> What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Hamas broke the ceasefire on Oct 7 and killed 1000+ Israelis. Israel is justified in breaking every ceasefire with Hamas until the end of time. You should not negotiate in good faith with terrorists. There should be peace with the Palestinians, but not with Hamas.
Your anger is understandable, but the only way to peace is indeed to negotiate, and the peace must be made between Israel and Hamas.
Before Israel's invasion, a minority supported Hamas' actions. Now, it will be very hard to find peace during the generational legacy of Israel's violence.
This is why overwhelming violence cannot lead to peace. Israel was justified in defending itself, but proportionality was necessary. As an alternative, I think Mossad have show themselves capable of disabling Hamas without heavy civlian casualties.
Hasbara bullet points with no effort. Logically falls apart upon the most basic of inspections. For example, if a one day attack justifies a disproportionate slaughter for 2 years, then what is a merely PROPORTIONATE response to 2 years of slaughter? What is a merely proportionate response to 85% of all buildings destroyed and all infrastruction being turned to rubble?
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
Because it doesn't move the situation any closer to liberation of their people and their homeland.
They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy with overwhelming advantages, for their cause for two years now. Why would you assume that being able to escape with their lives is suddenly more important to them?
> They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy
Thats not true at all. Most people in palestine do not want to throw their lives away for nothing. Most of them want peace. Its only Hamas that would apparently prefer to get killed and have gaza be flattened instead of accepting peace.
The question I responded to was: "why is Hamas refusing a peace deal that ends all this and lets them escape with their lives?" Your responding that what I wrote is "not true at all" makes no sense in the context.
> They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy with overwhelming advantages, for their cause for two years now
Hamas has. If you put this deal to a plebescite in Gaza, do you really think they'd vote for more war?
Yes, Hamas (and all the other resistance factions that are active in Gaza). The question I responded to was: "why is Hamas refusing a peace deal that ends all this and lets them escape with their lives?" My answer was perfectly within the scope of the original question.
> If you gave the jewish resistance in Nazi Germany the same deal, would you be just as suprised if they continued to fight for total freedom?
Yes?
Just so I understand the hypothetical, the Jewish resistance in Nazi Germany (not really a singular thing, but I'll read this as the French Resistance and ghetto leaders) are offered amnesty, i.e. an end to the Holocaust, in exchange for literally anything? Why wouldn't they take it? It's literally a choice between life and death.
And again, it gives time for regrouping, clear thinking, rallying support. Turning it down seems to scream that the offer, in this hypothetical an end to the Holocaust, in our timeline a ceasefire, isn't actually that important. At that point, both sides are choosing to fight. European Jews didn't choose the Holocaust. I don't think Palestinians are choosing this war, but if they turned down a peace deal, they by definition are.
I mean, it moves the situation closer to not living in war and famine? Also the idea of amnesty to all Hamas members looks pretty generous to me - Nazis didn't enjoy the same privilege
> I mean, it moves the situation closer to not living in war and famine?
And then what? Look at the West Bank to see what happens when you don't resist the occupation and fully cooperate with the colonial state. You get slowly cleansed anyway.
> Also the idea of amnesty to all Hamas members looks pretty generous to me
Israel specializes in assassinations and has a history of relentlessly pursuing those it deems its enemies. If you were a Hamas fighter, your choice would be to either die fighting for a purpose, or be killed in exile without a purpose anymore.
The Israelis (and their suppliers) are the ones with the power to end it. They have chosen this. There are actually other avenues you know. This is entirely on them.
Like, not at all? They tried to withdraw from Gaza, and preferred to educate their population on living under daily rocket attacks just to avoid waging a war in Gaza. It all dragged on with no hope for a permanent peace and culminated in the October massacre.
Hamas on the other hand does indeed have the power to end it all - if not with all their dreams and wishes being fulfilled - which is a pretty outrageous expectation for the losing party
They are not Western, but they are a democracy for sure. The extremist minority got into the government by democratic mechanisms - happens in Western democracies too from time to time
Tried to withdraw? Seems like they like things just how they are. (Well except for the part where they want the Palestinians to give up any claims to the land that was stolen from them and just evaporate.)
The result of Israel:
- subjugating Palestinians in a ghetto, controlling everything that goes into and out of Gaza
- preventing Gazans from having their own power, airports, piers, and more, and
- "putting them on a diet", and
- propping up Hamas to have a plausible enemy to fight against in Gaza, and
- occasionally "mowing the lawn" to kill hundreds (or thousands)
is the creation of anti-Israel hatred. Once that boils over, you get what happened, which is the murder and kidnapping of innocent people in Israel.
> Hamas on the other hand does indeed have the power to end it all - if not with all their dreams and wishes being fulfilled - which is a pretty outrageous expectation for the losing party
Maybe instead petition Netanyahu et al to stop committing a genocide? They can stop flattening Gaza and starving Gazans at any point. They hold all the cards.
They could stop the current stage of the war, sure. They couldn't achieve peace though - basically stopping the operation would mean reverting to pre Oct. 2023 state with Israel trying to improve their security (aka "blockade") so that it doesn't happen again. Given the recent advances in military practice I would imagine that would involve lots of drones flying over Gaza 24/7 and I can already hear what international organizations are saying about that.
Hamas on the other hand has the keys for the permanent peace. Not implying that the way current operation is waged is justified though.
Israel can become one state with democracy for all its residents. That's the real answer.
> I can already hear what international organizations are saying about that
What will they say? (And would they be wrong?) Imprisoning Palestinian refugees is definitely a human rights violation.
> Hamas on the other hand has the keys for the permanent peace
Not sure why everyone says Israel (the state with all the power in this relationship) is powerless. What do you propose Hamas do to ensure permanent peace?
>The Israelis (and their suppliers) are the ones with the power to end it
Israel cannot unilaterally end hostilities any more than Hamas can.
Peace requires two willing parties.
Israeli people need to remove Bibi the genocider and be willing to concede land and leave Palestine alone
Palestinians need to be willing to evict and eliminate Hamas, run the country in a non oppressive way, and leave Israel alone
Israel can end the genocide it is perpetrating, and then accept more death in a few years when Hamas feels like doing more marketing (which, fyi, is the point of their terrorism: Fundraising). Is that desirable or useful?
Please show me where Hamas has signaled in any way that they would leave Israel alone if Israel completely left Palestine alone. Right now neither side can even manage a token ceasefire. There's no trust, and there's no accountability.
The real question is this: How many dead people are either side willing to accept to work towards lasting peace?
Lasting peace, a solution to the Palestinian horror, requires people willing to give up legitimate grievances from the past. Are Palestinians willing to move on from half of their children starving to death? Lots of Israeli people were willing to protest their own government before October 7th to agitate for less Palestinian oppression. Hamas targeted some of those young adults for that.
> Israel cannot unilaterally end hostilities any more than Hamas can.
They absolutely can! For a moment consider the power differential in this assault. Do not equate Hamas' attacks with Israel's blockade, exploitation, starvation and war crimes of the entire Gazan population. The displaced Palestinians imprisoned in the Gaza ghetto don't have war planes, armed drones, and tanks, let alone nukes and billions and billions of aid from allies.
Also, consider Israel has a total blockade of Gaza. Nothing gets in or out without Israel's say so. And we haven't even talked about "the hostilities" of the expanding illegal occupation of the West Bank.
Israel can stop their genocide and starvation today. They can stop further occupying the West Bank today.
> Palestinians need to be willing to evict and eliminate Hamas, run the country in a non oppressive way, and leave Israel alone
Israel's flattening of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. You don't get to starve and murder everyone in Gaza because of Hamas. You don't get to commit genocide. (An intent stated many times by Israeli officials BTW)
> Please show me where Hamas has signaled in any way that they would leave Israel alone if Israel completely left Palestine alone.
Hamas existing or now is irrelevant to Israel starving everyone in Gaza and destroying every building, hospital, school, house, cemetery in it including all the farm land. This is rank inhumanity.
> Right now neither side can even manage a token ceasefire. There's no trust, and there's no accountability.
One side holds all the cards and it's not Hamas nor the civilians in Gaza. IF you want to talk about accountability, maybe the world should actually hold Israel responsible for its actions. Maybe we can get the Israelis to kick the genociders out of its government for a change? (Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir for starters)
> Are Palestinians willing to move on from half of their children starving to death?
Wait--The Palestinians are blockading themselves?
> Lots of Israeli people were willing to protest their own government before October 7th to agitate for less Palestinian oppression. Hamas targeted some of those young adults for that.
Polling consistently shows Israelis are in favor of what's happening in Gaza.
What do you mean? Trump's plan to end the war, Israel has accepted it. Now Palestinians will probably refuse it. Why refuse the end of the war and the "genocide"?
It's like they demanded a country, but when the country was offered multiple times, they refused it because what they actually want is to destroy Israel and not build their own country.
Rhodesia was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
Apartheid South Africa was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
French Algeria was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
When Israel gets similarly "destroyed", and it is no longer a supremacist colonial state, and the people who remain are living with equal rights, it will be for the better. Everyone other than colonists and white supremacists understand this. If yoru country was colonized by outside invaders, you would understand anti-colonial struggle perfectly well.
Just out of curiosity, what does "destroyed" mean in Israel case? Is this a situation, that can potentially lead to Israel ruled by Hamas and Hamas having a nuke and army, that can easily reach Europe? How is that "better"?
There is a reason why no one, except extremists (on both sides, both Greater Israel or whatever, or Greater Palatine) support one state solution.
Not a problem at all. South Africa's nukes were destroyed and/or handed over to USA prior to the dismantling of the state. The same can be done with Israel's nukes, and any other military gear that they wish to keep out of hands of the palestinian resistance.
And what if they say no? And what if they are willing to use every last one of them if needed to prevent their destruction and there is absolutely no way to convince them otherwise, other than to not destroy them?
Then what? They have 100+ nuclear weapons. They can't all be shot down.
You are demonstrating one case of reality denial that props the Palestinian to keep fighting Israel from generation to another, even though they've never been in a worse situation.
There are many other proponents of the Palestinian struggle, that would hate for them to surrender or just go elsewhere, because they need them to keep fighting. I'll name some examples:
1. The Muslim clerics promising them Al Aqsa, who look at the Jews self-rule as an historical insult to a place that should have been "Dar al-Islam";
2. The different movements and people of interest that are implanting nostalgic longing across the 4th generation Palestinian diaspora to a place they never visited and to a country that never existed;
3. Those Arab rulers, like in Egypt, that don't want the "Palestinian Issue" (their words, not mine) to go away because it nibbles at Israel;
4. Those with interests of self preservation, like King Abdallah of Jordan, who rules over a Palestinian majority and fears the moment they try to realize their national aspirations in his kingdom instead of in Israel;
5. Those like Greta and other who look to pick up a cause, and of course lets not forget those who just hate Jews.
6. Lest we forget the billionaires Palestinian leaders, like Arafat and Haniyea who amassed huge fortunes and lived lavish lifestyles on the back of the "Palestinian struggle";
7. All of those functionaries in the UN and elsewhere who feed off this huge machine of handouts in the form of UNRWA, the Red Cross and all those agencies that funnel money and goods to Palestinians wherever they are, keeping them fed and content so they can avoid assimilating and building a real future for themselves, while teaching in their agency schools a curriculum of hate towards Jews and Israel.
8. The Iranian mullahs who need a cause to rally their people, to keep their thoughts away from being thirsty, poor and oppressed.
All of those people making grand plans for the demise of Israel, while Israel just keeps getting stronger. No, seriously; the Israeli GDP per capita has surpassed that of the UK.
What's common to all of those groups that I mentioned is that none of them care about what becomes of the average Palestinian. 10,000 dead, 60,000 dead, it's all worthwhile if Israel suffers.
Golda Meir wisely said, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us". As long as those powerful interest groups are interested in keeping the Palestinian struggle alive, there can never be peace; and destroying Israel is just a dangerous pipe dream that kept the Arab world poor and beaten for 80 years now.
What an interesting historical stretch to call Jews "invaders" in Israel, when the entire place is riddled with Jewish history and artefacts dating back thousands of years.
While Rhodesia and South Africa were colonial experiments by people with no prior connection to Africa, that's not the case with Israel. Since the onset of told history there were Jews in that area.
Yes, many thousands of years ago the land was populated by Jewish peoples. Then Romans sacked Jerusalem and kicked them all out. The Eastern Roman empire never reversed that ban. After the muslim conquest of Levant in about 630 AD, caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab lifted the Christian ban on Jews entering Jerusalem some time later during his reign. After a millenium of mixing and slow but gradual conversion to the dominant socio-cultural muslim group, we know that the Jewish population of Palestine at the time (1917) that the British government initiated the process of handing over Palestine to jews in return for Lord Rothschild's money that they needed to keep fighting WW1 [1], was only about 7%.
Subsequent immigration of mostly European jews into Palestine, resulted in about 30% jewish population by the time Western powers decided to declare an independent Jewish-dominated state of Israel on top of Palestine in 1947.
The vast majority of the current jewish population of Israel are absolutely foreign invaders and their second or third generation descendants.
> Having left the church, it's much clearer to me that Arabs and Jews have both lived there for thousands of years
Yes, and there was a lot of mixing and slow but gradual conversion to the dominant socio-cultural muslim group that happened over more than a millenium. After the muslim conquest of Levant in about 630 AD, caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab lifted the Christian ban on Jews entering Jerusalem some time later during his reign. We do not have data on how many jews decided to return there, rather than keep living in civilizational centres across the region and in Europe.
What we do know is that the jewish population of Palestine at the time that the British government initiated the process of handing over Palestine to jews in return for Lord Rothschild's money that they needed to keep fighting WW1 [2], was only about 7%. Subsequent immigration of mostly European jews into Palestine, resulted in about 30% jewish population by the time Western powers decided to declare an independent Jewish-dominated state of Israel on top of Palestine in 1947.
> Both have a right to exist and the capacity to live peacefully together
Brutal occupation has no right to exist. The supremacist state has to go. Apartheid South Africa had to go, and now South Africa is a better country. Nazi Germany had to go, and now Germany is a better country. Imperial colonial Japan had to go, and now both itself and its former colonized territories are better countries. Supremacist ethno-nationalist Israel that occupies natives of the land it was established upon with despicable brutality has to go. In the resulting state that comes after it, yes, people of any religion and ethnicity need to be able to live together in peace. After reparations have been made, the right of return has been honored, most of the stolen land has been given back, and apartheid has been dismantled.
Do you mean the land reform so that the minority white descendants of colonists don't still control 90% of the land even 30 years after the apartheid was officially ended?
If not, can you share links to proof that there is something more serious going on, that would deserve to be called genocide against the white population?
> I do not pretend to have or be able to gain any knowledge that could help this thousand year conflict
Why do you think this is a "thousand years conflict"? It started in 1917 when the British government initiated the process of handing over Palestine to jews in return for Lord Rothschild's money that they needed to keep fighting WW1 [1]. Jewish population of Palestine at that time was only around 7%.
Subsequent immigration of mostly European jews into Palestine, resulted in about 30% jewish population by the time Western powers decided to declare an independent Jewish-dominated state of Israel on top of Palestine in 1947. How could it be jewish-dominated when they were a minority? Well, you just forcefully displace everyone who isn't a part of your group, of course. Oh, they refuse? Massacre a few villages [2] [3] and then most remaining people will flee on their own. Sure, sure, you allow a small number to stay within the borders of the new country that you now claim, so that they can consistute about 20% of your population and you get to claim that you aren't a nationalist supremacist nation.
There is nothing "thousand years old" about this 20th century European white supremacist colonial settlement project.
> On the other hand, there is virtually no chance that the US could have forced Israel to stop the war because Israelis view this as an existential threat. No threats or measures the US would take would override that view. This is likely why Biden is not able to stop the war by making a phone call.
No chance? That's a very unimaginative view. Here's one way to do it that would have caused Israel to immediately stop: "If you keep going against what we are publicly saying, we will no longer veto security council resolutions against you, and UNGA will move forward with sanctions once they realize we're not going to protect you anymore."
Biden tried to threaten and stop Israel and this is one reason for it taking so long. It took like five months to start invading Rafah, which is crazy. And the main reason is Biden administration stalling it. Thank G-d now Dems will be busy with their political infighting and survival and the hot stage of this war will be over soon and Gazans can breathe a bit and start thinking about their future.
Israel is acting towards its declared objectives which it views as existential: The removal of Hamas from power in Gaza and the return of its hostages. Hamas is acting towards its declared long term objectives of destroying Israel at any cost.
It's ok for you to disagree with those objectives, or Israel's assessment of threat, but you can still see how a truce that leaves Hamas in power does not align with Israels' declared objectives. If you can offer a truce to Israel that removes Hamas from Gaza and Israel rejected that then I'd support your argument but that option is not on the table at the moment (partly because it does not align with Hamas' objectives). From Israel's perspective the proposed truce neither guarantees the return of all Israeli hostages nor the removal of Hamas from Gaza.
Israel's current government is also unlikely to work towards the proposed truce because it involves releasing Palestinian prisoners which will be seen as a win for Hamas and also a potential for future violence. This is where Israel is divided internally with many (most?) supporting a truce and parts of the government working against it. But most Israelis would still see the truce as temporary and agree that Hamas' survival in Gaza is not acceptable after Oct 7th. If Hamas was to e.g. leave Gaza (like the PLO left Beirut) then many options open up for ending the war and moving forward (including removal of the current Israeli government).
Again regardless of your opinion/politics you need to see this from Israel's side if you want to be able to achieve a solution. The Ukraine/Russia conflict is similar in that you need to understand what both sides are looking for and what they're willing to concede before you can end that war. Just saying that you think the war should continue until Russia is repelled from the entirety of Ukraine, while potentially a reasonable moral position, may not be a practical one or one that minimizes the number of people getting killed. I say that as someone who is 100% supportive of Ukraine. There's the idealistic outcome and then there's reality.
It's certainly true that if Israel has no other alternatives, and under the assumption it views Hamas' survival in Gaza as an existential threat, then it will continue to use force to achieve that objective, which will certainly lead to more people getting killed. Israelis and Palestinians.
If this is the scenario we're looking at, and we want to minimize Palestinian suffering and casualties, then we should be looking at how this force can be used in the most optimal way to achieve these objectives. For example, a truce that gives Hamas a chance to rebuild its defenses and re-establish control over broader areas of the Gaza strip is almost certainly going to lead to more suffering and casualties.
Israel just passed a law calling a UN agency a terrorist organization, thus making them legitimate (in their own twisted minds) targets in an ongoing genocide. Earlier that same legislator denied any prospects for a 2-state solution making it absolutely clear that they aim to at best keep Palestine in a state of domination, what the ICJ has ruled as apartheid.
I think it is a mistake to claim Israel is acting with anything but genocidal intent. Even their own legislator shows this genocidal intent when it validates obviously invalid targets. Their aim is not the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza, but the elimination of civilian order of Palestinians in Gaza. And it is clearly and obviously moving towards that goal.
Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. They don’t have the military nor political capabilities for that. At best they are a threat to Israels ongoing policies of apartheid. But in that regard, so is the ICJ.
> Being against the Al-Sauds means being against Islam (according to the Saudi government)
Pretty much every of the hundreds of millions of muslims who live outside Saudi Arabia (and probably a large number of those who live inside it) laugh at that, and despise the Saudi regime. If you do not believe me, try talking to some and asking them.
As a practicing Muslim, yup I have no love for the Saudi regime (same with the Iranian regime, Taliban, etc.).
That being said you'll find a variety of opinions with the Muslim community both from Saudi and non-Saudi Muslims.
I imagine my relationship with KSA is similar to how some if not many US Jews feel with Israel. Just like I have an emotional attachment to Mecca and Medina which is currently under Saudi control I can understand how those among the Jewish diaspora may have an emotional attachment to Israel or believe in principle jewish self determination even when they vehemently oppose the government or have reservations about the modern state.
I know. The Iranians and the talibans do the same, the 3 are more or less incompatible and yet all pretend to be Islam in their country. It’s mostly for their captive audience. Islam in itself does not have to imply brutal dictatorship (this should not need saying).
> Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages [...]
This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you think about it. Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?
> Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange?
That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict.
Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are unique to this conflict.
> That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict.
If that’s true (and I agree that it may well be) then surely Israel’s army’s efforts can’t be in aid of hostage release, because it’s an entirely unattainable goal?
I think that’s what the OP is getting at. The tactics we see don’t seem like they’d be effective ways to rescue hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade Hamas to release the hostages. So what are the current tactics in aid of?
There are two ways it could in theory be in aid of that goal:
- putting pressure - even if there is nothing now to negotiate with, military action could reduce hamas's negotiating position and in principle cause them to sue for peace. I'm a bit doubtful in this conflict, but traditionally this how war works. If your enemy refuses to surrender, you take their land until either they surrender or they have no more land. For example in world war 1, there was still a lot of deaths right up until the armistice even though people knew fighting was going to stop soon, because the sides thought the more land we have now, the better our position will be during the peace negotiations.
- second, Israeli army could find where the hostages are and take them back by force. Also pretty hard, but if negotiations are unattainable its not surprising they would go here as the only other option.
Most wars happen to obtain goals that are unattainable by peaceful negotiation. I don't think this conflict is any different in that regard than any other.
Because there are two war aims: hostage release and the removal of Hamas.
> Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?
No, for the same reason countries don't kill all their prisoners of war right before surrendering. You still need to negotiate the terms of the peace.
There's a distinction to draw between creating more militant opposition to Israel's occupation and creating more Hamas. A category error I think a lot of people make when discussing this is to presume Hamas is a normal representation of armed resistance. At least since 2017, and arguably before, it has been a deeply abnormal armed resistance movement.
You might have reasons to believe that Israel's persecution of Hamas is going to generate a new generation of Hamas, but reasonable people might disagree and say that to the extent Israel is creating new militants, they're likely to look more like Fatah's armed wing than Hamas.
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.