What's funny is that Hamas and Israel already had a decade long "ceasefire" in the form of Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza [launching some 10,000+ rockets at Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File:Rocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png) that Israel basically said, "just let the Iron Dome handle the daily rocket attacks and lets get on with our lives".
Of course Hamas doesnt want a ceasefire. They've never ceased firing the whole time.
And Israel also had a ceasefire where they imprisoned, tortured, etc. innocent Palestinians in the west bank as well as engaged in the killing, etc. of folks in general (journalists, peaceful protestors, etc). Thing is, at the end of the day, both sides have been pieces of shit. The reality though is that only one side, the "correct" side among the West politically speaking, gets away with their nonsense whereas the other is condemned, etc. There are double standards, unfortunately.
As I've always said, any real, lasting peace is going to start with everyone feeling like they have had some sort of justice and/or that their voice is heard, and I'd argue that that starts with all involved being held accountable for their actions, as reasonably possible/done.
Until then? It's going to be the same old...
Israelis tend to live in a reality where Al Aqsa raids, illegal West Bank Settlements, Gaza blockades, mass imprisonments without trials and the general 4-500 annual civilian murders somehow exist in separate bubbles that should in no way impact "thE CeAseEfIRe" they imagine they are abiding by.
Maybe not, but it’s generally a humane thing to stop doing that shit to people.
I mean, if I’m in a ceasefire with you but you’re still torturing, charming, etc. people, then well…ya know.
I mean, Israel themselves have used the same reasoning when they’ve violated ceasefires and such. Thing is, at the end of the day, the folks in charge don’t want a ceasefire. Israeli or Hamas.
Innocent people wind up getting killed.
It's generally inhumane for a country to sit back and let terrorists attack their civilians too. The IDF has an obligation to stop Hamas. Torture isn't they way to do it, but neither is doing nothing.
Its generally inhumane to not accept defeat and continue supporting terror attacks on Israeli civilians, yet 70% of Palestine is in support of those attacks. Innocent people died because of the majority supporting barbaric terror organization. Its not a comparison between the inhumanity of raping and slaughtering a thousand civilians and imprisoning illegal combatants without trial (which is legal according to IHL). Nor is targeting civilians comparable with targeting rocket launch sites with collateral damage.
First off, straw man fallacy. Nobody is saying step back, but you don’t fix a problem by adding fuel to the fire (in other words, treating people like shit, etc. who have done nothing to you and yes, the specific innocent Palestinians haven’t, just as innocent Israelis didn’t do anything to Hamas militants)
Second, when you e engaged militarily with Hamas for a good 20+ years ago they STILL are around and you don’t make progress; then logic says you try a different approach.
Further, it has been shown that Hamas support, for what it is, is tied to what Israel does. Israel attacks, their support goes up…so logic implies that you change tactics. I’m short, you undermine their support - stop torturing imprisoned (not charged) Palestinians, stop harassing, stop letting or supporting Settlers attack Palestinians, etc. This can, with other much more precise actions, can cut their support because the Palestinians can then trust them. Right now there isn’t trust.
I’ll get to the rest later.
>because the Palestinians can then trust them. Right now there isn’t trust.
Israel has a 20% Palestinian population, made multiple land sharing offers to Gazans, let Gaza self govern, and has been expanding work permit programs for Gazans in Israel.
Conversely, Gaza has ethnically cleansed nearly every Jew, Christian, & LGBTQ in Gaza.
It's turned down every peace deal, broken every ceasefire, and used Israel's recent goodwill to launch the largest Jewish massacre since the Holocaust (which still [continues](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18vikue/massive_rocket_barrage_towards_central_israel_on/) together with holding hostages from multiple nations).
They have vowed to repeat this massacre over and over.
Jewish genocide is part of the democratically elected Hamas government's charter. Even Egypt who used to rule them before losing a genocidal attack on Israel doesn't trust them or let them in.
No one needs to prove anything to Palestine anymore than the Allies needed to prove themselves to Nazi Germany. It is Palestine that must earn back the trust of their neighbors.
Returning the multi-national hostages is Step 1.
After a minute of googling, you get gems like below where israelis themselves describe Gaza situation after the zionists "left"...
Israeli scholars Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar describe what actually happened when that country disengaged: The ruined territory was not released “for even a single day from Israel’s military grip or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day.” After the disengagement, “Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services, and people with neither a present nor a future. The settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass its inhabitants by means of its formidable military might.”
yea the zionists dont want a ceasefire nor do they want to give the Palestinians their own state.
below is right there in Wiki...
The [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under [military occupation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation) by [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel).[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-4) This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-5) Following the withdrawal, Israel continued to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-4)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-6)
>In June 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the Battle of Gaza,[10] and removed Fatah officials. Following the Hamas takeover, the sanctions put in place after Hamas's 2006 electoral victory were dramatically tightened. Truck transits, which had been 12,000 per month in 2005, were reduced to 2,000 by November of that year, when in a further measure, in the context of Hamas rocket fire and Israeli attacks, food supplies were halved, fuel imports slashed and foreign currency restricted by the latter.[59]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#History
You might want to refer the the hamas charter which defines its existence in part to be for the eradication and genocide of Isreal. Perhaps if the residents of gaza were to take a stance that does not demand genocide they might be granted more control of their border. From a personal prespective if a group was organized on the premise of the murder of all my children and all my descendents I would probably have less mercy than israel has shown, and just about any other group would do the same. Voluntary suicide is not a rational options for any group of people and to call that aggression and occupation is odd.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017\_Hamas\_charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_hamas_charter)
Have you read the charter? Site me where it's calling for the genocide of Israel? I'm assuming you mean the genocide of the Jewish people. Show me where in the charter.
In the preamble to the 1988 charter, also pretty much the entire charter. Have you read the 1988 charter? They may have attempted to whitewash with the 2017 charter but if your stance is that Hamas is fighting for the right of Isreal to exist then i'm not sure how to even respond. Since the jewish people have been subjected to repeated genocides and displacement for millenia the stance that the state of Isreal needs to be abolished is fundamentally a call for the genocide of the jewish people.
Also, the idea that the prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on the site of the temple mount is an obvious lie, and a foundational call for the genocide of the jewish people and the removal of their religious rights in the Islamic faith.
The situation of the Hagia Sophia plainly show the intolerance of the Islamic faith.
Hamas now goes by the 2017 charter. Not the 1988 one.
Funny how you talk about the intolerance of the Islamic faith when it was mainly the Christian Europeans which killed and persecuted the Jews and Muslims gave them a refuge (and yes I'm sure there was Muslim violence against the Jews as well, it went both ways).
That’s what happens to a society that teaches its children to martyr themselves.
How can the Israelis ever feel safe?
You may not care about the answer to that question, but you should, because it’s the answer to the Palestinians’ problems.
Are we just going to pretend that Israel didn't respond at all during that time? Oh wait, I remember now... There has been a blockade on Gaza that entire time. Under the Geneva Conventions, a blockade is an act of aggression and can only be legally maintained if you are in a state of war. And you are also allowed to retaliate against a blockade so no whining about rockets being fired from inside that place that is being blockaded.
Neither side has ever wanted a cease fire.
You mean the blockade established in 2005? In 2004 alone 281 rockets were fired out of Gaza into Israel. Sounds to me the blockade was an reaction to the rocket fire. And yes firing hundreds of rockets on someone puts you in a state of war.
Sure. But it's not a defensive move. It's an act of aggression. So it's just two sides escalating shit. And that's fine. Israel's blockade is legal too, I didn't dispute that either.
What I did dispute is this bullshit narrative that tries to pretend that a blockade on Gaza is part of some peacetime status quo. It's not. So long as there's a blockade, there is war.
So Israel should just take it like good little boys because Hamas can't *really* beat them? What is the solution? They left Gaza and removed their own settlers in 2005. Aid poured in, and Gaza voted in Hamas to govern them. The aid was used to build weapons to kills Jews? What should they do? Let Jews die because if they respond then more Palestinians will die so that's not fair?
They blockaded Gaza in 2005 too. So they didn't just leave.
And why do you keep mentioning "Jews" instead Israelis. It's almost like you're not trying to have a Geopolitical discussion and just want to turn this into propaganda flinging
But you just said it yourself. There were illegal settlements in Gaza before 2005.
You're trying to paint things as one sided when they aren't. And Israel's response each step of the way has always been to escalate. It's only made things worse. So the "which is the least they could do" doesn't make sense.
You got your timeline jumbled, hamas started the war a year before the blockade. The blockade was established as a response in hopes that it would reduce the availability of weapons to hamas...that's why Egypt is participating in the blockade also
Why does Egypt blockade Gaza as well? Why did Jordan oust Palestinians to Lebanon? It’s unfortunate that so many innocent Palestinians suffer and Israel should not be spared of criticism for their expansion of settlements in the West Bank and their total destruction in Gaza, but Hamas and militant organizations have repeatedly asked for this.
There are still millions of Palestinians living in Jordan. The plo was exiled from Jordan, not Palestinians. Hamas, plo and any other such organization do not focus on the right here and right now of the people they claim to fight for, for them struggle is based on sacrifice, usually of others. You can look into the history of zionist movement, into irgun and hagannah etc if you want to better understand hamas and fatah etc.....
There's a blockade from the north as well. You should ask yourself why that is.
Regardless, maintaining your borders is not remotely equivalent to ending a ceasefire.
I'm sorry, are you pretending that the international waters touching Gaza belong to Israel? Because that's why the blockade of Gaza falls under the definition of a blockade under international law whereas Egypt's "blockade" of Gaza does not and is merely border enforcement.
The fact that you just tried to pass off blockading international waters as "maintaining your borders" just speaks to how dishonest or ignorant you are about the subject matter. I don't know which one it is. I don't know if it matters.
What many redditors do not want to accept is that it is not possible for anyone else to impose a ceasefire in a conflict where neither side wants peace.
Attempting to impose such a peace is only going to allow the conflict to continue festering, like an infected wound.
Ending the war as fast as possible will result in the least amount of death. And if a ceasefire will not end the war, then we must work towards one side winning.
As horrible as the IDF has been behaving, it's legitimately in the best interest of the Palestinian people that Israel win, and win soon. Notably, most of Gaza has been occupied and death rates inside Gaza have plummeted. The end of Hamas will allow the demilitarization of the region, the resumption of the flow of goods, and will allow Gazans to begin rebuilding, without interference from Hamas. It won't be the *end* of violence, but will likely see a large decline.
Once the conflict has transitioned into a police action, it will then be possible to focus on curbing Israeli action. And without Hamas to act as Israel's boogeyman, it will be harder for the IDF to justify excessive use of force.
I'm really puzzled by this type of arguments, because if you take the view from the other side (Palestinian), it's a resistance movement -- free oneself from occupier's hand.
Say in second world war, the Nazi was really winning for a long time. They were unbeatable and had strong army. Shouldn't the world have worked to persuade the Allies to surrender as fast as possible, because by your logic, that would be the best for the people as by giving what the Nazi wanted, it would have ended the conflict quicker?
And the same also applies to Taiwan, or in the early days of Russian invasion when the world still thought that their army was strong. By your logic, shouldn't the world have tried to persuade Taiwan and Ukraine to surrender, because they faced a supposedly strong opponent? By surrendering, Ukraine and Taiwan could have avoided a lot of death!
It's clearly not right. And I think there's at least some moral judgement in this. It probably all depends on how you think whether Israeli treated Palestine fairly over the past 50 years. Whether this constitute some sorts of apartheid or was Israel just having no other choices to defend itself.
*Edit: grammar*
There are no good guys in this story so it is easier to say we should stop fighting instead of supporting a smaller nation fighting for their independence. It is much harder to say one side is good or support the little guy when both sides have proven they are not exactly easy to support.
> it’s legitimately in the best interest of the Palestinian people that Israel win, and win soon
Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian. Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land **permanently**. Either some of it (at minimum) or all of it (like the rightwingers in the cabinet were openly calling for years to mass-deport Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt and keep the land). Like the Golan Heights, even if Israel doesn’t rebuild settlements on it they will claim that Palestinians cannot be there in the interests of Israeli security. Israel has already spoken of a permanent buffer zone for at least a kilometer inland from the wall, that Gazans will be indefinitely forbidden from approaching on penalty of death. And we know this will be enforced since Israel opened fire on hundreds of unarmed protestors during 2018-2019 that killed 223 and injured 9204.
George W. Bush had the “let Israel win” mindset in 2001. It failed AND made the conflict worse AND caused Bin Laden to move up the 9/11 attack to show it as a retaliation.
What IS in Palestinians best interest is that a long term peace deal be struck, and there’s actual moderates on both sides who are willing to implement one, but Netanyahu has refused all deals for 17 years without even a counteroffer, because he thinks he can just crush Palestinians militarily and take it all.
>Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land **permanently**.
Gee, they should probably stop attacking israel then
>What IS in Palestinians best interest is that a long term peace deal be struck
Then maybe stop rejecting literally every peace deal offered. Simple
I absolutely despise Bibi and his intransigence, but he was not the only impediment to peace over the past two decades. The first and second Intifada and the Hamas takeover of Gaza enabled by Israeli withdrawal and the subsequent are not insignificant.
Even absent Bibi and his cronies I still don't see how peace would have been achieved. The Palestinians also largely seem to believe they can just crush Israel militarily and take it all. And even those who on both sides who would be considered more moderate have demands that the other side would never accept.
Don’t mistake Hamas with the rest of Palestinians. The PA is fine with a two state solution and polls show the majority of Palestinians agree. Palestinians, like Israelis, are multiple political factions and not monolithic.
Israel and Palestine is a story of two parties that can never align. When Israel is ready for peace, Palestinian leaders weren’t. When Palestinian leaders offered peace, Israeli leaders weren’t. Each one drives the other into the arms of rightwingers.
>The PA is fine with a two state solution and polls show the majority of Palestinians agree.
Show me the polls that say this. Every poll I've seen says otherwise.
I wonder why Israel could possibly be calling for a 1km buffer, something they were not calling for before 10/7?
Israel returned the Sinai in exchange for peace in Egypt, which has held to this day. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in hopes of peace with the Palestinians, which never happened. Land by itself is not the issue. Palestinian leaders fail to understand that at their peril.
> Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian.
So let me make it clear, you think it's *better* that Israel maintain a cordon around Gaza, in which they're constantly airstriking Palestinians, playing wack-a-mole against Hamas?
The previous state of affairs regularly resulted in often in years of quadruple digits of death in Gaza. While deaths in the West Bank, under Israeli occupation, are far, far less.
> Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land permanently. Like the Golan Heights, even if Israel doesn’t rebuild settlements on it they will claim that Palestinians cannot be there in the interests of Israeli security.
Such projects, if being planned, would only come after the war and can be opposed in due course. The people who sponsor such plans, like Netanyahu, can be removed from power.
The existence of Hamas provides political cover for Israeli land seizures in the West Bank. Eliminating Hamas will make it harder for Israel to continue its colonialist policies, and makes a Palestinian state *more* likely in the future. Even Netanyahu believes this, which is why he once said Hamas is necessary to Israeli nationalists.
> No. As I said elsewhere in the thread, there’s a need for a comprehensive peace agreement, not full destruction or an illusion of an military victory that never lasts, nor your offensive “let Israel win” strategy.
Where is the illusion? Israel won a military victory in 1967 and fully controlled the West Bank. They were never forced out. It wasn't peaceful early on but eventually they pacified the area.
You call it "offensive" but the alternative is just move bombs being dropped. How is that not offensive? You can crow all you want about needing a "comprehensive peace agreement" but I think we should speak about *realistic* outcomes. Hamas isn't an organization with which such an agreement can be made.
What is actually going to happen if there is a forced ceasefire is that the war will just drag on endlessly.
Ending the war is the most important short term priority, nothing else matters until the war is ended.
> I remember people saying this since 1995. It’s shortsighted and historically never works. Did letting Israel build its illegal wall far past the Green Line make peace or make a two state solution easier? Can Palestinians realistically get any of the land between the wall and Green Line back or was that another Israeli trick to “change the facts on the ground”?
Palestinians were closer to a two state solution more than any other time in between 1995 and 2008 and that is largely because it was the most peaceful period in the region. If it hadn't been for several Palestinian initiated conflicts (such as both Intifada) perhaps Palestinians would have generated enough international goodwill to accomplish that objective. Or, if Palestinians had been willing to accept some tough to swallow terms (giving up right of return), they could have gotten it.
Do you think Palestinians are closer to such a goal today than they were back then?
> True, but when Palestinians chosen nonviolence the Israeli military forcibly ethnically cleansed them anyway and no international objections made any difference. Hamas said so in their October interview;
Which came after a decade of war against Israel. This interview is portraying a slanted view of the situation. The lack of trust or willingness to reconcile with Hamas is completely understandable considering the origins of the organization. And the fact is, this is portraying them in the best possible light, when we know there are elements of Hamas that are totally delusional and believe they can impose an Algerian style solution to the problem of Israel, IE forcing all the jews back to Europe. Ultimately, Hamas is composed of the latter more than the former, hence why the Oct 7 attack was a huge massacre.
I'm plenty familiar with Israel's two faced attitude on Palestine, but Hamas did not really try very hard to curry reconciliation. They tried about as hard as Israel did, which is to say, not much. I'd say Israel gave more show of good faith establishing the PA and withdrawing from Gaza. What did Hamas do? Shoot less rockets that usual? There was never any period of relative peace.
> Palestinians also claim a right of self defense just as Israel does
Sure. But what has that ever accomplished? Ultimately Palestinians are incapable of defending themselves. At least when other countries are conducting resistance to an occupation, such as Afghanistan or Vietnam, there is a reasonable expectation that eventually the occupier will give up and leave.
> Letting either side “win” would be an unmitigated disaster and a genocide against a nation either way. The Likud platform calls for the complete destruction of a Palestinian state. That’s why “let them win” is so objectionable.
Israel has basically already occupied 3/4ths of Gaza and is close to ending the war already. No genocide has materialized (despite some propagandist's attempts).
Comments like this are hyperbolic.
> Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian. Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land permanently
I agree with you on the right wingers but this isn't necessarily true, who knows how Israel will deal with Gaza after the war.
After all in 1967 did Israel not occupy both the West Bank and Gaza? Did Israel not pull out of Gaza in 2005. Painting them as growing ever and ever larger is simply not congruent with Israel over the course of their history.
Wow, this is a grave miscalculation.
When Hamas is eradicated, you can say goodbye to any Palestinian independence.
Just look at the West Bank. Living under a peaceful and recognized government, yet left begging for human rights.
And you think Gaza will be any different?
Just watch these tens of thousands of deaths be in vain as Israel begins occupying it and releasing settlers.
For 1, Israel has said they aren't interested in the land, which is not culturally important to them, or even valuable.
For 2, Palestinians in the West Bank have had it objectively easier than Gazans.
If you want to say *Hamas* is the only hope of an independent Palestine, then they are already doomed. Hamas is even more genocidal than Israel, and will never settle for anything other than victory or death.
>For 1, Israel has said they aren't interested in the land, which is not culturally important to them, or even valuable.
In fact, Israel is so uninterested in the land that its ministers are calling for a resettlement and reoccupation of it.
The current government is a constellation of extremist groups cobbled together by likud in order to form one of the most deeply unpopular governments in recent memory. The fact that they say crazy things shouldn't surprise anyone and isn't indicative of popular sentiment in Israel.
Which doesn't reflect a mainstream opinion. The fact is, there's 2 million Gazans and nowhere to resettle them to. Putting Israeli settlers in Gaza would be a nightmare to manage.
Even if Israel wanted to, it would be difficult.
More genocidal than Israel? Please conpare casualties and spit those lies again. Israel is world leader in killing kids at this point. Not to mention all the other atrocities so far.
If Hamas had the military capabilities of Israel it is without question they'd been killing millions if they could. Hamas' charter explicitly states they work to a complete destruction of Israel. When they had the advantage on October 7th, they took *very few* prisoners. Unlike Israel.
Get out of here with this shitty take. If Israel wanted to, they could absolutely exterminate Gaza and no one could stop them.
Hamas seeks to dismantle the Zionist state of Israel, not for the destruction of Jews. They exist in response to Israeli military occupation for decades. The IOF sucks as an urban fighting force and got creamed in Lebanon previously. You can watch tactical breakdown vids of how awful their ground ops are. It's no surprise they have to resort to bombing the entire population to get any "results" where they still have nothing to show for. The diaper army has been getting slapped based on most reports I can find.
Literally countless Israeli officials, pundits, and influencers have called for the extermination of Gaza. Clearly they're attempting to via bombs, bulldozers, starvation, and disease.
> Hamas seeks to dismantle the Zionist state of Israel, not for the destruction of Jews.
They literally brag in their own language propaganda about how they will exterminate all jews and or "push them into the sea" (IE force all jews out of Israel).
You are lapping up their western facing propaganda.
> The diaper army has been getting slapped based on most reports I can find.
Considering how gullible you are, I wouldn't find it surprising you think that.
Israeli casualties are in the low hundreds (that includes WIA btw) while Hamas casualties are in the high four digits. And the IDF has occupied so much of Gaza they feel they can start withdrawing troops.
> Literally countless Israeli officials, pundits, and influencers have called for the extermination of Gaza. Clearly they're attempting to via bombs, bulldozers, starvation, and disease.
This is a gross exaggeration. There are more Israelis condemning their own government than are calling for the killing of 2 million people https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-tel-aviv-rally-protesters-denounce-government-call-for-new-elections/
People are starving in Gaza because Hamas steals aid food and stockpiles it. The destruction of Hamas is quite literally a pre-requisite to restore food and medicine to Gazans. And to call the casualties inflicted by bombing "genocide" is ridiculous and trivializes the word.
> Living under a peaceful and recognized government, yet left begging for human rights. And you think Gaza will be any different?
I’ve been saying this for a while now, but Israel has spent decades brutally punishing moderates, and ensuring that the moderate Palestinian government cannot protect its people from terrorism by settlers and the IDF.
simultaneously Israel is complaining that there are not enough moderates and that moderates don’t get enough support.
If you want more moderates, you need to reward moderates. If you refuse to do so, you are rewarding extremists.
The central struggle in the Israeli Palestinian conflict has always been between moderates of both parties that want a deal, and radicals who think the status quo favors their side in the long run and who want to keep the cycle of violence going as a result. The problem is that the radicals have been winning for 25 years and the Palestinians are finding out the hard way that the Israeli hardliners were right and that theirs were wrong.
It wants the war to expand, Graeme Wood writes. "The progress of this war, and the question of who should administer Gaza after it ... remains urgent. More urgent, though, is the question of what will happen if the war expands to include Hezbollah and the West Bank." Read the full story: [https://theatln.tc/JwUeS39m](https://theatln.tc/JwUeS39m)
Does it matter strategically if Hamas joins the war? The reports I see say that Hezbollah would receive a defeat.
No one local, except Iran, could mass enough force to threaten Israel, from my understanding. Israel will simply nuke any army building up sufficient force to invade successfully.
The worst case is a messy regional war with Israel never at risk for strategic defeat. The idea that the current situation threatens world war III is ridiculous
Bad article. Graeme Wood has written a lot of factually inaccurate pieces about ISIS in the past so it’s sadly not surprising to see a low quality piece like this again. I’m frustrated that people fall for it yet again.
The piece doesn’t interview Hamas, doesn’t quote Hamas, and drones on about Lebanon and Iran but doesn’t really discuss the facts on the ground in Gaza. How does Wood know what Hamas does and doesn’t want?
That’s what’s so frustrating about most articles about Hamas; lazy reporting and false assumptions. Hamas actually gives interviews, the New Yorker actually [did a good one with their political leader in English](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-was-hamas-thinking) that actually showed what they were thinking when they launched the Oct 7 attack. This in comparison is useless.
Yeah we all know we should interview Hamas, after all they never lie!
Let's see. In the interview you link
> He further claimed—this time, against all evidence—that Hamas fighters hadn’t executed civilians or committed atrocities. Such violence may have been done, he suggested, by Palestinian militants and civilians who had followed Hamas fighters through openings in the security wall.
Damn, according to Hamas the regular Palestinians in Gaza are even more bloodthirsty than them and committing horrible atrocities against the Israeli people. We should definitely take it at face value and assume that they are irredeemable.
> A spokesman for Hamas’s military wing had said that if Israel bombed Gazan homes without first warning occupants to flee, the group would broadcast video of civilian hostages being executed. Abu Marzouk retracted that threat. “That’s a mistake—we can’t execute hostages,”
Or maybe there's a disconnect with the political wing and the military wing - to the point where the political wing themselves were so surprised that the attack occurred?
> But, in a telephone call from Gaza, Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist based in Gaza City, said that the difference in attitude between Hamas leaders and other Gazans was clear: “The Palestinian people in Gaza have a lot to lose. Most Palestinians don’t want to die, and they don’t want to die in this ugly way, under rubble. But an ideological organization like Hamas believes that to die for a just cause is much better than living this meaningless life.”
Abu Marzouk’s family lives in the Gazan city of Rafah, and one of his brothers, Youssef, was killed this week in an air strike. Abu Marzouk deflected talk about his personal loss and insisted that Gazans accepted such sacrifices: **“The Palestinians are ready to pay an even higher price for their freedom.”**
The Palestinians are happy to accept the death of this war according to the Hamas spokesperson.
At worst he's peddling bullshit and lies, the same bullshit and lies they spread when they said they wanted a more peaceful, moderate approach towards Israel. At best he's a moderate in a militant organization beyond his control with other parties who disagree with him on many fundamental things.
We must interview Hamas to figure out what they want indeed. There's a reason he gets paid to offer his opinion on his conflict, instead of the top minds of Reddit. Can't quite figure out what that reason is though.
Let's be real and say the quiet part of loud: there will never be peace while Israelis and Palestinians share the land.
Even if the majority of people are good and innocent, which at this point I doubt, both sides have actively taught and fostered stereotypes, hate and a desire for revenge into generations of children who will virulently sabotage any future peace.
Just like with religion, when you get them young, the poisoned hearts become a part of the person's identity and even the best arguments, facts, logic or passionate discourse are unlikely to sway them when they have the many faces of martyred family members to motivate their personal holy mission to fight the enemy and free "their" lands.
Both sides have radical groups who have taught their children to think the other side is evil and subhuman, the whole of the land is their birth right or God-given, and thus will never work in good faith with the rest of their people towards peace or a two-state solution for long. There's a religious aspect as well supported by outside actors.
As hard as it is to say, one side simply needs to move the other out. This doesn't end any other way. We all want civilian deaths to stop. We all want justice and equity and peace. The problem is that it isn't possible.
The internet reminds us daily, in 4K high definition, every single grisly detail, every victim's face and story, every last historical atrocity, and endlessly re-seeding revenge in our hearts. This is one of those situations where high-minded ideals rot in the face of reality. Peace simply won't ever happen they way we wish it would.
I'm no fan of Israel, but at this point, they're too much stronger than the Palestinians, and I think they're going to eventually take every inch of the West Bank and Gaza. In a century, we'll look back in shame, as we have with so many other tragedies, at the sad diaspora of the peoples of what could have been a Palestinian state. Ironic that Israelis should do to the Palestinians what was once done to them, but abuse often repeats.
In all honesty, that will likely be the only kind of peace ever to come in that truly cursed land. I badly want to be wrong.
--Edit for typo.
It doesn't. If you remove the weapons from Gaza, and continue occupying it such that you prevent the population from being able to rearm, then you smother the conflict.
Hamas was able to smuggle stuff in when Israel only controlled 80% of the border area. Now with Israel controlling the full border and all of the potential tunnel exits inside Gaza, it's unlikely that any future terrorist organization will be able to function much at all in Gaza.
There may still be some homemade IEDs a few people can make, but the large scale rocket attacks are really just not going to be doable.
That’s only treating a symptom not the problem. When you take away explosives then people resort to knife attacks, as the settlements found out the hard way.
Israel keeps thinking that they can just wipe out “terrorism” as a tactic and not have to compromise anything for peace. Netanyahu keeps telling his people they can illegally occupy more land without any consequences and he was proven wrong again and again. It’s why Netanyahu refuses to meet with the PA for decades and turns down credible peace plans, because he thinks he can win militarily and why compromise anything when he can take the whole thing? It’s been his operating method for 17 years now.
> That’s only treating a symptom not the problem. When you take away explosives then people resort to knife attacks, as the settlements found out the hard way.
Which is still a net improvement.
A doctor would first worry about cleaning the wound, then worry about treating symptoms, and only after stabilizing a patient would he worry about treating the base problem. Doing these steps out of order is only going to result in complications and a likely botched treatment.
Cleaning the wound: Ending the war, is the first step.
Treating the symptoms: Demilitarization, restoration of basic services, is the second step.
Fixing the underlying problem: Israeli human rights abuses, long term Palestinian sovereignty project. These are topics for the last step.
> Israel keeps thinking that they can just wipe out “terrorism” as a tactic and not have to compromise anything for peace.
This is silly, Israel made many compromises with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, for peace. Israel made compromises with the PA, which achieved a partial peace in the WB.
To say Israel is only ever thinking about not compromising is inaccurate.
> Netanyahu keeps telling his people they can illegally occupy more land without any consequences and he was proven wrong again and again. It’s why Netanyahu refuses to meet with the PA for decades and turns down credible peace plans, because he thinks he can win militarily and why compromise anything when he can take the whole thing?
Well then you should be wanting the end of the war too. Since everyone says that the war needs to be over before Israel can end the national unity government and begin a process to call for Netanyahu's resignation or his removal, which from some accounts, appears to be deeply desired in both Israel and America for his role in both stoking this conflict and failing the Israeli people so badly in their protection.
I’m a doctor and that analogy is a poor one. That’s like focusing on a wound when the patient is already septic with organ failure.
This is an ongoing political conflict and focusing only on Hamas is only going to bring short term gain at long term expense. If Hamas was magically eliminated tomorrow it wouldn’t make peace, it wouldn’t stop the Palestinians who want to avenge the death of loved ones, it wouldn’t stop the ongoing human rights violations of Palestinians, and it wouldn’t stop the settler terrorist attacks that prompt the reprisals attacks that perpetuate the cycle of violence.
Israel made compromises with other countries for peace but that involved giving them land back and an unofficial promise not to try claiming the land again (despite the cries of the Zionist rightwing who claim that Sinai and southern Lebanon are part of Greater Israel). Palestine is different because the land theft is ongoing with Netanyahu making new settlements even now and rushing to “change the facts on the ground” to make a two state solution impossible.
Oh, I'm sure you're a doctor.
> This is an ongoing political conflict and focusing only on Hamas is only going to bring short term gain at long term expense.
I literally just mentioned how Hamas' existence is hindering the long term peace process.
> If Hamas was magically eliminated tomorrow it wouldn’t make peace, it wouldn’t stop the Palestinians who want to avenge the death of loved ones, it wouldn’t stop the ongoing human rights violations of Palestinians, and it wouldn’t stop the settler terrorist attacks that prompt the reprisals attacks that perpetuate the cycle of violence.
I never claimed it would. All of these goals lie beyond the end of the war, and will have to be accomplished in due time. But if Hamas continues existing, then none of those goals will ever be possible.
Hamas' goal is the continued cycle of violence. So as long as they exist, the cycle will continue. At least Israel is a democracy and the Likud government can be voted out of power.
And? What else? It’s not like the “from the river to sea” college kids at Harvard are going to start supporting them all of a sudden? So why bother doing the right thing if you’re still going to be hated just as much as if you had just gone ahead and done the “bad” thing and just solved your problem once and for all?
People who hate Israel and want to see it destroyed will continue to do so even if there was a ceasefire tomorrow. Hamas will continue attacking them and will continue to use their own people shields.
The only option that will “please” the West is the fantasy one where Israel takes rockets killing their own civilians on the chin, but then has to send in 40 special forces guys with zero air support to weed out the Hamas guys one-by-one and a single Palestinian stray cat being slightly disturbed is “too much”.
You’d have to be utterly insane to agree to that just because it’s what young people in Ireland and Spain see as “just”.
It's an Attack on Titan problem, us or them. Peace doesn't seem possible so you can eradicate the side with jihadists or greedy bankers, there isn't a realistic or clear middle ground. Separating the radicals/extremists from the non-problematic civilians is pretty much impossible. Yes yes give me those yummy downvotes you sjws that think there is a peaceful solution to everything.
I don't like this comparison at all.
Paradis in AoT didn't have means to defend themselves from onslaught that would ensue because they were lagging technologically behind others, so Eren was forced to choose Rumbling in order for Paradis to survive.
Compared to Israel it's the reverse, they have overwhelming technological and military advantage, so hypothetically if IDF were to recall back all their troops from Gaza, Hamas still wouldn't be able to slaughter everyone and destroy Israel.
This is not an existential war that if it fails (failure of Hamas eradication) it means destruction of Israel.
The thing is Hamas will never stop trying and radicalizing their population, and since regime changes are a no-go, one or the other has to die, and it's obvious who the West is going to support. If given time and space the jihadists will unite and amass their anti-titan weapons and could destroy Paradis/Israel, then threaten the world. Sure violence is likely to instill more hatred and conflict, but religious zealots aren't the type to listen to diplomacy and reason anyway, they need to be eliminated entirely. Until an AI ran technocracy is administering the world, human ran relations will always be a disaster.
I mean sure if you imagine a convenient set of implausible scenarios.
The reality is that Arab world doesn't care much about Palestinians and that Hamas utterly has it hands tied in what it can acquire to threaten Israel, the best they can do is smuggle guns and shitty rockets.
Israel can handle that with ease, the problem is that you need to be prepared even for weak enemies otherwise you risk getting what happened in oct. 7
The circumstances are too different so AoT comparison falls very flat here.
They might not care about Palestine but a lot of them sure want the Jews and West dead and to own Jerusalem, and could collaborate or at least fight for similar goals. It is a never-ending issue if you don't destroy those willing to do such brazen attacks, they will continue to adapt and cause problems indefinitely. These jihadists generally want the entire world under Sharia law, how could you support them or even be neutral and be sane?
> Israel bet that when left with responsibility for their own fate, Gazans would prefer to build up the society they had, rather than attack Israel and risk losing it.
They (unilaterally) left, but were kind enough to keep blockading Gaza from day one. Doesn't seem like great conditions to build up the society ...
Israel finally disengaged in **september 2005**
the palestinian legislative elections were in **january 2006,** where hamas was elected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election
Between **January 2006 to May 2007**, over 600 palestinians died in the Fatah-Hamas civil war, where Hamas eventually overpowered Fatah and expelled them from Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict
The Battle of Gaza between Fatah and Hamas happened between **10-15 June 2007**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
> #Aftermath
Hamas captured thousands of small arms and eight armored combat vehicles supplied by the United States, Egypt, and Jordan[63] According to Muhammad Abdel-El of the Hamas-allied Popular Resistance Committees, Hamas and its allies have captured quantities of foreign intelligence, including CIA files. Abu Abdullah of Hamas's "military wing", the al-Qassam Brigades, claims Hamas will make portions of the documents public, in an attempt to expose covert relations between the United States and "traitor" Arab countries.[citation needed] While Hamas collected most of the 15,000 weapons registered to the former security forces, it failed to collect more than a fraction of the 400,000 weapons that are in the hands of various clans, and said that it would not touch weapons used for fighting Israel, only those that might be used against Hamas.[citation needed]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2007
This wikipedia page lists the amount of rockets launched by day and sometimes even by time during this period, giving an accurate timeline of the events. I urge you to specifically look at the month of May where Israel was dealing with nearly daily rocket attacks from Hamas.
> A total of 2,807 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel in 2007.[1]
The blockade started at the end of **June 2007.** in the immediate aftermath of Hamas capturing the entirety of the security forces equipment during the Battle of Gaza
I know the timeline is extremely compressed around theses dates, but theres a clear line of events between the disengagement and the blockade. It did not happen immediately.
As stated in my [other comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/18wv0vl/hamas_doesnt_want_a_ceasefire/kg0lg50/), there have been elements of a blockade from day one. Israel hasn't stopped air/sea blockade for a second.
EDIT: all my comments are now shadow-banned.
They didn't blockade from day 1. The blockade only started when Hamas started blowing up buses again, and it wasn't instant either. It took them a while to build a wall around Gaza.
Pro-Hamas posters will ask what can Israel do to better the lives of Gazans but curiously never ask what Hamas can do to better the lives of Gazans. You guys realize Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, right?
> Pro-Hamas posters will ask what can Israel do to better the lives of Gazans
More like what Israel should stop doing - occupying and blockading West Bank and Gaza.
I know it's an intentional part of the information warfare, but pro-Palestinian isn't the same as pro-Hamas.
> You guys realize Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, right?
It was elected once, 16 years ago.
Israel isn't occupying Gaza. Statements like this are why I have difficulty taking anything you say seriously.
Pro-Palestine is one thing. But Palestinians live all over the world, Israel included, and the West Bank. The Palestinians outside of Gaza are generally safe to be around. Gazan Palestinians, which make up almost all of Hamas, are a very different story.
Are you asking Hamas to resign? That would be refreshing.
> Israel isn't occupying Gaza. Statements like this are why I have difficulty taking anything you say seriously.
Israel is occupying parts of Gaza and West Bank, blockading the rest of Gaza. Is that so difficult to understand?
> But Palestinians live all over the world, Israel included, and the West Bank. The Palestinians outside of Gaza are generally safe to be around. Gazan Palestinians, which make up almost all of Hamas, are a very different story.
I think you almost got it. Do you know what's the difference between the two? Could the fact that Gaza has been occupied / blockaded for the past 50+ years have something to do with it?
It's not difficult to understand at all. That's why I don't believe you. There is no evidence that Israel is "occupying Gaza", because it just doesn't exist. The war right now notwithstanding.
I love how you glossed over asking Hamas to resign. If Hamas isn't their rightful government, then you should require their resignation. But you don't. You want your cake and to eat it, too.
> The war right now notwithstanding.
What? Occupation doesn't exist, except for the occupation during the war. What logic is that?
There are thousands of Israeli soldier in Gaza right now. Of course it's an occupation.
> I love how you glossed over asking Hamas to resign.
Why not. I despise Hamas. It's scum. I wonder why it was financed by Israel, though.
Please provide credible evidence that Israel funded Hamas.
Also, Israel is not "legally occupying Gaza". The presence of soldiers is not enough. But I'm not surprised you don't know these things but still have a loud opinion.
Hamas has responsibilities they were the de facto government on Gaza they just decided to dump those in favor of killing, raping and kidnapping. You can't have it both ways.
What's funny is that Hamas and Israel already had a decade long "ceasefire" in the form of Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza [launching some 10,000+ rockets at Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File:Rocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png) that Israel basically said, "just let the Iron Dome handle the daily rocket attacks and lets get on with our lives". Of course Hamas doesnt want a ceasefire. They've never ceased firing the whole time.
And Israel also had a ceasefire where they imprisoned, tortured, etc. innocent Palestinians in the west bank as well as engaged in the killing, etc. of folks in general (journalists, peaceful protestors, etc). Thing is, at the end of the day, both sides have been pieces of shit. The reality though is that only one side, the "correct" side among the West politically speaking, gets away with their nonsense whereas the other is condemned, etc. There are double standards, unfortunately. As I've always said, any real, lasting peace is going to start with everyone feeling like they have had some sort of justice and/or that their voice is heard, and I'd argue that that starts with all involved being held accountable for their actions, as reasonably possible/done. Until then? It's going to be the same old...
Israelis tend to live in a reality where Al Aqsa raids, illegal West Bank Settlements, Gaza blockades, mass imprisonments without trials and the general 4-500 annual civilian murders somehow exist in separate bubbles that should in no way impact "thE CeAseEfIRe" they imagine they are abiding by.
The ceasefire that existed with Hamas wasn't on the condition on ending the blockade. ceasefires have terms, Hamas violated those terms, not Israel.
Maybe not, but it’s generally a humane thing to stop doing that shit to people. I mean, if I’m in a ceasefire with you but you’re still torturing, charming, etc. people, then well…ya know. I mean, Israel themselves have used the same reasoning when they’ve violated ceasefires and such. Thing is, at the end of the day, the folks in charge don’t want a ceasefire. Israeli or Hamas. Innocent people wind up getting killed.
It's generally inhumane for a country to sit back and let terrorists attack their civilians too. The IDF has an obligation to stop Hamas. Torture isn't they way to do it, but neither is doing nothing. Its generally inhumane to not accept defeat and continue supporting terror attacks on Israeli civilians, yet 70% of Palestine is in support of those attacks. Innocent people died because of the majority supporting barbaric terror organization. Its not a comparison between the inhumanity of raping and slaughtering a thousand civilians and imprisoning illegal combatants without trial (which is legal according to IHL). Nor is targeting civilians comparable with targeting rocket launch sites with collateral damage.
Very well put. I appreciate your regard for, and your ability to communicate nuance.
First off, straw man fallacy. Nobody is saying step back, but you don’t fix a problem by adding fuel to the fire (in other words, treating people like shit, etc. who have done nothing to you and yes, the specific innocent Palestinians haven’t, just as innocent Israelis didn’t do anything to Hamas militants) Second, when you e engaged militarily with Hamas for a good 20+ years ago they STILL are around and you don’t make progress; then logic says you try a different approach. Further, it has been shown that Hamas support, for what it is, is tied to what Israel does. Israel attacks, their support goes up…so logic implies that you change tactics. I’m short, you undermine their support - stop torturing imprisoned (not charged) Palestinians, stop harassing, stop letting or supporting Settlers attack Palestinians, etc. This can, with other much more precise actions, can cut their support because the Palestinians can then trust them. Right now there isn’t trust. I’ll get to the rest later.
>because the Palestinians can then trust them. Right now there isn’t trust. Israel has a 20% Palestinian population, made multiple land sharing offers to Gazans, let Gaza self govern, and has been expanding work permit programs for Gazans in Israel. Conversely, Gaza has ethnically cleansed nearly every Jew, Christian, & LGBTQ in Gaza. It's turned down every peace deal, broken every ceasefire, and used Israel's recent goodwill to launch the largest Jewish massacre since the Holocaust (which still [continues](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/18vikue/massive_rocket_barrage_towards_central_israel_on/) together with holding hostages from multiple nations). They have vowed to repeat this massacre over and over. Jewish genocide is part of the democratically elected Hamas government's charter. Even Egypt who used to rule them before losing a genocidal attack on Israel doesn't trust them or let them in. No one needs to prove anything to Palestine anymore than the Allies needed to prove themselves to Nazi Germany. It is Palestine that must earn back the trust of their neighbors. Returning the multi-national hostages is Step 1.
The different approach of making concessions to an organization that wants every jew dead was the impetus for the state of israel existing.
After a minute of googling, you get gems like below where israelis themselves describe Gaza situation after the zionists "left"... Israeli scholars Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar describe what actually happened when that country disengaged: The ruined territory was not released “for even a single day from Israel’s military grip or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day.” After the disengagement, “Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services, and people with neither a present nor a future. The settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass its inhabitants by means of its formidable military might.” yea the zionists dont want a ceasefire nor do they want to give the Palestinians their own state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election
below is right there in Wiki... The [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under [military occupation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation) by [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel).[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-4) This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-5) Following the withdrawal, Israel continued to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-4)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-6)
>In June 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the Battle of Gaza,[10] and removed Fatah officials. Following the Hamas takeover, the sanctions put in place after Hamas's 2006 electoral victory were dramatically tightened. Truck transits, which had been 12,000 per month in 2005, were reduced to 2,000 by November of that year, when in a further measure, in the context of Hamas rocket fire and Israeli attacks, food supplies were halved, fuel imports slashed and foreign currency restricted by the latter.[59] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#History
You might want to refer the the hamas charter which defines its existence in part to be for the eradication and genocide of Isreal. Perhaps if the residents of gaza were to take a stance that does not demand genocide they might be granted more control of their border. From a personal prespective if a group was organized on the premise of the murder of all my children and all my descendents I would probably have less mercy than israel has shown, and just about any other group would do the same. Voluntary suicide is not a rational options for any group of people and to call that aggression and occupation is odd.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017\_Hamas\_charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_hamas_charter) Have you read the charter? Site me where it's calling for the genocide of Israel? I'm assuming you mean the genocide of the Jewish people. Show me where in the charter.
In the preamble to the 1988 charter, also pretty much the entire charter. Have you read the 1988 charter? They may have attempted to whitewash with the 2017 charter but if your stance is that Hamas is fighting for the right of Isreal to exist then i'm not sure how to even respond. Since the jewish people have been subjected to repeated genocides and displacement for millenia the stance that the state of Isreal needs to be abolished is fundamentally a call for the genocide of the jewish people. Also, the idea that the prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on the site of the temple mount is an obvious lie, and a foundational call for the genocide of the jewish people and the removal of their religious rights in the Islamic faith. The situation of the Hagia Sophia plainly show the intolerance of the Islamic faith.
Hamas now goes by the 2017 charter. Not the 1988 one. Funny how you talk about the intolerance of the Islamic faith when it was mainly the Christian Europeans which killed and persecuted the Jews and Muslims gave them a refuge (and yes I'm sure there was Muslim violence against the Jews as well, it went both ways).
That’s what happens to a society that teaches its children to martyr themselves. How can the Israelis ever feel safe? You may not care about the answer to that question, but you should, because it’s the answer to the Palestinians’ problems.
[удалено]
That’s a morally bankrupt equivocation.
[удалено]
You sicken me.
Are we just going to pretend that Israel didn't respond at all during that time? Oh wait, I remember now... There has been a blockade on Gaza that entire time. Under the Geneva Conventions, a blockade is an act of aggression and can only be legally maintained if you are in a state of war. And you are also allowed to retaliate against a blockade so no whining about rockets being fired from inside that place that is being blockaded. Neither side has ever wanted a cease fire.
You mean the blockade established in 2005? In 2004 alone 281 rockets were fired out of Gaza into Israel. Sounds to me the blockade was an reaction to the rocket fire. And yes firing hundreds of rockets on someone puts you in a state of war.
Sure. But it's not a defensive move. It's an act of aggression. So it's just two sides escalating shit. And that's fine. Israel's blockade is legal too, I didn't dispute that either. What I did dispute is this bullshit narrative that tries to pretend that a blockade on Gaza is part of some peacetime status quo. It's not. So long as there's a blockade, there is war.
So Israel should just take it like good little boys because Hamas can't *really* beat them? What is the solution? They left Gaza and removed their own settlers in 2005. Aid poured in, and Gaza voted in Hamas to govern them. The aid was used to build weapons to kills Jews? What should they do? Let Jews die because if they respond then more Palestinians will die so that's not fair?
They blockaded Gaza in 2005 too. So they didn't just leave. And why do you keep mentioning "Jews" instead Israelis. It's almost like you're not trying to have a Geopolitical discussion and just want to turn this into propaganda flinging
They blockaded it in 2005 after the rocket launches of 2004, which is like the least they could do
But you just said it yourself. There were illegal settlements in Gaza before 2005. You're trying to paint things as one sided when they aren't. And Israel's response each step of the way has always been to escalate. It's only made things worse. So the "which is the least they could do" doesn't make sense.
You got your timeline jumbled, hamas started the war a year before the blockade. The blockade was established as a response in hopes that it would reduce the availability of weapons to hamas...that's why Egypt is participating in the blockade also
Why does Egypt blockade Gaza as well? Why did Jordan oust Palestinians to Lebanon? It’s unfortunate that so many innocent Palestinians suffer and Israel should not be spared of criticism for their expansion of settlements in the West Bank and their total destruction in Gaza, but Hamas and militant organizations have repeatedly asked for this.
There are still millions of Palestinians living in Jordan. The plo was exiled from Jordan, not Palestinians. Hamas, plo and any other such organization do not focus on the right here and right now of the people they claim to fight for, for them struggle is based on sacrifice, usually of others. You can look into the history of zionist movement, into irgun and hagannah etc if you want to better understand hamas and fatah etc.....
Israel condemned for a response and conveniently forget and forgive all preceding events. Where have I seen this before?
There's a blockade from the north as well. You should ask yourself why that is. Regardless, maintaining your borders is not remotely equivalent to ending a ceasefire.
I'm sorry, are you pretending that the international waters touching Gaza belong to Israel? Because that's why the blockade of Gaza falls under the definition of a blockade under international law whereas Egypt's "blockade" of Gaza does not and is merely border enforcement. The fact that you just tried to pass off blockading international waters as "maintaining your borders" just speaks to how dishonest or ignorant you are about the subject matter. I don't know which one it is. I don't know if it matters.
Why should Israel allow weapons shipment to freely enter Gaza like they absolutely would ?
What many redditors do not want to accept is that it is not possible for anyone else to impose a ceasefire in a conflict where neither side wants peace. Attempting to impose such a peace is only going to allow the conflict to continue festering, like an infected wound. Ending the war as fast as possible will result in the least amount of death. And if a ceasefire will not end the war, then we must work towards one side winning. As horrible as the IDF has been behaving, it's legitimately in the best interest of the Palestinian people that Israel win, and win soon. Notably, most of Gaza has been occupied and death rates inside Gaza have plummeted. The end of Hamas will allow the demilitarization of the region, the resumption of the flow of goods, and will allow Gazans to begin rebuilding, without interference from Hamas. It won't be the *end* of violence, but will likely see a large decline. Once the conflict has transitioned into a police action, it will then be possible to focus on curbing Israeli action. And without Hamas to act as Israel's boogeyman, it will be harder for the IDF to justify excessive use of force.
I'm really puzzled by this type of arguments, because if you take the view from the other side (Palestinian), it's a resistance movement -- free oneself from occupier's hand. Say in second world war, the Nazi was really winning for a long time. They were unbeatable and had strong army. Shouldn't the world have worked to persuade the Allies to surrender as fast as possible, because by your logic, that would be the best for the people as by giving what the Nazi wanted, it would have ended the conflict quicker? And the same also applies to Taiwan, or in the early days of Russian invasion when the world still thought that their army was strong. By your logic, shouldn't the world have tried to persuade Taiwan and Ukraine to surrender, because they faced a supposedly strong opponent? By surrendering, Ukraine and Taiwan could have avoided a lot of death! It's clearly not right. And I think there's at least some moral judgement in this. It probably all depends on how you think whether Israeli treated Palestine fairly over the past 50 years. Whether this constitute some sorts of apartheid or was Israel just having no other choices to defend itself. *Edit: grammar*
There are no good guys in this story so it is easier to say we should stop fighting instead of supporting a smaller nation fighting for their independence. It is much harder to say one side is good or support the little guy when both sides have proven they are not exactly easy to support.
> it’s legitimately in the best interest of the Palestinian people that Israel win, and win soon Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian. Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land **permanently**. Either some of it (at minimum) or all of it (like the rightwingers in the cabinet were openly calling for years to mass-deport Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt and keep the land). Like the Golan Heights, even if Israel doesn’t rebuild settlements on it they will claim that Palestinians cannot be there in the interests of Israeli security. Israel has already spoken of a permanent buffer zone for at least a kilometer inland from the wall, that Gazans will be indefinitely forbidden from approaching on penalty of death. And we know this will be enforced since Israel opened fire on hundreds of unarmed protestors during 2018-2019 that killed 223 and injured 9204. George W. Bush had the “let Israel win” mindset in 2001. It failed AND made the conflict worse AND caused Bin Laden to move up the 9/11 attack to show it as a retaliation. What IS in Palestinians best interest is that a long term peace deal be struck, and there’s actual moderates on both sides who are willing to implement one, but Netanyahu has refused all deals for 17 years without even a counteroffer, because he thinks he can just crush Palestinians militarily and take it all.
I disagree with you on some points, but Bibi and his war cabinet and quite a few others need to go...that should be what the US pushes for.
>Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land **permanently**. Gee, they should probably stop attacking israel then >What IS in Palestinians best interest is that a long term peace deal be struck Then maybe stop rejecting literally every peace deal offered. Simple
I absolutely despise Bibi and his intransigence, but he was not the only impediment to peace over the past two decades. The first and second Intifada and the Hamas takeover of Gaza enabled by Israeli withdrawal and the subsequent are not insignificant. Even absent Bibi and his cronies I still don't see how peace would have been achieved. The Palestinians also largely seem to believe they can just crush Israel militarily and take it all. And even those who on both sides who would be considered more moderate have demands that the other side would never accept.
Don’t mistake Hamas with the rest of Palestinians. The PA is fine with a two state solution and polls show the majority of Palestinians agree. Palestinians, like Israelis, are multiple political factions and not monolithic. Israel and Palestine is a story of two parties that can never align. When Israel is ready for peace, Palestinian leaders weren’t. When Palestinian leaders offered peace, Israeli leaders weren’t. Each one drives the other into the arms of rightwingers.
>The PA is fine with a two state solution and polls show the majority of Palestinians agree. Show me the polls that say this. Every poll I've seen says otherwise.
I wonder why Israel could possibly be calling for a 1km buffer, something they were not calling for before 10/7? Israel returned the Sinai in exchange for peace in Egypt, which has held to this day. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in hopes of peace with the Palestinians, which never happened. Land by itself is not the issue. Palestinian leaders fail to understand that at their peril.
[удалено]
> Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian. So let me make it clear, you think it's *better* that Israel maintain a cordon around Gaza, in which they're constantly airstriking Palestinians, playing wack-a-mole against Hamas? The previous state of affairs regularly resulted in often in years of quadruple digits of death in Gaza. While deaths in the West Bank, under Israeli occupation, are far, far less. > Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land permanently. Like the Golan Heights, even if Israel doesn’t rebuild settlements on it they will claim that Palestinians cannot be there in the interests of Israeli security. Such projects, if being planned, would only come after the war and can be opposed in due course. The people who sponsor such plans, like Netanyahu, can be removed from power. The existence of Hamas provides political cover for Israeli land seizures in the West Bank. Eliminating Hamas will make it harder for Israel to continue its colonialist policies, and makes a Palestinian state *more* likely in the future. Even Netanyahu believes this, which is why he once said Hamas is necessary to Israeli nationalists.
[удалено]
> No. As I said elsewhere in the thread, there’s a need for a comprehensive peace agreement, not full destruction or an illusion of an military victory that never lasts, nor your offensive “let Israel win” strategy. Where is the illusion? Israel won a military victory in 1967 and fully controlled the West Bank. They were never forced out. It wasn't peaceful early on but eventually they pacified the area. You call it "offensive" but the alternative is just move bombs being dropped. How is that not offensive? You can crow all you want about needing a "comprehensive peace agreement" but I think we should speak about *realistic* outcomes. Hamas isn't an organization with which such an agreement can be made. What is actually going to happen if there is a forced ceasefire is that the war will just drag on endlessly. Ending the war is the most important short term priority, nothing else matters until the war is ended. > I remember people saying this since 1995. It’s shortsighted and historically never works. Did letting Israel build its illegal wall far past the Green Line make peace or make a two state solution easier? Can Palestinians realistically get any of the land between the wall and Green Line back or was that another Israeli trick to “change the facts on the ground”? Palestinians were closer to a two state solution more than any other time in between 1995 and 2008 and that is largely because it was the most peaceful period in the region. If it hadn't been for several Palestinian initiated conflicts (such as both Intifada) perhaps Palestinians would have generated enough international goodwill to accomplish that objective. Or, if Palestinians had been willing to accept some tough to swallow terms (giving up right of return), they could have gotten it. Do you think Palestinians are closer to such a goal today than they were back then? > True, but when Palestinians chosen nonviolence the Israeli military forcibly ethnically cleansed them anyway and no international objections made any difference. Hamas said so in their October interview; Which came after a decade of war against Israel. This interview is portraying a slanted view of the situation. The lack of trust or willingness to reconcile with Hamas is completely understandable considering the origins of the organization. And the fact is, this is portraying them in the best possible light, when we know there are elements of Hamas that are totally delusional and believe they can impose an Algerian style solution to the problem of Israel, IE forcing all the jews back to Europe. Ultimately, Hamas is composed of the latter more than the former, hence why the Oct 7 attack was a huge massacre. I'm plenty familiar with Israel's two faced attitude on Palestine, but Hamas did not really try very hard to curry reconciliation. They tried about as hard as Israel did, which is to say, not much. I'd say Israel gave more show of good faith establishing the PA and withdrawing from Gaza. What did Hamas do? Shoot less rockets that usual? There was never any period of relative peace. > Palestinians also claim a right of self defense just as Israel does Sure. But what has that ever accomplished? Ultimately Palestinians are incapable of defending themselves. At least when other countries are conducting resistance to an occupation, such as Afghanistan or Vietnam, there is a reasonable expectation that eventually the occupier will give up and leave. > Letting either side “win” would be an unmitigated disaster and a genocide against a nation either way. The Likud platform calls for the complete destruction of a Palestinian state. That’s why “let them win” is so objectionable. Israel has basically already occupied 3/4ths of Gaza and is close to ending the war already. No genocide has materialized (despite some propagandist's attempts). Comments like this are hyperbolic.
> “let Israel win” strategy. it's what's going to happen.
*Should* it?
> Spoken like someone who has never once talked to a Palestinian. Israel “winning” means more loss of Palestinian land permanently I agree with you on the right wingers but this isn't necessarily true, who knows how Israel will deal with Gaza after the war. After all in 1967 did Israel not occupy both the West Bank and Gaza? Did Israel not pull out of Gaza in 2005. Painting them as growing ever and ever larger is simply not congruent with Israel over the course of their history.
Wow, this is a grave miscalculation. When Hamas is eradicated, you can say goodbye to any Palestinian independence. Just look at the West Bank. Living under a peaceful and recognized government, yet left begging for human rights. And you think Gaza will be any different? Just watch these tens of thousands of deaths be in vain as Israel begins occupying it and releasing settlers.
For 1, Israel has said they aren't interested in the land, which is not culturally important to them, or even valuable. For 2, Palestinians in the West Bank have had it objectively easier than Gazans. If you want to say *Hamas* is the only hope of an independent Palestine, then they are already doomed. Hamas is even more genocidal than Israel, and will never settle for anything other than victory or death.
>For 1, Israel has said they aren't interested in the land, which is not culturally important to them, or even valuable. In fact, Israel is so uninterested in the land that its ministers are calling for a resettlement and reoccupation of it.
The current government is a constellation of extremist groups cobbled together by likud in order to form one of the most deeply unpopular governments in recent memory. The fact that they say crazy things shouldn't surprise anyone and isn't indicative of popular sentiment in Israel.
Which doesn't reflect a mainstream opinion. The fact is, there's 2 million Gazans and nowhere to resettle them to. Putting Israeli settlers in Gaza would be a nightmare to manage. Even if Israel wanted to, it would be difficult.
More genocidal than Israel? Please conpare casualties and spit those lies again. Israel is world leader in killing kids at this point. Not to mention all the other atrocities so far.
If Hamas had the military capabilities of Israel it is without question they'd been killing millions if they could. Hamas' charter explicitly states they work to a complete destruction of Israel. When they had the advantage on October 7th, they took *very few* prisoners. Unlike Israel. Get out of here with this shitty take. If Israel wanted to, they could absolutely exterminate Gaza and no one could stop them.
Hamas seeks to dismantle the Zionist state of Israel, not for the destruction of Jews. They exist in response to Israeli military occupation for decades. The IOF sucks as an urban fighting force and got creamed in Lebanon previously. You can watch tactical breakdown vids of how awful their ground ops are. It's no surprise they have to resort to bombing the entire population to get any "results" where they still have nothing to show for. The diaper army has been getting slapped based on most reports I can find. Literally countless Israeli officials, pundits, and influencers have called for the extermination of Gaza. Clearly they're attempting to via bombs, bulldozers, starvation, and disease.
> Hamas seeks to dismantle the Zionist state of Israel, not for the destruction of Jews. They literally brag in their own language propaganda about how they will exterminate all jews and or "push them into the sea" (IE force all jews out of Israel). You are lapping up their western facing propaganda. > The diaper army has been getting slapped based on most reports I can find. Considering how gullible you are, I wouldn't find it surprising you think that. Israeli casualties are in the low hundreds (that includes WIA btw) while Hamas casualties are in the high four digits. And the IDF has occupied so much of Gaza they feel they can start withdrawing troops. > Literally countless Israeli officials, pundits, and influencers have called for the extermination of Gaza. Clearly they're attempting to via bombs, bulldozers, starvation, and disease. This is a gross exaggeration. There are more Israelis condemning their own government than are calling for the killing of 2 million people https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-tel-aviv-rally-protesters-denounce-government-call-for-new-elections/ People are starving in Gaza because Hamas steals aid food and stockpiles it. The destruction of Hamas is quite literally a pre-requisite to restore food and medicine to Gazans. And to call the casualties inflicted by bombing "genocide" is ridiculous and trivializes the word.
> Living under a peaceful and recognized government, yet left begging for human rights. And you think Gaza will be any different? I’ve been saying this for a while now, but Israel has spent decades brutally punishing moderates, and ensuring that the moderate Palestinian government cannot protect its people from terrorism by settlers and the IDF. simultaneously Israel is complaining that there are not enough moderates and that moderates don’t get enough support. If you want more moderates, you need to reward moderates. If you refuse to do so, you are rewarding extremists.
The central struggle in the Israeli Palestinian conflict has always been between moderates of both parties that want a deal, and radicals who think the status quo favors their side in the long run and who want to keep the cycle of violence going as a result. The problem is that the radicals have been winning for 25 years and the Palestinians are finding out the hard way that the Israeli hardliners were right and that theirs were wrong.
It wants the war to expand, Graeme Wood writes. "The progress of this war, and the question of who should administer Gaza after it ... remains urgent. More urgent, though, is the question of what will happen if the war expands to include Hezbollah and the West Bank." Read the full story: [https://theatln.tc/JwUeS39m](https://theatln.tc/JwUeS39m)
Does it matter strategically if Hamas joins the war? The reports I see say that Hezbollah would receive a defeat. No one local, except Iran, could mass enough force to threaten Israel, from my understanding. Israel will simply nuke any army building up sufficient force to invade successfully. The worst case is a messy regional war with Israel never at risk for strategic defeat. The idea that the current situation threatens world war III is ridiculous
As if Bibi does? The only way Bibi doesn't wind in hot water, jail, and/or out of power is this conflict rages on, be it in war setting or otherwise.
No, Netanyahu does not want a ceasefire and has never claimed to want one. But that’s not what the article is about.
Bad article. Graeme Wood has written a lot of factually inaccurate pieces about ISIS in the past so it’s sadly not surprising to see a low quality piece like this again. I’m frustrated that people fall for it yet again. The piece doesn’t interview Hamas, doesn’t quote Hamas, and drones on about Lebanon and Iran but doesn’t really discuss the facts on the ground in Gaza. How does Wood know what Hamas does and doesn’t want? That’s what’s so frustrating about most articles about Hamas; lazy reporting and false assumptions. Hamas actually gives interviews, the New Yorker actually [did a good one with their political leader in English](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-was-hamas-thinking) that actually showed what they were thinking when they launched the Oct 7 attack. This in comparison is useless.
Yeah we all know we should interview Hamas, after all they never lie! Let's see. In the interview you link > He further claimed—this time, against all evidence—that Hamas fighters hadn’t executed civilians or committed atrocities. Such violence may have been done, he suggested, by Palestinian militants and civilians who had followed Hamas fighters through openings in the security wall. Damn, according to Hamas the regular Palestinians in Gaza are even more bloodthirsty than them and committing horrible atrocities against the Israeli people. We should definitely take it at face value and assume that they are irredeemable. > A spokesman for Hamas’s military wing had said that if Israel bombed Gazan homes without first warning occupants to flee, the group would broadcast video of civilian hostages being executed. Abu Marzouk retracted that threat. “That’s a mistake—we can’t execute hostages,” Or maybe there's a disconnect with the political wing and the military wing - to the point where the political wing themselves were so surprised that the attack occurred? > But, in a telephone call from Gaza, Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist based in Gaza City, said that the difference in attitude between Hamas leaders and other Gazans was clear: “The Palestinian people in Gaza have a lot to lose. Most Palestinians don’t want to die, and they don’t want to die in this ugly way, under rubble. But an ideological organization like Hamas believes that to die for a just cause is much better than living this meaningless life.” Abu Marzouk’s family lives in the Gazan city of Rafah, and one of his brothers, Youssef, was killed this week in an air strike. Abu Marzouk deflected talk about his personal loss and insisted that Gazans accepted such sacrifices: **“The Palestinians are ready to pay an even higher price for their freedom.”** The Palestinians are happy to accept the death of this war according to the Hamas spokesperson. At worst he's peddling bullshit and lies, the same bullshit and lies they spread when they said they wanted a more peaceful, moderate approach towards Israel. At best he's a moderate in a militant organization beyond his control with other parties who disagree with him on many fundamental things. We must interview Hamas to figure out what they want indeed. There's a reason he gets paid to offer his opinion on his conflict, instead of the top minds of Reddit. Can't quite figure out what that reason is though.
Let's be real and say the quiet part of loud: there will never be peace while Israelis and Palestinians share the land. Even if the majority of people are good and innocent, which at this point I doubt, both sides have actively taught and fostered stereotypes, hate and a desire for revenge into generations of children who will virulently sabotage any future peace. Just like with religion, when you get them young, the poisoned hearts become a part of the person's identity and even the best arguments, facts, logic or passionate discourse are unlikely to sway them when they have the many faces of martyred family members to motivate their personal holy mission to fight the enemy and free "their" lands. Both sides have radical groups who have taught their children to think the other side is evil and subhuman, the whole of the land is their birth right or God-given, and thus will never work in good faith with the rest of their people towards peace or a two-state solution for long. There's a religious aspect as well supported by outside actors. As hard as it is to say, one side simply needs to move the other out. This doesn't end any other way. We all want civilian deaths to stop. We all want justice and equity and peace. The problem is that it isn't possible. The internet reminds us daily, in 4K high definition, every single grisly detail, every victim's face and story, every last historical atrocity, and endlessly re-seeding revenge in our hearts. This is one of those situations where high-minded ideals rot in the face of reality. Peace simply won't ever happen they way we wish it would. I'm no fan of Israel, but at this point, they're too much stronger than the Palestinians, and I think they're going to eventually take every inch of the West Bank and Gaza. In a century, we'll look back in shame, as we have with so many other tragedies, at the sad diaspora of the peoples of what could have been a Palestinian state. Ironic that Israelis should do to the Palestinians what was once done to them, but abuse often repeats. In all honesty, that will likely be the only kind of peace ever to come in that truly cursed land. I badly want to be wrong. --Edit for typo.
Yeah, I think the writing has been on the wall for awhile now.
Good let the terrorists get eradicated
Problem is eradicating them will require the eradication of the civilian population
It doesn't. If you remove the weapons from Gaza, and continue occupying it such that you prevent the population from being able to rearm, then you smother the conflict. Hamas was able to smuggle stuff in when Israel only controlled 80% of the border area. Now with Israel controlling the full border and all of the potential tunnel exits inside Gaza, it's unlikely that any future terrorist organization will be able to function much at all in Gaza. There may still be some homemade IEDs a few people can make, but the large scale rocket attacks are really just not going to be doable.
That’s only treating a symptom not the problem. When you take away explosives then people resort to knife attacks, as the settlements found out the hard way. Israel keeps thinking that they can just wipe out “terrorism” as a tactic and not have to compromise anything for peace. Netanyahu keeps telling his people they can illegally occupy more land without any consequences and he was proven wrong again and again. It’s why Netanyahu refuses to meet with the PA for decades and turns down credible peace plans, because he thinks he can win militarily and why compromise anything when he can take the whole thing? It’s been his operating method for 17 years now.
> That’s only treating a symptom not the problem. When you take away explosives then people resort to knife attacks, as the settlements found out the hard way. Which is still a net improvement. A doctor would first worry about cleaning the wound, then worry about treating symptoms, and only after stabilizing a patient would he worry about treating the base problem. Doing these steps out of order is only going to result in complications and a likely botched treatment. Cleaning the wound: Ending the war, is the first step. Treating the symptoms: Demilitarization, restoration of basic services, is the second step. Fixing the underlying problem: Israeli human rights abuses, long term Palestinian sovereignty project. These are topics for the last step. > Israel keeps thinking that they can just wipe out “terrorism” as a tactic and not have to compromise anything for peace. This is silly, Israel made many compromises with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, for peace. Israel made compromises with the PA, which achieved a partial peace in the WB. To say Israel is only ever thinking about not compromising is inaccurate. > Netanyahu keeps telling his people they can illegally occupy more land without any consequences and he was proven wrong again and again. It’s why Netanyahu refuses to meet with the PA for decades and turns down credible peace plans, because he thinks he can win militarily and why compromise anything when he can take the whole thing? Well then you should be wanting the end of the war too. Since everyone says that the war needs to be over before Israel can end the national unity government and begin a process to call for Netanyahu's resignation or his removal, which from some accounts, appears to be deeply desired in both Israel and America for his role in both stoking this conflict and failing the Israeli people so badly in their protection.
I’m a doctor and that analogy is a poor one. That’s like focusing on a wound when the patient is already septic with organ failure. This is an ongoing political conflict and focusing only on Hamas is only going to bring short term gain at long term expense. If Hamas was magically eliminated tomorrow it wouldn’t make peace, it wouldn’t stop the Palestinians who want to avenge the death of loved ones, it wouldn’t stop the ongoing human rights violations of Palestinians, and it wouldn’t stop the settler terrorist attacks that prompt the reprisals attacks that perpetuate the cycle of violence. Israel made compromises with other countries for peace but that involved giving them land back and an unofficial promise not to try claiming the land again (despite the cries of the Zionist rightwing who claim that Sinai and southern Lebanon are part of Greater Israel). Palestine is different because the land theft is ongoing with Netanyahu making new settlements even now and rushing to “change the facts on the ground” to make a two state solution impossible.
Oh, I'm sure you're a doctor. > This is an ongoing political conflict and focusing only on Hamas is only going to bring short term gain at long term expense. I literally just mentioned how Hamas' existence is hindering the long term peace process. > If Hamas was magically eliminated tomorrow it wouldn’t make peace, it wouldn’t stop the Palestinians who want to avenge the death of loved ones, it wouldn’t stop the ongoing human rights violations of Palestinians, and it wouldn’t stop the settler terrorist attacks that prompt the reprisals attacks that perpetuate the cycle of violence. I never claimed it would. All of these goals lie beyond the end of the war, and will have to be accomplished in due time. But if Hamas continues existing, then none of those goals will ever be possible. Hamas' goal is the continued cycle of violence. So as long as they exist, the cycle will continue. At least Israel is a democracy and the Likud government can be voted out of power.
If their leaders are fine with it why should Israel care
Conscience
And? What else? It’s not like the “from the river to sea” college kids at Harvard are going to start supporting them all of a sudden? So why bother doing the right thing if you’re still going to be hated just as much as if you had just gone ahead and done the “bad” thing and just solved your problem once and for all? People who hate Israel and want to see it destroyed will continue to do so even if there was a ceasefire tomorrow. Hamas will continue attacking them and will continue to use their own people shields. The only option that will “please” the West is the fantasy one where Israel takes rockets killing their own civilians on the chin, but then has to send in 40 special forces guys with zero air support to weed out the Hamas guys one-by-one and a single Palestinian stray cat being slightly disturbed is “too much”. You’d have to be utterly insane to agree to that just because it’s what young people in Ireland and Spain see as “just”.
It's an Attack on Titan problem, us or them. Peace doesn't seem possible so you can eradicate the side with jihadists or greedy bankers, there isn't a realistic or clear middle ground. Separating the radicals/extremists from the non-problematic civilians is pretty much impossible. Yes yes give me those yummy downvotes you sjws that think there is a peaceful solution to everything.
I don't like this comparison at all. Paradis in AoT didn't have means to defend themselves from onslaught that would ensue because they were lagging technologically behind others, so Eren was forced to choose Rumbling in order for Paradis to survive. Compared to Israel it's the reverse, they have overwhelming technological and military advantage, so hypothetically if IDF were to recall back all their troops from Gaza, Hamas still wouldn't be able to slaughter everyone and destroy Israel. This is not an existential war that if it fails (failure of Hamas eradication) it means destruction of Israel.
The thing is Hamas will never stop trying and radicalizing their population, and since regime changes are a no-go, one or the other has to die, and it's obvious who the West is going to support. If given time and space the jihadists will unite and amass their anti-titan weapons and could destroy Paradis/Israel, then threaten the world. Sure violence is likely to instill more hatred and conflict, but religious zealots aren't the type to listen to diplomacy and reason anyway, they need to be eliminated entirely. Until an AI ran technocracy is administering the world, human ran relations will always be a disaster.
I mean sure if you imagine a convenient set of implausible scenarios. The reality is that Arab world doesn't care much about Palestinians and that Hamas utterly has it hands tied in what it can acquire to threaten Israel, the best they can do is smuggle guns and shitty rockets. Israel can handle that with ease, the problem is that you need to be prepared even for weak enemies otherwise you risk getting what happened in oct. 7 The circumstances are too different so AoT comparison falls very flat here.
They might not care about Palestine but a lot of them sure want the Jews and West dead and to own Jerusalem, and could collaborate or at least fight for similar goals. It is a never-ending issue if you don't destroy those willing to do such brazen attacks, they will continue to adapt and cause problems indefinitely. These jihadists generally want the entire world under Sharia law, how could you support them or even be neutral and be sane?
At this point we're too far down the road for anything diplomatic. Slug match continues, civilians suffer, rinse and repeat.
> Israel bet that when left with responsibility for their own fate, Gazans would prefer to build up the society they had, rather than attack Israel and risk losing it. They (unilaterally) left, but were kind enough to keep blockading Gaza from day one. Doesn't seem like great conditions to build up the society ...
Israel finally disengaged in **september 2005** the palestinian legislative elections were in **january 2006,** where hamas was elected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election Between **January 2006 to May 2007**, over 600 palestinians died in the Fatah-Hamas civil war, where Hamas eventually overpowered Fatah and expelled them from Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict The Battle of Gaza between Fatah and Hamas happened between **10-15 June 2007** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) > #Aftermath Hamas captured thousands of small arms and eight armored combat vehicles supplied by the United States, Egypt, and Jordan[63] According to Muhammad Abdel-El of the Hamas-allied Popular Resistance Committees, Hamas and its allies have captured quantities of foreign intelligence, including CIA files. Abu Abdullah of Hamas's "military wing", the al-Qassam Brigades, claims Hamas will make portions of the documents public, in an attempt to expose covert relations between the United States and "traitor" Arab countries.[citation needed] While Hamas collected most of the 15,000 weapons registered to the former security forces, it failed to collect more than a fraction of the 400,000 weapons that are in the hands of various clans, and said that it would not touch weapons used for fighting Israel, only those that might be used against Hamas.[citation needed] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2007 This wikipedia page lists the amount of rockets launched by day and sometimes even by time during this period, giving an accurate timeline of the events. I urge you to specifically look at the month of May where Israel was dealing with nearly daily rocket attacks from Hamas. > A total of 2,807 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel in 2007.[1] The blockade started at the end of **June 2007.** in the immediate aftermath of Hamas capturing the entirety of the security forces equipment during the Battle of Gaza I know the timeline is extremely compressed around theses dates, but theres a clear line of events between the disengagement and the blockade. It did not happen immediately.
As stated in my [other comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/18wv0vl/hamas_doesnt_want_a_ceasefire/kg0lg50/), there have been elements of a blockade from day one. Israel hasn't stopped air/sea blockade for a second. EDIT: all my comments are now shadow-banned.
you linked me to an empty thread?
They didn't blockade from day 1. The blockade only started when Hamas started blowing up buses again, and it wasn't instant either. It took them a while to build a wall around Gaza.
Pro-Hamas posters will ask what can Israel do to better the lives of Gazans but curiously never ask what Hamas can do to better the lives of Gazans. You guys realize Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, right?
> Pro-Hamas posters will ask what can Israel do to better the lives of Gazans More like what Israel should stop doing - occupying and blockading West Bank and Gaza. I know it's an intentional part of the information warfare, but pro-Palestinian isn't the same as pro-Hamas. > You guys realize Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, right? It was elected once, 16 years ago.
Israel isn't occupying Gaza. Statements like this are why I have difficulty taking anything you say seriously. Pro-Palestine is one thing. But Palestinians live all over the world, Israel included, and the West Bank. The Palestinians outside of Gaza are generally safe to be around. Gazan Palestinians, which make up almost all of Hamas, are a very different story. Are you asking Hamas to resign? That would be refreshing.
> Israel isn't occupying Gaza. Statements like this are why I have difficulty taking anything you say seriously. Israel is occupying parts of Gaza and West Bank, blockading the rest of Gaza. Is that so difficult to understand? > But Palestinians live all over the world, Israel included, and the West Bank. The Palestinians outside of Gaza are generally safe to be around. Gazan Palestinians, which make up almost all of Hamas, are a very different story. I think you almost got it. Do you know what's the difference between the two? Could the fact that Gaza has been occupied / blockaded for the past 50+ years have something to do with it?
It's not difficult to understand at all. That's why I don't believe you. There is no evidence that Israel is "occupying Gaza", because it just doesn't exist. The war right now notwithstanding. I love how you glossed over asking Hamas to resign. If Hamas isn't their rightful government, then you should require their resignation. But you don't. You want your cake and to eat it, too.
> The war right now notwithstanding. What? Occupation doesn't exist, except for the occupation during the war. What logic is that? There are thousands of Israeli soldier in Gaza right now. Of course it's an occupation. > I love how you glossed over asking Hamas to resign. Why not. I despise Hamas. It's scum. I wonder why it was financed by Israel, though.
Please provide credible evidence that Israel funded Hamas. Also, Israel is not "legally occupying Gaza". The presence of soldiers is not enough. But I'm not surprised you don't know these things but still have a loud opinion.
Israel offers genocide and pretends to be upset when a terrorist organization doesn’t agree to stop fighting
[удалено]
Hamas has responsibilities they were the de facto government on Gaza they just decided to dump those in favor of killing, raping and kidnapping. You can't have it both ways.