Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
You're viewing a single thread.
Considering it wasn't a return of all of the hostages and additionally Hamas said they intend to repeat the terrorist attack that sparked this, what motivation does Netanyahu have to stop until Hamas is destroyed?
That Hamas did was abhorrent, as was the response of Israel.
What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious.
This just seems like nobody will win and everybody will suffer. For what?
For what?
To keep the wheels of the military industrial complex turning
What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious.
Less lives lost, even in the long term. We won't know what would have been, but there may well have been a diplomatic solution that got Gazan independence. But Hamas is built on violence is the answer.
Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”.
Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides...
That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them.
It's like you didn't even read what he said.
Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians.
Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people.
Use the /s
So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops)
I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that.
Why would a two state solution continue the suffering?
In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power.
Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007.
They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic.
I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza.
I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land.
Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground.
They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?
A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank.
As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border.
The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza.
Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid.
Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?
Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements.
I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.
The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this.
Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.
But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already)
Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.
For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes.
Well, lucky for him he didn't even entertain the ceasefire to see if he could have gotten them all back.
According to random sources that may or may not be lying.
The ceasefire would have happened in return for some of the hostages. Why would they give them more?
Ceasefires end, otherwise it's called a truce. Hamas probably didn't want to give up their strongest negotiating chip. In saying that, keeping hostages in this way is a war crime too.
Negotiating is the only path forward. Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.
If Israel don't negotiate in good faith, why would Hamas stop terrorist attacks? Your rhetoric goes both ways.
Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.
Just the short term really. The least deaths in the long term from a game theory perspective is to make the value of the hostages zero or even negative.
Israel's biggest mistake in the hostage back and forth was in the past giving up like 1000 fighters for some hostages.
Instead Israel should occupy like an additional acre of Palestine everytime a hostage/day is taken. Domestically the loss of territory seems to be the only thing that matters to Palestinians, in terms of political support. So they need to take that away.
Your game theory is only considering the lives of hostages in the short and long term. Thousands are dying in the meanwhile.
Thousands more would die in the next war for hoatages if they're allowed to be viable. Long term, peace on the '67 borders is the only way to minimize total casualties.
Hamas has proven over the last 20 years that it will continue to attack Israel no matter what. It's proven that it doesn't care about the lives of Palestinians.
I took agree that peace leads to less death. The question is how to get there.
Hamas are a terrorist organisation who committed a horrible act. Hamas are not in power in the west bank, yet the Palestinians there have suffered apartheid and lose land to Israeli settlers in breach of international law. This is happening for years.
If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it's the same.
Hamas commits horrible acts. Israel commits horrible acts.
Keeping civilian hostages as human shields is a war crime. Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
Israel clearly isn't indiscriminately bombing Gaza.
If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it's the same.
That should be expected since only one side spends money on defensive technology. Hamas has been complaining about Israeli air strikes since it came to power. It's spent billions on unguided rockets and ripping up infrastructure. But it's built zero bomb shelters for it's people, even admonishing civilians trying to use the built tunnels for shelter. It's installed zero radar systems. It's purchased zero anti-aircraft guns. It's done absolutely nothing to protect it's citizens and continues to start new wars.
Why would we expect the death tolls to be equal? That's like me, an American complaining that healthcare in America isn't available for everyone like it is for Canadians and demanding that Canada fix that problem.
I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing. Some people are given warnings. Some are not. So perhaps I should clarify that not all of their bombing is indiscriminate. Much is.
Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions. This is not happening.
Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.
I am not saying Hamas is a good government. Both sides can be terrible. However, Hamas not building bomb shelters does not make it ok for Israel to bomb citizens indiscriminately.
I don't expect the tolls to be equal. I do however take note that when Israel uses aggressive actions by Hamas for justification, that they are in fact the aggressors in the majority of cases with injury or death.
War is horrible. Civilians die. However, Israel's policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.
I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing
That seems to be more because you don't know what the word "indiscriminate" means rather than that adjective being an accurate description of Israeli's bombing campaign.
Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions.
Actually only the second is required. And the second is happening. "Proportional response" is something that can be required by private party treaty as a peacetime control, but it's not part of the rules of war.
Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.
Actually it shows the opposite. Israel could have done what it's doing at any point since the last major conflict and ceasefire in 2018. Their lack of aggression and desire for peace kept them from doing so and they only did so once provoked by a frankly disgusting series of acts that forced them to reconsider the viability of peace with Hamas.
That's the opposite of aggression.
However, Israel's policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.
To believe this you must believe the IDF is one of the most incompetent military forces on the face of the planet.
Oh and Israel cares so much about civilians lost. Perhaps you should check the numbers of killed and injured people on both sides even before 7.10, to get a bit of perspective.
I mean they clearly do. A cheap and WW2 era artillery bombardment of the region could have killed an easy 200k in a week.
The UN believes a modern conflict will kill about 9 civilians for every militant. Hamas' government last I checked reported about 11k casualties, 100% civilians. If that's the IDF would need to have killed 1,200 Hamas fighters to meet that ratio. Given that there's an estimated 20-40k fighters in Gaza we should expect 180k-360k casualties if the IDF nominally completes their goal of eliminating Hamas military.
The way I read it was a ceasefire in return for some of the hostages. Nobody floats their final offer with the first contact.
Israel needs to reset the value of hostages in the long run. They can't afford for hostage taking to be viable in the long run. And as long as they are successful militarily; there's no real reason for them to budge from their position.
The deal that went off was before that statement by Hamas.
Hamas has been making such statements for years They want Israel off the map. Even the Hamas Charter of 1988 put this desire onto paper.
Wanting an occupying force off the map shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, since Israel should have never existed (I'm for a one joint state solution where Palestinians get freedom and rights too but it's not too hard for me to understand Hamas' "radical" idea).
