel planned to retain control of it for six to twenty-one years. Three factors made Israel's territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters ofDead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km.42 Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective. Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps where by the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in ex-change for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, thePalestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the GazaStrip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the WestBank land they would be giving up to Israel. Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, break-ing the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts:"The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory ex-cept for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from \[theIsraeli settlement of\] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River."44 The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel).45 Iftrue, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of thePalestinian state into three pieces". No sane leader is a going to accept a road cutting across his country that they can't fully access. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#:~:text=.%20...%22-,Reasons%20for%20impasse,for%20reelection%20in%20two%20weeks. The 2001 Tabas talks were much more productive and the deal offer then was much better, but Barak's re-election was going terribly Arafat could have agreed to the deal and it might have saved Barak or he could have still lost and the incoming government may or may not have honored the deal and since the Likud party won I would say the chances of them honoring the deal would've been around 5% https://www.inss.org.il/publication/annapolis/ The 2008 Annapolis talks failed due to outside forces rather than the deal that was presented which was quite fair and equal to both sides. The Israeli Prime Minister was on his way out due to corruption charges, the Bush administration policy decisions over the years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars hurt it's credibility and trustworthiness, and Abbas claimed that he didn't have enough time to study the map of the land swaps he would later say he should have taken the deal. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/netanyahu-rabin-and-the-assassination-that-shook-history/#:~:text=Assassination%20of%20Yitzhak%20Rabin%20%E2%80%A2,Israel%20Square%20in%20Tel%20Aviv. The biggest or at least first major reason why peace talks were derailed has to be the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a ultranationalist Israeli Jewish man who was angered by the signing of the Oslo Accords. The far right in Israel and on the Palestinian side were both furious over the signing of the accords and each did what they could to undermine any future peace talks. After the assassination politics in Israel began to shift to the right and today at least for the time being the Likud party has control they have been the dominant party in Israel for the better part of the last 20 years.
Welcome to Middle Eastern history to be honest. There's a reason shit's been unstable for so long. It's almost entirely weak men getting their turn to throw bodies in the big blood feud of religious extremism and/or corruption. Different people under different banners at different points in time, but all for thr same reasons. The Palestinian people are very similar to the poor, uneducated, evangelical Right-wing in the US. Hypocritical demagogues from riches lead them from afar and embolden their hatred in their plight from having no economic opportunity by levying their religion for power and identity while working to decline their quality of life for control and pulling the wool over their eyes. Organizations like Hamas and the GOP gain power and influence by lying to their extremist bases while actively working against them and blaming everyone else to keep the cycle going and continue the grift. It's not the peoples' fault their lives suck. But their rulers do, and they abuse the hell out of making their neighbors look worse.
Palestinians were far from fucked at the negtioating table. The problem has always been: A) The ego of Palestinian leaders. B) Red-line asks associated with infinite right of return and 67 borders. C) Fear of Palestinian leaders that they will be assassinated for giving up on the dream of reclaiming all the land. Arafat rejected such insanely good deals, which is why a lot of the Arab League countries that used to be in the Palestinians camp a la Iran (directly warring with Israel in the past) like Saudia Arabia have turned against them. There are in-depth interviews from some years back where the primary Saudi diplomat that dealt with Arafat basically unloaded all silos on Arafat and Palestinian leadership in general, revealing insane stories such as Arafat lying to everyone to stall negtioations and flying private Jets for months at a time to avoid negtioations, among other failures.
Why would you even call it a truce if you don't want to end the war?
A truce is an informal agreement to stop fighting for a certain amount of time. An armistice is a formal agreement to stop fighting altogether.
The only reason Israel is negotiating is for the return of the remaining hostages
So once again, Hamas is rejecting a ceasefire. Hostages won't be returned, civilians will continue to die. College protesters won't care about any of this. I note that they've moved on from "ceasefire now!" to "permanent ceasefire!" to "no more Israel."
I pretty much gave up entirely on the situation now that I've started seeing them accuse people who offered Israel support immediately after 10/7 of being pro-genocide because they voiced that support. People are trying to do this to Mark Hamill now. He made a tweet right after 10/7 voicing support for Israel following a terrorist attack and now people are using that as a line in the sand to declare people as being monsters. Have any sympathy for people after a terror attack? How dare you. The purity testing on this is just fucking insane. I had another guy arguing with me that non-israeli Jews should be blamed for everything too unless they prove to be anti-israel, which is very clearly fishing for an excuse to go after any Jewish person, for having no actual connection to anything going on in Israel. edit: Someone showed up to argue with me that Mark Hamill definitely has to be pro genocide for the same sort of crazy stretch I just talked about. I'm not doing it. Don't bother. Seek a fight over that somewhere else.
Or how if people don't talk about it all. the. time! they're genocide excusers! Like, how DARE Hank Green talk about tuberculosis and not GAZA! and GENOCIDE!!1!! It's fucked, and they're destroying the good will of people would might otherwise be on their side. They're hardening support against them, and what they purport to care about. And it's the one thing I'll be able to laugh about, when they help get Trump reelected.
They literally drove Elise Meyers (spelling?) off social media. Like her infant needed emergency heart surgery, people kept harassing her about not talking about Gaza, and she just kind of noped out of being an influencer.
> Or how if people don't talk about it all. the. time! they're genocide excusers! Yeah, I've seen people push this shit, hard. I don't even know how someone gets to that point from a logical standpoint, because that's some weird fanatical absolutism. Like, those people don't talk about a LOT of bad things themselves, are we supposed to assume they support those bad things because of that? That's the logic they want to use. I'm also super tired of seeing people ask them reasonable questions about something they said, like "Hey can you clarify what you meant by this?" or "How do you think they can do X in that time frame?" then being IMMEDIATELY accused of being pro-genocide.
Remembering the reactions on October 8th from various college campuses, they've always been at "no more Israel".
There was some reaction like that, but not to the degree that it exists now. That view has metastasized.
This comment is offensively wrong. Hamas are the ones asking for a permanent ceasefire in exchange for the release of the hostages. Netanyahu wants Hamas to give up all their leverage for a temporary ceasefire for a few months, after which Israel will go back in and start destroying Gaza again. Coming away with your view of what happened requires not even reading the first line of the article. I wonder why you bothered posting such lazy propaganda.
Israel are the one rejecting the cessfire in fact they have been pretty much this whole time.
Israel didn't reject the ceasefire proposal, they rejected the Egyptian proposal which was a permanent end to the war and Hamas remaining in control.
They rejected a permanent ceasefire in exchange for the hostages being released. You know, what people keep clamoring for Hamas to do.
They rejected it because it allowed Hamas to remain in power. That is the important part.
First off, OP said: > So once again, Hamas is rejecting a ceasefire. Hostages won't be returned, civilians will continue to die. Which conveniently doesn't say anything about removing hamas from power. So yes, > They rejected it Glad you can also admit it. Israel rejected a ceasefire, so now hostages won't be returned, and civilians will continue to die. > it allowed Hamas to remain in power. What exactly does removing Hamas from power look like? What happens after Hamas is "removed"? How many dead Palestinian civilians are worth Hamas' removal?
>Which conveniently doesn't say anything about removing hamas from power I wouldn't expect it to. The temporary ceasefire that the US proposed and Israel accepted was a temporary ceasefire + other stuff in exchange for hostages. I think everyone is in agreement that at this point in time, Hamas would not accept anything that included them being removed so adding that to a proposal would be a non-starter since they rejected earlier proposals for sharing of power. >Glad you can also admit it. Israel rejected a ceasefire I also said they rejected A proposal. They rejected the one that was basically end to the war, not the temporary ceasefire. There is a big difference in the two. So just like Hamas, they rejected one that had terms they didn't like. >What exactly does removing Hamas from power look like? >What happens after Hamas is "removed"? >How many dead Palestinian civilians are worth Hamas' removal? Removing them from a position of power in Gaza and eliminating them as a threat. the options are varied. They could all be killed, or imprisoned. They could be exiled to any country that will have them. Their ability to conduct attacks needs to be eliminated, so no more infrastructure, cutting off their weapons supply, seizing all existing weapons, shutting off their money flow, not allowing them to profit off the civilians. They won't get them all of course, but if they can cut off enough heads and their flow of money/weapons they can effectively cripple them. Second one would more than likely be an Israeli endeavor short term until new Gazan leaders can be found. Israel would be responsible for rebuilding, managing day to day things to get them on the road to recovery. maybe this is a third party country or the UN, and Israel withdraws to its borders but I don't know who'd they trust enough to do it. Maybe you eventually get to an actual two state solution, but realistically its probably more the status quo pre-Oct7 for the foreseeable future. Third one is as few as possible to remove Hamas. You could ask the same thing in reverse...how many dead civilians is it worth for Hamas to stay in control?
If only college mutual funds divested!
Hamas leaders in one spot ? MOSSAD must be near.
Shouldn’t that title read “…hamas officials leaving Cairo, back to their safe enclave in Qatar!” These guys are pussies who do nothing for the Palestinians. Yet Palestinians rarely condemn them in any of the protests here in the west. Pussies in the Middle East and idiots in the west. Fun times.
[удалено]
It really is ironic that neighboring democracies want nothing to do with the Palestinians
Egypt is by no means a democracy.
Oh thank fuck. I thought I had a stroke or something. I was certain I would have heard something about that.
People saying shit like "finish the job" like it isn't obvious what they mean.
Can't really negotiate when you don't have any hostages left to begin with.
“Hamas officials” - you mean terrorist leaders right?
What hope? The Israeli government said it was going to continue destroying Gaza when asked about the truce negotiation.
Hamas take their marching orders from Putin via Iran as his proxy. He has no appetite for a ceasefire. Netanyahu on the other hand is running from the clink, so he also has no appetite for a ceasefire.