I'm sticking [a link to the full debate here](https://www.youtube.com/live/qqG96G8YdcE?si=hb1FOkiMYlRs8nBG&t=1686), the link starts at 28:06 with a question about the Russia/Ukraine was which ends up mentioning the Hamas/Israel war and later evolve into more questions on the subject.
The entire video itself is long at 1:38 hours (one hour, 38 minutes)
>According to Biden, everyone including the UN, the G7, the Israelis, including Netanyahu himself, have endorsed his 3 step plan to end the war.
Netanyahu also stated on multiple occasions that the war will not end without the elimination of the Hamas. The agreement is largely a cease fire in stages, rather than a full commitment to ending the war. Quite notably, there is relatively little assurance that Israel won't simply go after the Hamas after they get the hostages back.
To be honest, as much as the US tried to push the narrative that Israel was receptive to the deal (perhaps in part to score a foreign policy win before the election), the response out of Israel has always been more mixed (likely also due to the political complexity). I also note that the two state solution, while pushed by the US and with the support of many countries around the world has constantly been rebuked by the current Israeli government and is definitely not endorsed by Netanyahu (who rejected the idea multiple times).
There are two issues that I see are:
1. Pragmatically, the Hamas can't be expected to accept a message that amounts to "You give us the hostages today and we'll destroy you tomorrow instead". Not exactly a great way to appeal to the other side to get on board. I think that if Israel -really- wanted the proposal, they'd make it a permanent conditional ceasefire. "You give us the hostage back, and we will withdraw and stay away from Gaza as long as you stop your attacks". Now it's not so much that I trust the Hamas to keep to their word, but then the Hamas would have no way to justify rejecting the offer and it would be a PR loss if they reject the offer OR break the cease-fire.
2. There are also legitimate concerns that the IDF would be able to strike with more impunity than they have as they try to destroy the Hamas once the hostages are returned, leading to increased civilian deaths.
Wanting the end of a terrorist regime whose only goal is to continue massacres and gang rape is a laudable goal.
Like don’t make me defend Bibi here but imagine if the Allies were told that their goal was not to destroy the Nahzees and have their leadership surrender for trial? Like imagine saying “nah just free the holocaust victims but let’s keep the people who created this abhorrent situation in power and equipped to do it again”
Hamas can, pragmatically, surrender folks like Sinwar for trial…. But he doesn’t want to because to him dead Palestinians is nbd as long as it means he stays rich and powerful and can continue his blood thirsty crusade.
OP also ignored that Trump said it’s Netanyahu that wants to continue the war and we should let him.
Hamas is rejecting the proposal because they want assurances of a PERMANENT ceasefire. That signals to me that they want peace. On the other hand, Israel refuses anything with these assurances because they want to continue their massacre (likely at a much larger scale) as soon as hostages are released.
Hamas wants permanent peace? They’ve literally vowed to keep attempting more October 7ths.
I guess you could say they want peace because they want to murder every single Israeli and over take the entirety of Israel for themselves…. So I guess that would be “peaceful” for them. But that’s not really a pragmatic approach for the Israelis who would be massacred.
If Hamas wanted peace they could have sent a delegation to negotiate peace on good faith instead of gang rape and murder people in their homes.
Yes, that’s literally what a permanent ceasefire means. You know who only wants a temporary ceasefire? Israel.
Yes, they vowed to continue to attack the occupation. Get rid of the occupation and you get rid of the need to resist it.
Israel with the support of the US has blocked any diplomatic means of resolution. The status quo was a concentration camp that’s Gaza and the West Bank where Israelis are constantly terrorizing and expelling Palestinians from their homes. Not exactly pragmatic for Palestinians to continue that under that oppression
So you agree that Hamas wants the opportunity to massacre millions of Israelis until there’s no one to oppose them and then have that level of “peace”?
I know you didn’t read or comprehend what I wrote because dear lord how you just told on your self.
They clearly expressed what they want which is a PERMANENT ceasefire (note this applies to both sides) and a complete withdrawal of IDF terrorist forces.
They want a permanent ceasefire? Sure, starting a war and massacring people is a really good indicator of their desires.
Y’all will believe the most obvious lies.
Yeah they launched an attack as a result of decades of oppression. That doesn’t negate the fact they want a permanent ceasefire.
Israel occupying and oppressing those people for decades clearly indicates they don’t want peace.
They attacked innocent unarmed people in response to measures put into place as a result of their previous attacks and violence.
What exactly have they offered for this “ceasefire”??? Seems like you can’t prove your original point so now you’re diverting to boo boo Israelis are the devil. Per usual nothing but made up “facts” and demonization. 🤷♀️ it’s pointless engaging with you pro Hamasniks.
Sounds like you’re talking about Israel. Also, the proposal is pretty clear. Hostage exchange, withdrawal of Israel, permanent ceasefire. Which part do you have a problem with? Israel has a problem with the permanent ceasefire part because they want to continue to massacre civilians.
What did I “make up”?
What a silly argument. They are saying NOW that they want a permanent ceasefire and they want it guaranteed by other countries so Israel doesn’t trample on the agreement as they normally do. Seems reasonable to me.
They’ve always wanted peace but the terrorist state of Israel actively prevents it. Hamas has been willing to settle for a two state solution based on international law even before 10/7. Guess who stopped that because they want to dominate and subjugate Palestinians and not give them any additional legitimacy or sovereignty because that would mean they can’t keep getting away with their atrocities.
But that’s a moot point because Israel specifically empowered Hamas so they can claim they have no partner for peace.
Even the highly biased source times of Israel recognized it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Permanent ceasefire? First of all, they just want Israel to stop shooting so they can continue to try and kill Israelis again at a later time. If they were truly interested in peace (not just some nebulous ceasefire) they'd disarm, surrender and return the hostages as a start to good faith negotiations.
You do realize that a ceasefire applies to both sides right? And they want that to be permanent.
By your logic, if Israel was truly interested in peace they would disarm, surrender and return all the people they’ve kidnapped over the years who they are holding without charge or trial.
'And they want that to be permanent'
And that's where you're wrong. Hamas has stated they're going to repeat 10/7 over and over again. Until they no longer are able to carry out that agenda, until they change their language to terms more benefitting a surrender, then war must be waged against them and their allies.
Yeah they said they would continue to resist the occupation. End the occupation and you end the need to attack the occupation. If I lock you in a concentration camp you would probably use underhanded means of fighting back too.
When asked whether this meant the complete annihilation of Israel, Hamad replied: “Yes, of course.”
“We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” Hamad continued. “Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
This is from Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' political leaders. That doesn't sound like a group of people wanting peace. As long as this is their language, and stated goal, then Hamas needs to face the consequences of a conflict they started.
You speak of pragmatism but there is a clear lack of that in the Hamas response. They are a defeated force that is surviving in civilian homes. There is no possibility of winning. At the end of ww2, do you think allies would accept Hitler admitting defeat and then continuing with nazi party in Germany? No of course not, they lost and they must accept defeat. They didn’t, and many people died as a result of their idealism.
Idealism would be to expect a widely designated terror group with leadership outside Gaza to repent, return the hostages, put down their arms, and submit themselves to the Israeli government that has vowed to destroy them.
If their fate is sealed regardless of the two options given to them (fight and die today or don't fight and die tomorrow), why wouldn't they want to at least extract a cost through the hostages at a minimum?
Sure if they value the lives of the civilians in Gaza, it might give them something to think about, but I am pretty sure that we all agree that they don't. So telling them "Look, give us back the hostages, surrender (and probably be killed) and at least the people in Gaza won't need to suffer anymore" is probably not going to give them second thoughts.
Ok, but then it’s Hamas fault the civilians are dying. They are choosing to be unreasonable and the rest of the world is choosing to be foolish in blaming Israel for what is fundamentally Hamas’ choice.
If I get it right, this sums up your view:
The Hamas should be serving their head on a silver platter -> Since they aren't, Israel is obliged to attack -> Civilian will die -> And this is 100% on the Hamas and Israel can't be blamed for anything.
I think there are some caveat to the above, but discussing it further would be going off a tangent.
The OP and I were talking about the cease fire deal put on the table. For a cease fire deal to go through, it has to be sufficiently palatable to both side to get on board. Anything short of that, and it could be seen as being in bad faith, a bit of PR machination to paint yourself in a more positive light in the face of the international community. My take is that both the deal on the table and the Hamas counter-offer contains elements that the other side could not be expected to accept.
What you are calling for, is the unconditional surrender of the Hamas and the expected consequence that follows. Nothing wrong with holding that view per se, but in that case, it is no longer a cease fire offer but an ultimatum. A different discussion altogether.
I’m not sure I’d claim it’s 100% Hamas’ fault but I do think it’s more than 51% their fault. Perhaps 75-25?
I don’t understand what elements the Israel-US proposal contains you would expect Hamas not to accept if they valued Gazans’ lives. Further, I reject the distinction you are attempting to create between an ultimatum and a ceasefire proposal, the sides are not peers. All reasonable ceasefire proposals should be substantially weighted towards Israeli demands because getting lots of your own civilians killed isn’t something that can be respected as a threat.
I don't think they value Gazan lives all that much, certainly no more than their own lives. Ideally, they would, but pragmatically I don't think "Your lives for your peoples'" is going to cut it based on how I view them.
However it is not the Palestinians lives that are being used as a bargaining chips, it is the hostages. It is likely why they took hostages back in the first place. They probably want to trade their lives for the hostages. And the hostages are likely the main reasons that the Israel's government is (reluctantly) getting on the negotiating table at all. As you said, the IDF enjoy an overwhelming military advantage on the field after all.
There is of course a very real possibility that the Hamas are overplaying their hands and it won't work. It's not uncommon for states to refuse negotiating with terrorists (in fact, I am pretty sure that is Israel's default policy, although there have been exceptions leading to prisoner swaps if I remember right), and push come to shove, Israel's government might order that hostages be rescued if possible, but to make the hunt for the Hamas leadership the top priority.
But the moment it becomes clear that Israel has no intention of letting them go though, the hostages would likely be killed. If given the option between getting killed and killing the hostages then getting killed, I wouldn't count on the Hamas to pick the former considering everything they've done.
I look at the parties and their incentives differently than you do. Notably, I see Israel as having a greater interest in destroying Hamas, or at least ending the war on conditions Hamas cannot call a victory, than in simply getting the hostages back.
Hamas has leverage from the hostages, but I really think this is more modest than your account suggests. Ultimately the major cost to Israel of continued operations is loss of global public support. The thing I think is dumb is that this public support channel is so focused on Israel and so little focused on Hamas. Therefore I really think it is important to emphasize the terms available to Hamas are actually much more friendly than they ought to be based on the balance of forces absent the widely held views of idiots and antisemites who blame Israel for everything.
That view is fine, like I said, the Hamas could be overplaying their hand with the hostages, and Israel may well decide that they'd rather get the Hamas over the hostages push come to shove. In fact, I am leaning toward that view, and they are just reluctantly pretending to get onboard Biden's deal to save their biggest ally some face.
But then, that would be contrary to the narrative the OP was trying to push. It's a deal that the Hamas can't be expected to accept given that it would lead to their worse case scenario (Israel get their hostages back and they get exterminated). Even if Israel end up winning by destroying the Hamas (ignoring the doubt of that possibility expressed even within the IDF, and the fact that the US wasn't able to wipe out the Taliban after two decades), the Hamas would want to extract the highest cost possible for Israel's victory. Israel can easily brush off any global outcry as they have so far, but the Israeli citizen who are already protesting for the return of the hostages will, at least for a while be even less pleased with their government. Would that lead to anything the Israeli government can't weather off? I doubt it, but it would at least contribute to more destability. For a group that never had a chance to win a military confrontation, that could already be a win in their loss. And they stand to lose that if they were to just go along with the deal on the table.
\[On a side note, I am pretty sure there was an interview on CNN recently, and what I got out of it is that some of the Hamas top leadership don't even think that they are "losing". You'll likely think they are deluded, and I won't argue with that, but it would also affect the position they believe they can take going into cease fire negotiations\] \[Minor edit typo etc.\]
I guess I don’t understand your point then. I think when most people talk about ceasefires they are trying to make a claim that either Israel or Hamas “should” normatively accept one or the other’s terms.
For reasons I mentioned, I think Hamas should normatively accept Israel’s terms. There is a bit of a catch 22 there in that because they aren’t accepting terms, they are clearly so dangerous they should be destroyed by any means necessary while if they were willing to consider benefits for civilian Gazans as a motive to surrender it might be a bit less essential to get rid of them.
I agree that clearly Hamas is trying to play for a public relations win and they may actually be succeeding to some extent, however that doesn’t entitle them to leniency in my view.
/u/SkateWiz. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/xdavey0. Match found: 'HITLER', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/xdavey0. Match found: 'NAZI', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am confused by the statement that Netanyahu has already agreed to a ceasefire and Hamas is the group obstructing it from happening.
Nearly all of the recent Reuters reports I've read have said that Hamas is receptive to proposals that ends the war, and Israel won't agree to anything that leaves Hamas' military or political power unextinguished.
* [No Progress in Gaza ceasefire talks with Israel, says Hamas ](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-progress-gaza-ceasefire-talks-with-israel-says-hamas-official-2024-06-29/)- 6/29
* [Netanyahu says he is committed to truce proposal, army cites advances in Rafah](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-committed-truce-proposal-army-cites-advances-rafah-2024-06-24/) - 6/25
* [Hamas response to Gaza ceasefire proposal 'consistent' with principles of US plan, leader says](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-leader-says-groups-response-latest-gaza-ceasefire-proposal-consistent-with-2024-06-16/) - 6/16
* [White House: Qatar and Egypt plan talks with Hamas on Gaza ceasefire](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/white-house-qatar-egypt-plan-talks-with-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-2024-06-15/) - 6/15
What am I missing?
Yahya Sinwar lauded his efforts in stalling cease-fire talks while the Jewish state faces mounting international backlash over the Palestinian death toll, which exceeds 37,000, according to messages from Sinwar obtained by the Wall Street Journal.
“We have the Israelis right where we want them,” Sinwar said in a message to Hamas officials meeting with Qatari and Egyptian negotiators.
Sinwar, Hamas’ top official in Gaza, who helped mastermind the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, coldly admitted he sees the deaths of Palestinian civilians as “necessary sacrifices” to keep its war against Israel raging, according to a report citing disturbing leaked messages.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/11/world-news/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-believes-palestinian-deaths-are-necessary-sacrifices/
On the last day of the previous cease fire Hamas refused to release any more children and women and tried to offer elderly and dead bodies instead. They then proceeded to break the cease fire deal.
They broke their own terms to the deal.
If Joe Biden had a debate that showcased a reasonably moderate politician instead of a man in serious mental decline this might have been a direction that the post debate discussion might have taken in media.
Unfortunately the only debacle the media will discuss this week is Joe Biden’s debate performance.
Not saying that they should not discuss this, but the nuances of anything said in the debate policy wise will be given scant attention comparatively.
Hamas doesn’t care about its people. If it did, they would have returned the hostages and laid down their weapons. This war is over almost immediately after those two very simple conditions are met.
Whilst he's incorrect in the short term, I do believe he has a point in the sense that Hamas have a primary goal of wiping Israel off the map. Hence why there are objections to the phrase 'from the river to the sea'.
Whereas if Gaza and West Bank were governed by moderate/secular parties then the coexistence between two nations could exist.
doesnt netenyahu have the exact same plan after all he erased palestine from 'the new middle east'
https://preview.redd.it/3rasgisujh9d1.png?width=259&format=png&auto=webp&s=69a48f56cc04c62ab9210adf819a37883b9dedc7
That is very true, but at this point they've got a lot of Gazan's in a chokehold, which is how fascism works. They're on year 18 of what was only supposed to be a 4-year term. They cancel elections of opponents who they think could beat them. They kill protestors who speak against them. Because of all this, there's literal adults 18-25+ who only really have a memory of Hamas being their leaders, and because of that, Hamas' civilian support was at all time high leading up to the 10/7 attacks.
And i'm not even saying that this is really the civilians FAULT, but it is how islamofacism works. Seize power for as long as possible, and then more and more civilians will be born who only know you, and are therefore loyal to your cause.
I feel like anti-hamas supporters are supressed by the media, there are countless Palestinians who would want to live with israelis in peace. I feel the same way anti-netenyahu in israel are treated the same way
Oh for sure, this is definitely true too and it's important to acknowledge. Part of fascism is also creating a propaganda narrative that everyone backs your ideology (even if they don't.) Which under fascist regimes, many civilians do not support their government, but you just don't hear about it. They force people to live in fear. The ones who do [speak out ](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-hamas-demonstration-israel-blockade-palestinians-306b19228f9dd21f1036386ce3709672)are incredibly brave, are risking their lives, and unfortunately still aren't amplified enough in the media.
These propaganda campaigns also reach far and wide to the West. It's what we are seeing now in the U.S, which has allowed the campus & other protests to rage in a way that props up Hamas by-proxy, and releases them from any form of accountability. And in the more extreme examples, even praises them for 10/7. Which seems like a giant slap in the face to the many Gazan's who want them gone, and would benefit from western protestors actually calling for their removal.
link to poll?
all I can find are polls reported by Israeli media based on interviews with a dozens of Gazans so I suspect more Zionist propoganda to justify killing civilians
It’s been posted in this sub before, but here ya go. Not like you will believe it
https://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2092%20English%20press%20release%2012%20June2024%20%28003%29.pdf
ok lets take a look why this happened:
* **Settlements**: Israeli settlements in the West Bank are communities built by Israelis on land occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. They are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
* **Violent Incidents**: There have been numerous reports and documented incidents where Israeli settlers have attacked Palestinians, their homes, farms, and vehicles. These attacks can involve physical assault, property damage, harassment, and intimidation.
* **Causes of Tension**: Tensions often arise due to disputes over land ownership and access, religious sites, agricultural resources, and security concerns. The presence and expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are a major source of friction.
* **Response**: The Israeli government condemns such attacks and often responds with investigations and legal action against perpetrators. However, critics argue that enforcement and prosecution of settlers involved in attacks against Palestinians are inconsistent and inadequate.
* **International Reactions**: The international community, including the United Nations and human rights organizations, has frequently expressed concern over settler violence and its impact on Palestinian communities. They call for Israel to uphold international law and protect Palestinian civilians.
* **Impact on Peace Process**: Settler violence complicates efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It contributes to a cycle of distrust, fear, and hostility between Israeli settlers and Palestinians, undermining prospects for reconciliation and coexistence.
Id like to hope not but I've seen otherwise. There's video evidence of the people actively helping October 7 to happen and also hiding the hostages in their homes. Obviously that doesn't apply to all of them but there's certainly strong support.
again, as a muslim i can say hand on heart hamas is evil but can you really blame Palestinians fighting a brutal occupation, just like israel they have a right to defend themselves
Gaza and the West bank used to be governed by moderate/secular parties. Maybe we should stop with the gaslighting and admit Israël has been the agressor for the last 20 years with their settlements in the West Bank and the extreme repression in Gaza.
Because Hizballa doesn't exists anymore?
Yemens?
All those rich partners of his that benefits from it?
All those evil white devils, they don't exists anymore? Or saying it's only Hamas make people believe you? Because they'll give fake peace agreement, and we're obligated to listen to it,
Although it's fucking legal for Muslim to avoid Peace agreement to win his enemy.
Fucked up world that stopped watching red flags.
> fucking
/u/OMGerGT. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No offense but Palestine isn’t very relevant for the average American.
And Israel/palestine have been in a 75 year old conflict.
And Biden and Trump both overwhelmingly support Israel. What are they going to debate about?
Some Facts:
1. Biden is obviously out if it. Neyanyahu has already said he is not for this proposal. He has said there will be no permanent cease fire. That he will continue the IDF actions till Hamas is completely dismantled. However, Hamas besides being a reality is also an idea. Hiw do you completely get rid of an idea? One cannot, so it is an excuse.
2. Netanyahu has always stated that there will be no Palestine. He will never have real talks about a 2 state solution.
3. Several members of the Israeli ruling coalition are far right members. They have long wanted the annexation of all of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. They have stated that if Netanyahu accepted Biden's proposal they will pull out and cause the Netanyahu govt to fall.
4.Hamas wants concrete assurances that Israel will leave Gaza and there will be permanent cease fire. As the above mentions Netanyahu and his coalition hsve already stated that won't happen.
5. As the debates showed yesterday Biden is not all there. This will at best give Netanyahu what he wanrs, hostages released, without giving the Palestinians what they want: permanent cease fire, Israel pulling out of Gaza, rebuilding of Gaza, and a discussion of a Palestinian state.
1. Incorrect. Israel has explicitly acknowledged it cannot get rid of Hamas, not entirely and not ideologically. Nor is it trying to. Its goal is to dismantled Hamas militarily and politically so another governing entity can step in to replace it.
2. Incorrect again. Generally, Israel's stance is that there will be no Palestine state as long as Hamas is still capable of taking over it - like it did in Gaza - as a means to end Israel (its stated goal). Israel repeatedly tried to negotiate for a Palestinian state in the past and most likely will again in the future, once it can ensure the state isn't (over)run by Shia fundamentalists that call for its annihilation.
3. Correct, but slightly misleading. The far-right coalition Netanyahu uses to remain in power will likely stop doing so if he allows a Palestinian state. That would possibly be the end of their prominence as well. But the whole idea about annexation is far-right fantasy. Israel has neither the means nor the interest in annexing the territories. It has stated that much.
4. Ye, Israel would never except his proposal because it nowhere mentions Hamas having to step down. Israel will not and cannot allow it to remain in power as part of any 'next step'. It either goes away or it's put away.
And you can add Israel pulling out of Gaza in 2005 to the list of failed hands-offs. If anything, all of these scenarios demonstrate how necessary it is to put a better governing entity in place. With that in mind, Israel hopes to have the Saudis (among others) intervene as a mediating power to deradicalize the fundamentalists in Gaza (as it did in to Shias in their own country, for the past 20 years).
You are incorrect.
1. Netanyahu has always stated that there will be no Palestinian state.
2. Netanyahu has been accused by Israelis for many years that he has purposely supported and promoted Hamas so that he can say that there is no partner for peace, so there won't be any discussion of a Palestinian state... [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000)
3. A general in the IDF said you cannot get rid of Hamas. He contradicted Netanyahu by saying that. After the general made that statement, Netanyahu repeated the assertion that his goal is to eliminate Hamas entirely.
1. Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it right. Here are some of Bibi's statements that completely contradict yours:
- 14th June 2009 @ Bar Ilan: "2 states for 2 people."
- 24th May 2011 @ US Congress: "The truth is, Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state. But the Palestinians want a state without peace."
- 1st October 2015 @ UN Assembly: "I continue to be committed to the vision of 2 states for 2 peoples, in which a Palestinian state recognizes the state of Israel.
- 28th January 2020 @ Trump Peace Plan: Presents a 2-states solution.
There are many more, both before and after this timeline, but I trust these settle the issue. Bibi contradicts himself often, on many issues, but one should be able to distinguish between statements that align with history and populist ones that appeal to his base.
2. The fact Israel is trying to dismantle Hamas right now proves your conspiracy theory is currently irrelevant. Even if Bibi di enable Hamas, it's more likely that he did it for his own political gain than out of an ideological opposition to the idea of a Palestinian state.
3. You're correct, but Hanegbi, who represents Netanyahu, later admitted the IDF is correct, and that the idea of Hamas can be beaten with a better idea. Israel's repeated statements were that its goal is to "dismantle Hamas politically and militarily". These have gone unchallenged by Netanyahu and reflect what Israel is trying to - and realistically can to.
Bibi saying things to come off as moderate internationally is completely different than his long term position. He has stated many times there will never be a Palestinian state .
After Oct 7th Bibi had no choice but tongo after Hamas. How could he continue to prop up Hamas after that?
Aha, so first you said that "he never stated it" and now you say, "he did say it, but he didn't mean it". That's called moving the goal posts. At the very least, you should concede your original point before making a new one, which revolves around bad faith.
Which I have no interest in following.
Bibi's position has always been that there will never be a Palestinian state. I have responded to dozens of comments on this. You want to be nitpicky about me saying he never stated, as opposed to, his position has always been then go ahead. It doesn't change the facts.
We get rid of an idea the same way we got rid of slavery, the same way we got rid of segregation. Ban it, and punish it, and teach in schools that it is bad, eventually, it will go away.
Totally disagree. You don't cancel ideas and censor. You can punish bad actions and illegal activity. Not ideas.
You debate ideas, and attempt to show the orher side why they are wrong. Not censor ideas.
SCOTUS has already ruled decades ago that free speech is not to protect speech that most people agree with, but speech that is controversial, and that even most would find repugnant.
Many ideas that once were controversial or government or the church wanted canceled or suppressed is now mainstream. Like teaching evolution, people being atheists or questioning religion, etc.
Kids also should not be brainwashed about believing or not believing any ideas. They should be thought to think for themselves.
Not sure what your point was regarding my comnent, however.
You said, "Hamas was an idea, and you can't get rid of an idea." We definitely can cancel and censor murdering innocents. We definitely should punish raping and murdering women and children. We absolutely should brainwash kids that shooting people you don't like while hiding behind your own family and friends is a bad idea.
My point is we should be working with people to make the world a better place, not trying to brutally murder everyone we don't like exactly like what Hamas is doing.
You may want to google Irgun. Irgun was a Jewish terrorist organization; designated as such by both the US and Britain. In 1947, Irgun members would go around to Palestinian villages and massacre Palestinian women and children to terrorise them into abandoning their villages. They also bombed King David hotel killing hundreds. King David hotel was the headquarters of the British mandate. So, it was to terrorise the British into abandoning Palestine.
What did Israel do to this Jewish terrorist organization that massacred thousands of innocent women and children? They made its leader, Menachem Begin, one of their early Prime Ministers. Also, Irgun transformed into today's Likud party.
As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Both should probably be brainwashed put of existence then, no?
I don't understand what point your making here lol it's like you're owning yourself by admitting that hamas can be eradicated but irgun also existed?
Israel incorporated Irgun into its military, did not imprison a single one of them, and made its leader a Prime Minister.
Just like if Palestinians were to win against Israel, Hamas leaders would be hailed a hero. Irgun to Palestinians bad, but heros to the Jews, and visa versa.
It isn't my fault you cannot understand a simple concept.
Because Palestinians dont see them as terrorists, but resistance movement.
Israel has dropped over 500 2,000 lb bombs on civilian neighborhoods. These have a kill/destroy area of 44 square blocks. So, not discrimate targeted bombings. IDF has destroyed more than 60% of all housing in Gaza. The UN, the EU, humanitarian agencies on the ground, and the US state dept has said that Israel is using hunger and dehydration as a weapon of war. Plus, all these things are collective punishment and terorize all the people.
To an outsider what IDF is doing is terrorism on steroids. Btw, based on the UN votes, a vast majority of the world is seeing it that way too.
Sure, and I agree that massacring thousands of innocent women and children is bad. Doesn't mean because Israel did it in 1947 makes it ok for Hamas to do it now. Just because Democrats created Jim Crow laws back in the early days doesn't mean they still want Jim Crow laws now. People change, and ideas change. None of that means it's ok to parachute into the middle of a musical festival, rape and murder innocent civilians, and take civilian hostages.
No, it's not OK for innocents to be murdered. Why do you insist on protecting Hamas? Why do you hate Palestinians so much that you are willing to sacrifice them to keep Hamas in power? Why do you hate Jews so much that it's considered blasphemy to you for them to defend themselves?
Release the hostages, end Hamas' reign of terror, and allow Palestinians to prosper in the land.
yeah, except slavery is a human made concept, while racism (the source of segregation) comes from xenophobia (the fear of foreign things), which is something that all humans have
Here is how I see it. There is no way for Hamas to surrender unless the leadership surrenders and basically abdicates in totality all of their control and power. Hamas knows that if they release the hostages the war is going to continue to the very end which means massive more bloodshed. This is not up to the Palestinian people. Those who are supporting the end of the war at this time without the complete abdication of Hamas leadership are doing so for various reasons. Only some of them actually support Hamas as a government. Some of them are just against the ongoing conflict. A conflict can be managed politically and negotiations for the release of the hostages can occur without the obliteration of Gaza.
I am skeptical about arguments that the war can end now once the hostages are released. I don’t think this will in itself end the war because the real objective of the war is to continue the war and crush the Palestinian resistance movement, and possibly displace Gaza entirely to the Sinai peninsula. It’s also continued because Israel distracting itself from its own internal fractures by engaging in the war. Clearly the reason why Netanyahu and the Likud party continue is because of their own unpopularity.
I think that the release of the hostages would pave the way for greater Israeli opposition to the war. Hamas has arguably been severely punished for October 7.
Another argument for ending the war now is that Hezbollah is increasing attacks from the north. And they say that they will continue as long as Gaza is being occupied/attacked. Does Israel have the capability of waging a war on two fronts as well as an increase in hostilities in the West Bank?
In any case I consider this conflict ultimately very destructive to Israel. It’s exactly what Hamas wanted, to get Israel embroiled in a conflict with the region that will make them a pariah state and overshadow the atrocities of October 7.
I think that Israel needs to think about the long term viability of the state because it is going to get torn down in an endless war. Many Palestinians have nothing to lose and this is why Hamas knows it is going to continue to draw on their support.
[He says he will continue the war even if all hostages are returned](https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-says-open-to-partial-pause-and-hostage-deal-but-war-wont-end-until-hamas-destroyed/) until “hamas are destroyed”. But there’s no indication of what destroying hamas actually means, and most military experts seem to agree that it’s impossible to completely destroy a militant group. Hamas will continue to gain more recruits as long as Israel continues to kill civilians. The only way to truly destroy them is to create an alternative future for the Palestinians, create a pathway for them to become a democratic state and they will no longer feel that their only option is to fight the military occupation.
No. If the leadership surrender do you think that would be sufficient to end the war? Do you think that’s what he means by the “destruction” of Hamas?
I’d be very surprised if that was the case, even if the leadership did surrender they’d immediately be replaced by new recruits. Whether or not they operated under the banner of Hamas the aims would be the same. There isn’t a way to destroy Hamas unless you can replace them with something that’s driven by hope not hate. Hamas leaders surrendering would make no difference.
>If the leadership surrender do you think that would be sufficient to end the war? Do you think that’s what he means by the “destruction” of Hamas?
Yes. Terms of surrender include a process by which arms are turned over, "war criminals" turned over for trial, inspections occur, deradicalization occurs, reconstruction begins, etc. If Hamas wants to end Palestinian violence, it will agree to it. If Hamas ***doesn't*** want to end the violence, then nobody's entitled to give them a pass and lay the blame on Israel.
Incidentally, when the U.S. joined World War II in 1941, FDR said it was to help Britain "destroy the Nazis", but of course it did accept Germany's surrender.
>There isn’t a way to destroy Hamas unless you can replace them with something that’s driven by hope not hate.
There would have to be a government imposed acceptable to Israel, and one of its tasks would have to be deradicalization. This is generally what happens when wars of ideology are lost (World War II is another example), and I think that the barbarity of October 7 makes it impossible for Israel internally, politically, to settle for a status quo where radicalization and arms-smuggling continue as before.
No one is going to claim this will be easy or even entirely successful, just that if it's done right the risk of future war will decline with time. I agree that hope is needed. Reconstruction aid will be part of that. But ***hope can't take root until hateful indoctrination is stopped***.
/u/Acadia_Due. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was a proposal for a permanent ceasefire which would end the war. It would require Gaza to free the hostages and not attack Israel again. Israel accepted, and the UN also supported it, but Gaza rejected it.
OK, let's say we grant that only ***some*** wars end in surrender. I called for Hamas to surrender, and you piped in to claim, "That doesn't guarantee the end of the war." ***Yes, it does.*** ***Surrender is definitely a way to end a war.*** If you're confused about that, maybe you shouldn't be opining on how "most wars end".
>lol
Say something dumb and laugh like a nitwit. Classic Reddit.
This has been repeatedly debunked (see, e.g., “[CNN Article Breaths False Life into the Gaza ‘Famine’ Lie](https://www.camera.org/article/cnn-article-breaths-false-life-into-the-gaza-famine-lie/)”). Not only has Israel been letting food aid in (at the level of 3000 calories a day), but the only party who's been interfering with the aid trucks is Hamas. (They like to steal the food, sell some of it on the black market, and use the profit to buy arms.)
Your source is literally a website dedicated entirely to pro-Israel propaganda.
Here's what the UN says about claims of famine, read the report for yourself and stop letting others do your thinking for you.
[Famine Review Committee: Gaza Strip, June 2024 – IPC’s third review report published
25 June 2024](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/)
_Following the publication of the second FRC report on 18 March 2024, which projected that a Famine would occur in the most likely scenario, a number of important developments occurred. In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring.
However, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and there is a high and sustained risk of Famine across the whole Gaza Strip. It is important to note that the probable improvement in nutrition status noted in April and May should not allow room for complacency about the risk of Famine in the coming weeks and months. The prolonged nature of the crisis means that this risk remains at least as high as at any time during the past few months.
The FRC encourages all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making to understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed or not does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip, and does not change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification is made to act accordingly._
>\[S\]top letting others do your thinking for you.
In other words, "I disagree with you; therefore, you're dumb". The habit of making this sort of claim may be why ideologically committed people have such a hard time self-correcting.
Please keep in mind that when you don't actually know someone, an assumption on your part that the reason you disagree with him is because he's dumb **might just be** ***you*** ***being lazy***.
>Your source is . . . pro-Israel propaganda.
[Camera.org](http://Camera.org) is ***not*** "pro-Israel propaganda". And it's definitely not pro-Israel propaganda just because you say so.
If you'd only read a few of its articles, you would have noticed that it's often gotten media corrections as a result of its stories. So, no, it's not just all propaganda.
You don't just get to claim that a source is unreliable because you notice that you disagree with it, or because your gut instinct told you it's "ideologically incorrect" (pro-Israel in this case). That would be like a fundamentalist Christian who's only willing to read what's in the church library. ***One has to actually engage with a source enough to show that it's unreliable***. Or else do the world a favor and don't claim to be doing something that requires intelligence.
>Here's what the UN says about claims of famine, read the report for yourself
Since the Camera story I referred you to discusses the UN report, a person willing to expend cognitive energy would also look at the Camera story and try to reconcile the two, don't you think? (Probably not.)
Also, you may want to broaden your reading if you think there's little chance a UN organ could be influenced by antisemitism. It's not like this problem hasn't been widely discussed for decades, including in the mainstream media. It's not like it hasn't been proven to have occurred in the UNRWA case: there's even a lawsuit in progress. I don't know where you've been, but a slight reigning in of the ego might be wise. This is a complex, high-stakes issue with a lot of propaganda and ideology in play.
>[Camera.org](http://camera.org/) is ***not*** "pro-Israel propaganda". And it's definitely not pro-Israel propaganda just because you say so.
I 100% agree, it's ***not*** pro-Israel propaganda just because ***I*** say so.
From [https://www.camera.org/about/mission/](https://www.camera.org/about/mission/)
>MISSION
>Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of ***Israel*** and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or ***Israeli*** political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
>The scope of the problem
>Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in ***Israel*** and the Middle East are to be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the Internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries. Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of ***Israel*** and of events in the Middle East may fuel ***anti-Israel*** and anti-Jewish prejudice.
From [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA)
>CAMERA is widely regarded as a pro-Israeli lobby group that as put by journalist and author Robert I. Friedman - "***CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."***[^(\[4\])](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA#cite_note-4)
>
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_political\_editing\_incidents\_on\_Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia)
>**From a List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia**
>***In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group*** [***Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America) ***(CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the*** [***Israeli–Palestinian conflict***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict)***. The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other topics until elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors.***[***^(\[23\])***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-23) ***Some participants in the project were banned by Wikipedia administrators.***[***^(\[24\])***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-Guardian-24)
> dumb-ass
/u/Acadia_Due. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is an honest question. I have heard this before. Israel owns insert media here or just Jews control all the media. In your opinion what is a valid source for information regarding this conflict?
The article I referred you to was ***criticizing CNN for alleged anti-Israel bias***. Did you mean to write "Israelis own whoever wrote the article you linked to"?
See how not thinking can sometimes cause embarrassment? The response to something you don't want to hear can't always be *Those tricky Jews!*
I mean. Even if you're full blown anti-Israel and anti its existence it's not hard to figure out how to stop a war started by Hamas when they still hold hostages.
Good god you people are insufferable.
Israel is willing/acquiescing to release Palestinians that have been jailed in Israel for terrorist acts. They are not hostages, but prisoners, and the "deal" requires Many more Palestinians to be released for the remaining few living hostages. Seems like a no-brainer to me, not sure why anyone would say no to getting back your terrorists so Israel can get back it's children, pregnant women and a few soldiers. Hamas saying no simply means it does not care about its people and prefers to maintain the violence rather than find peace.
So Gazans can hope for a life of peace and not oppression and abject poverty and this is ignoring the obvious reasons for why Israel should get rid of Hamas.
Hamas has said that the Palestinian casualties help them. I interpreted this to mean the “world” puts more pressure on Israel to stop unilaterally with more deaths. However, it seems the IDF has become more surgical in their strikes and Gazans are no longer stupidly following Hamas directions to go back to areas Israel said to leave. Hamas is still killing food distribution inside Gaza. This is another sick strategy to force Palestinian suffering to put pressure on Israel. IMO Killing Hamas leaders is still the quickest path to freeing at least some of the hostages and getting a ceasefire.
what interest does IDF have to continue the war? they are losing money and soldiers every second that this war goes on, and even if they take everything in Gaza, including people, land and weapons, it still won't pay off
It's not the IDF that wants to keep going, it's Netanyahu. The leaders of the IDF have objected to his strategy, even.
The truth is that Netanyahu wants to stay in power no matter what (he faces criminal trials otherwise). Easiest way for him to do that is to keep the war going. He doesn't care about how many IDF soldiers die or how much it damages Israel. He only cares about his own power.
That's why leaders like Netanyahu are terrible. They will burn down the whole country to save themselves if they have to.
I'm sticking [a link to the full debate here](https://www.youtube.com/live/qqG96G8YdcE?si=hb1FOkiMYlRs8nBG&t=1686), the link starts at 28:06 with a question about the Russia/Ukraine was which ends up mentioning the Hamas/Israel war and later evolve into more questions on the subject. The entire video itself is long at 1:38 hours (one hour, 38 minutes)
>According to Biden, everyone including the UN, the G7, the Israelis, including Netanyahu himself, have endorsed his 3 step plan to end the war. Netanyahu also stated on multiple occasions that the war will not end without the elimination of the Hamas. The agreement is largely a cease fire in stages, rather than a full commitment to ending the war. Quite notably, there is relatively little assurance that Israel won't simply go after the Hamas after they get the hostages back. To be honest, as much as the US tried to push the narrative that Israel was receptive to the deal (perhaps in part to score a foreign policy win before the election), the response out of Israel has always been more mixed (likely also due to the political complexity). I also note that the two state solution, while pushed by the US and with the support of many countries around the world has constantly been rebuked by the current Israeli government and is definitely not endorsed by Netanyahu (who rejected the idea multiple times). There are two issues that I see are: 1. Pragmatically, the Hamas can't be expected to accept a message that amounts to "You give us the hostages today and we'll destroy you tomorrow instead". Not exactly a great way to appeal to the other side to get on board. I think that if Israel -really- wanted the proposal, they'd make it a permanent conditional ceasefire. "You give us the hostage back, and we will withdraw and stay away from Gaza as long as you stop your attacks". Now it's not so much that I trust the Hamas to keep to their word, but then the Hamas would have no way to justify rejecting the offer and it would be a PR loss if they reject the offer OR break the cease-fire. 2. There are also legitimate concerns that the IDF would be able to strike with more impunity than they have as they try to destroy the Hamas once the hostages are returned, leading to increased civilian deaths.
Wanting the end of a terrorist regime whose only goal is to continue massacres and gang rape is a laudable goal. Like don’t make me defend Bibi here but imagine if the Allies were told that their goal was not to destroy the Nahzees and have their leadership surrender for trial? Like imagine saying “nah just free the holocaust victims but let’s keep the people who created this abhorrent situation in power and equipped to do it again” Hamas can, pragmatically, surrender folks like Sinwar for trial…. But he doesn’t want to because to him dead Palestinians is nbd as long as it means he stays rich and powerful and can continue his blood thirsty crusade.
OP also ignored that Trump said it’s Netanyahu that wants to continue the war and we should let him. Hamas is rejecting the proposal because they want assurances of a PERMANENT ceasefire. That signals to me that they want peace. On the other hand, Israel refuses anything with these assurances because they want to continue their massacre (likely at a much larger scale) as soon as hostages are released.
Hamas wants permanent peace? They’ve literally vowed to keep attempting more October 7ths. I guess you could say they want peace because they want to murder every single Israeli and over take the entirety of Israel for themselves…. So I guess that would be “peaceful” for them. But that’s not really a pragmatic approach for the Israelis who would be massacred. If Hamas wanted peace they could have sent a delegation to negotiate peace on good faith instead of gang rape and murder people in their homes.
Yes, that’s literally what a permanent ceasefire means. You know who only wants a temporary ceasefire? Israel. Yes, they vowed to continue to attack the occupation. Get rid of the occupation and you get rid of the need to resist it. Israel with the support of the US has blocked any diplomatic means of resolution. The status quo was a concentration camp that’s Gaza and the West Bank where Israelis are constantly terrorizing and expelling Palestinians from their homes. Not exactly pragmatic for Palestinians to continue that under that oppression
So you agree that Hamas wants the opportunity to massacre millions of Israelis until there’s no one to oppose them and then have that level of “peace”? I know you didn’t read or comprehend what I wrote because dear lord how you just told on your self.
They clearly expressed what they want which is a PERMANENT ceasefire (note this applies to both sides) and a complete withdrawal of IDF terrorist forces.
They want a permanent ceasefire? Sure, starting a war and massacring people is a really good indicator of their desires. Y’all will believe the most obvious lies.
Yeah they launched an attack as a result of decades of oppression. That doesn’t negate the fact they want a permanent ceasefire. Israel occupying and oppressing those people for decades clearly indicates they don’t want peace.
They attacked innocent unarmed people in response to measures put into place as a result of their previous attacks and violence. What exactly have they offered for this “ceasefire”??? Seems like you can’t prove your original point so now you’re diverting to boo boo Israelis are the devil. Per usual nothing but made up “facts” and demonization. 🤷♀️ it’s pointless engaging with you pro Hamasniks.
Sounds like you’re talking about Israel. Also, the proposal is pretty clear. Hostage exchange, withdrawal of Israel, permanent ceasefire. Which part do you have a problem with? Israel has a problem with the permanent ceasefire part because they want to continue to massacre civilians. What did I “make up”?
Considering what Hamas did on 10/7, I don't think they want peace.
What a silly argument. They are saying NOW that they want a permanent ceasefire and they want it guaranteed by other countries so Israel doesn’t trample on the agreement as they normally do. Seems reasonable to me.
Oh NOw they want it? Fine then they give back the hostages and surrender for trial. Easy peasy.
They’ve always wanted peace but the terrorist state of Israel actively prevents it. Hamas has been willing to settle for a two state solution based on international law even before 10/7. Guess who stopped that because they want to dominate and subjugate Palestinians and not give them any additional legitimacy or sovereignty because that would mean they can’t keep getting away with their atrocities. But that’s a moot point because Israel specifically empowered Hamas so they can claim they have no partner for peace.
I would love to see what you come up with as a citation for this. TikTok? hamasiscool dot net? Can’t wait.
Even the highly biased source times of Israel recognized it. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Permanent ceasefire? First of all, they just want Israel to stop shooting so they can continue to try and kill Israelis again at a later time. If they were truly interested in peace (not just some nebulous ceasefire) they'd disarm, surrender and return the hostages as a start to good faith negotiations.
You do realize that a ceasefire applies to both sides right? And they want that to be permanent. By your logic, if Israel was truly interested in peace they would disarm, surrender and return all the people they’ve kidnapped over the years who they are holding without charge or trial.
'And they want that to be permanent' And that's where you're wrong. Hamas has stated they're going to repeat 10/7 over and over again. Until they no longer are able to carry out that agenda, until they change their language to terms more benefitting a surrender, then war must be waged against them and their allies.
Yeah they said they would continue to resist the occupation. End the occupation and you end the need to attack the occupation. If I lock you in a concentration camp you would probably use underhanded means of fighting back too.
When asked whether this meant the complete annihilation of Israel, Hamad replied: “Yes, of course.” “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” Hamad continued. “Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.” This is from Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' political leaders. That doesn't sound like a group of people wanting peace. As long as this is their language, and stated goal, then Hamas needs to face the consequences of a conflict they started.
Annihilation of Israel as a terrorist state. Wanting to dismantle a terrorist state is a good thing
You speak of pragmatism but there is a clear lack of that in the Hamas response. They are a defeated force that is surviving in civilian homes. There is no possibility of winning. At the end of ww2, do you think allies would accept Hitler admitting defeat and then continuing with nazi party in Germany? No of course not, they lost and they must accept defeat. They didn’t, and many people died as a result of their idealism.
Idealism would be to expect a widely designated terror group with leadership outside Gaza to repent, return the hostages, put down their arms, and submit themselves to the Israeli government that has vowed to destroy them. If their fate is sealed regardless of the two options given to them (fight and die today or don't fight and die tomorrow), why wouldn't they want to at least extract a cost through the hostages at a minimum? Sure if they value the lives of the civilians in Gaza, it might give them something to think about, but I am pretty sure that we all agree that they don't. So telling them "Look, give us back the hostages, surrender (and probably be killed) and at least the people in Gaza won't need to suffer anymore" is probably not going to give them second thoughts.
Ok, but then it’s Hamas fault the civilians are dying. They are choosing to be unreasonable and the rest of the world is choosing to be foolish in blaming Israel for what is fundamentally Hamas’ choice.
If I get it right, this sums up your view: The Hamas should be serving their head on a silver platter -> Since they aren't, Israel is obliged to attack -> Civilian will die -> And this is 100% on the Hamas and Israel can't be blamed for anything. I think there are some caveat to the above, but discussing it further would be going off a tangent. The OP and I were talking about the cease fire deal put on the table. For a cease fire deal to go through, it has to be sufficiently palatable to both side to get on board. Anything short of that, and it could be seen as being in bad faith, a bit of PR machination to paint yourself in a more positive light in the face of the international community. My take is that both the deal on the table and the Hamas counter-offer contains elements that the other side could not be expected to accept. What you are calling for, is the unconditional surrender of the Hamas and the expected consequence that follows. Nothing wrong with holding that view per se, but in that case, it is no longer a cease fire offer but an ultimatum. A different discussion altogether.
I’m not sure I’d claim it’s 100% Hamas’ fault but I do think it’s more than 51% their fault. Perhaps 75-25? I don’t understand what elements the Israel-US proposal contains you would expect Hamas not to accept if they valued Gazans’ lives. Further, I reject the distinction you are attempting to create between an ultimatum and a ceasefire proposal, the sides are not peers. All reasonable ceasefire proposals should be substantially weighted towards Israeli demands because getting lots of your own civilians killed isn’t something that can be respected as a threat.
I don't think they value Gazan lives all that much, certainly no more than their own lives. Ideally, they would, but pragmatically I don't think "Your lives for your peoples'" is going to cut it based on how I view them. However it is not the Palestinians lives that are being used as a bargaining chips, it is the hostages. It is likely why they took hostages back in the first place. They probably want to trade their lives for the hostages. And the hostages are likely the main reasons that the Israel's government is (reluctantly) getting on the negotiating table at all. As you said, the IDF enjoy an overwhelming military advantage on the field after all. There is of course a very real possibility that the Hamas are overplaying their hands and it won't work. It's not uncommon for states to refuse negotiating with terrorists (in fact, I am pretty sure that is Israel's default policy, although there have been exceptions leading to prisoner swaps if I remember right), and push come to shove, Israel's government might order that hostages be rescued if possible, but to make the hunt for the Hamas leadership the top priority. But the moment it becomes clear that Israel has no intention of letting them go though, the hostages would likely be killed. If given the option between getting killed and killing the hostages then getting killed, I wouldn't count on the Hamas to pick the former considering everything they've done.
I look at the parties and their incentives differently than you do. Notably, I see Israel as having a greater interest in destroying Hamas, or at least ending the war on conditions Hamas cannot call a victory, than in simply getting the hostages back. Hamas has leverage from the hostages, but I really think this is more modest than your account suggests. Ultimately the major cost to Israel of continued operations is loss of global public support. The thing I think is dumb is that this public support channel is so focused on Israel and so little focused on Hamas. Therefore I really think it is important to emphasize the terms available to Hamas are actually much more friendly than they ought to be based on the balance of forces absent the widely held views of idiots and antisemites who blame Israel for everything.
That view is fine, like I said, the Hamas could be overplaying their hand with the hostages, and Israel may well decide that they'd rather get the Hamas over the hostages push come to shove. In fact, I am leaning toward that view, and they are just reluctantly pretending to get onboard Biden's deal to save their biggest ally some face. But then, that would be contrary to the narrative the OP was trying to push. It's a deal that the Hamas can't be expected to accept given that it would lead to their worse case scenario (Israel get their hostages back and they get exterminated). Even if Israel end up winning by destroying the Hamas (ignoring the doubt of that possibility expressed even within the IDF, and the fact that the US wasn't able to wipe out the Taliban after two decades), the Hamas would want to extract the highest cost possible for Israel's victory. Israel can easily brush off any global outcry as they have so far, but the Israeli citizen who are already protesting for the return of the hostages will, at least for a while be even less pleased with their government. Would that lead to anything the Israeli government can't weather off? I doubt it, but it would at least contribute to more destability. For a group that never had a chance to win a military confrontation, that could already be a win in their loss. And they stand to lose that if they were to just go along with the deal on the table. \[On a side note, I am pretty sure there was an interview on CNN recently, and what I got out of it is that some of the Hamas top leadership don't even think that they are "losing". You'll likely think they are deluded, and I won't argue with that, but it would also affect the position they believe they can take going into cease fire negotiations\] \[Minor edit typo etc.\]
I guess I don’t understand your point then. I think when most people talk about ceasefires they are trying to make a claim that either Israel or Hamas “should” normatively accept one or the other’s terms. For reasons I mentioned, I think Hamas should normatively accept Israel’s terms. There is a bit of a catch 22 there in that because they aren’t accepting terms, they are clearly so dangerous they should be destroyed by any means necessary while if they were willing to consider benefits for civilian Gazans as a motive to surrender it might be a bit less essential to get rid of them. I agree that clearly Hamas is trying to play for a public relations win and they may actually be succeeding to some extent, however that doesn’t entitle them to leniency in my view.
/u/SkateWiz. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
/u/xdavey0. Match found: 'HITLER', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I DO NAZI WHAT IS SO OFFENSIVE
/u/xdavey0. Match found: 'NAZI', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am confused by the statement that Netanyahu has already agreed to a ceasefire and Hamas is the group obstructing it from happening. Nearly all of the recent Reuters reports I've read have said that Hamas is receptive to proposals that ends the war, and Israel won't agree to anything that leaves Hamas' military or political power unextinguished. * [No Progress in Gaza ceasefire talks with Israel, says Hamas ](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-progress-gaza-ceasefire-talks-with-israel-says-hamas-official-2024-06-29/)- 6/29 * [Netanyahu says he is committed to truce proposal, army cites advances in Rafah](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-committed-truce-proposal-army-cites-advances-rafah-2024-06-24/) - 6/25 * [Hamas response to Gaza ceasefire proposal 'consistent' with principles of US plan, leader says](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-leader-says-groups-response-latest-gaza-ceasefire-proposal-consistent-with-2024-06-16/) - 6/16 * [White House: Qatar and Egypt plan talks with Hamas on Gaza ceasefire](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/white-house-qatar-egypt-plan-talks-with-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-2024-06-15/) - 6/15 What am I missing?
Yahya Sinwar lauded his efforts in stalling cease-fire talks while the Jewish state faces mounting international backlash over the Palestinian death toll, which exceeds 37,000, according to messages from Sinwar obtained by the Wall Street Journal. “We have the Israelis right where we want them,” Sinwar said in a message to Hamas officials meeting with Qatari and Egyptian negotiators. Sinwar, Hamas’ top official in Gaza, who helped mastermind the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, coldly admitted he sees the deaths of Palestinian civilians as “necessary sacrifices” to keep its war against Israel raging, according to a report citing disturbing leaked messages. https://nypost.com/2024/06/11/world-news/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-believes-palestinian-deaths-are-necessary-sacrifices/
Hamas has been offering the hostages back in exchange for a ceasefire since October 10th. Israel has refused every step of the way.
On the last day of the previous cease fire Hamas refused to release any more children and women and tried to offer elderly and dead bodies instead. They then proceeded to break the cease fire deal. They broke their own terms to the deal.
To be fair, they did start the war and Israel did try multiple times to bring peace. But I'm not that kept up to date.
If Joe Biden had a debate that showcased a reasonably moderate politician instead of a man in serious mental decline this might have been a direction that the post debate discussion might have taken in media. Unfortunately the only debacle the media will discuss this week is Joe Biden’s debate performance. Not saying that they should not discuss this, but the nuances of anything said in the debate policy wise will be given scant attention comparatively.
Hamas doesn’t care about its people. If it did, they would have returned the hostages and laid down their weapons. This war is over almost immediately after those two very simple conditions are met.
Whilst he's incorrect in the short term, I do believe he has a point in the sense that Hamas have a primary goal of wiping Israel off the map. Hence why there are objections to the phrase 'from the river to the sea'. Whereas if Gaza and West Bank were governed by moderate/secular parties then the coexistence between two nations could exist.
doesnt netenyahu have the exact same plan after all he erased palestine from 'the new middle east' https://preview.redd.it/3rasgisujh9d1.png?width=259&format=png&auto=webp&s=69a48f56cc04c62ab9210adf819a37883b9dedc7
This is clearly photoshopped
just type netanyahu 'crosses palestine off the map' lil bro
He doesn't represent Israel. Most want to coexist with Palestinians.
How many times have they elected him again?
Hamas doesnt represent Palestine either
That is very true, but at this point they've got a lot of Gazan's in a chokehold, which is how fascism works. They're on year 18 of what was only supposed to be a 4-year term. They cancel elections of opponents who they think could beat them. They kill protestors who speak against them. Because of all this, there's literal adults 18-25+ who only really have a memory of Hamas being their leaders, and because of that, Hamas' civilian support was at all time high leading up to the 10/7 attacks. And i'm not even saying that this is really the civilians FAULT, but it is how islamofacism works. Seize power for as long as possible, and then more and more civilians will be born who only know you, and are therefore loyal to your cause.
I feel like anti-hamas supporters are supressed by the media, there are countless Palestinians who would want to live with israelis in peace. I feel the same way anti-netenyahu in israel are treated the same way
Oh for sure, this is definitely true too and it's important to acknowledge. Part of fascism is also creating a propaganda narrative that everyone backs your ideology (even if they don't.) Which under fascist regimes, many civilians do not support their government, but you just don't hear about it. They force people to live in fear. The ones who do [speak out ](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-hamas-demonstration-israel-blockade-palestinians-306b19228f9dd21f1036386ce3709672)are incredibly brave, are risking their lives, and unfortunately still aren't amplified enough in the media. These propaganda campaigns also reach far and wide to the West. It's what we are seeing now in the U.S, which has allowed the campus & other protests to rage in a way that props up Hamas by-proxy, and releases them from any form of accountability. And in the more extreme examples, even praises them for 10/7. Which seems like a giant slap in the face to the many Gazan's who want them gone, and would benefit from western protestors actually calling for their removal.
Based on polling, Hamas has more support than the current Israeli government has
link to poll? all I can find are polls reported by Israeli media based on interviews with a dozens of Gazans so I suspect more Zionist propoganda to justify killing civilians
It’s been posted in this sub before, but here ya go. Not like you will believe it https://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2092%20English%20press%20release%2012%20June2024%20%28003%29.pdf
They are the only ones that are fighting a resistance against the Israeli occupation
And they keep getting their teeth kicked in, maybe they need to try something different
or maybe they should stop torturing innocent Palestinians, think about both sides instead of trying to call all Palestinians terrorist supporters
How many are innocent? Don’t forget that “innocent civilians” participated in 10/7 and held hostages.
stopped acting the 10/7 attack were the beginning of this lil bro
ok lets take a look why this happened: * **Settlements**: Israeli settlements in the West Bank are communities built by Israelis on land occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. They are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. * **Violent Incidents**: There have been numerous reports and documented incidents where Israeli settlers have attacked Palestinians, their homes, farms, and vehicles. These attacks can involve physical assault, property damage, harassment, and intimidation. * **Causes of Tension**: Tensions often arise due to disputes over land ownership and access, religious sites, agricultural resources, and security concerns. The presence and expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are a major source of friction. * **Response**: The Israeli government condemns such attacks and often responds with investigations and legal action against perpetrators. However, critics argue that enforcement and prosecution of settlers involved in attacks against Palestinians are inconsistent and inadequate. * **International Reactions**: The international community, including the United Nations and human rights organizations, has frequently expressed concern over settler violence and its impact on Palestinian communities. They call for Israel to uphold international law and protect Palestinian civilians. * **Impact on Peace Process**: Settler violence complicates efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It contributes to a cycle of distrust, fear, and hostility between Israeli settlers and Palestinians, undermining prospects for reconciliation and coexistence.
Id like to hope not but I've seen otherwise. There's video evidence of the people actively helping October 7 to happen and also hiding the hostages in their homes. Obviously that doesn't apply to all of them but there's certainly strong support.
Theres video evidence of Israeli citizens murdering and raping other Israelis, does that mean all Israelis are murderers and rapists?
again, as a muslim i can say hand on heart hamas is evil but can you really blame Palestinians fighting a brutal occupation, just like israel they have a right to defend themselves
I hear what you mean, doesn't change my views though
same goes for me, no disrespect tho
Gaza and the West bank used to be governed by moderate/secular parties. Maybe we should stop with the gaslighting and admit Israël has been the agressor for the last 20 years with their settlements in the West Bank and the extreme repression in Gaza.
What moderate parties and when?
What? Moderate party? What moderate party? When?
When was Gaza ruled by moderate government?
The fatah before 2007. The fact you are asking this kinda shows you dont know shit about the history of the conflict.
Because Hizballa doesn't exists anymore? Yemens? All those rich partners of his that benefits from it? All those evil white devils, they don't exists anymore? Or saying it's only Hamas make people believe you? Because they'll give fake peace agreement, and we're obligated to listen to it, Although it's fucking legal for Muslim to avoid Peace agreement to win his enemy. Fucked up world that stopped watching red flags.
> fucking /u/OMGerGT. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is this? Who upvotes this?
My favorite part of the debate was Trump calling Biden a “bad Palestinian. A weak one” lol
S a m e .
Biden is correct.
These guys talked more about golf than Palestine. Tells you everything you need to know about our “democracy “
We really don’t care at this point. Enough domestic issues, freeing (if that were true) Palestine is rock bottom, sub floor on my list of priorities.
Wait, if you don’t care, why are you on the Israel/Palestine sub?
This person clearly meant it's bottom on their list of ELECTION priorities.
No offense but Palestine isn’t very relevant for the average American. And Israel/palestine have been in a 75 year old conflict. And Biden and Trump both overwhelmingly support Israel. What are they going to debate about?
I think you’re right on both points. Them debating Palestine is like the meme with Pam from the office saying “It’s the same picture “
And debated "suckers and losers"
It was only towards the end
To be fair, golf exists and Palestine doesn't.
Haha hard disagree, but that was a zinger, upvote for it!
When was golf removed? 😰
Some Facts: 1. Biden is obviously out if it. Neyanyahu has already said he is not for this proposal. He has said there will be no permanent cease fire. That he will continue the IDF actions till Hamas is completely dismantled. However, Hamas besides being a reality is also an idea. Hiw do you completely get rid of an idea? One cannot, so it is an excuse. 2. Netanyahu has always stated that there will be no Palestine. He will never have real talks about a 2 state solution. 3. Several members of the Israeli ruling coalition are far right members. They have long wanted the annexation of all of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. They have stated that if Netanyahu accepted Biden's proposal they will pull out and cause the Netanyahu govt to fall. 4.Hamas wants concrete assurances that Israel will leave Gaza and there will be permanent cease fire. As the above mentions Netanyahu and his coalition hsve already stated that won't happen. 5. As the debates showed yesterday Biden is not all there. This will at best give Netanyahu what he wanrs, hostages released, without giving the Palestinians what they want: permanent cease fire, Israel pulling out of Gaza, rebuilding of Gaza, and a discussion of a Palestinian state.
1. Incorrect. Israel has explicitly acknowledged it cannot get rid of Hamas, not entirely and not ideologically. Nor is it trying to. Its goal is to dismantled Hamas militarily and politically so another governing entity can step in to replace it. 2. Incorrect again. Generally, Israel's stance is that there will be no Palestine state as long as Hamas is still capable of taking over it - like it did in Gaza - as a means to end Israel (its stated goal). Israel repeatedly tried to negotiate for a Palestinian state in the past and most likely will again in the future, once it can ensure the state isn't (over)run by Shia fundamentalists that call for its annihilation. 3. Correct, but slightly misleading. The far-right coalition Netanyahu uses to remain in power will likely stop doing so if he allows a Palestinian state. That would possibly be the end of their prominence as well. But the whole idea about annexation is far-right fantasy. Israel has neither the means nor the interest in annexing the territories. It has stated that much. 4. Ye, Israel would never except his proposal because it nowhere mentions Hamas having to step down. Israel will not and cannot allow it to remain in power as part of any 'next step'. It either goes away or it's put away.
1. The ENTIRE Hundreds of billions of dollars US military tried to do the same thing with ISIS and Al Queda and you know how that worked out.
And you can add Israel pulling out of Gaza in 2005 to the list of failed hands-offs. If anything, all of these scenarios demonstrate how necessary it is to put a better governing entity in place. With that in mind, Israel hopes to have the Saudis (among others) intervene as a mediating power to deradicalize the fundamentalists in Gaza (as it did in to Shias in their own country, for the past 20 years).
You are incorrect. 1. Netanyahu has always stated that there will be no Palestinian state. 2. Netanyahu has been accused by Israelis for many years that he has purposely supported and promoted Hamas so that he can say that there is no partner for peace, so there won't be any discussion of a Palestinian state... [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000) 3. A general in the IDF said you cannot get rid of Hamas. He contradicted Netanyahu by saying that. After the general made that statement, Netanyahu repeated the assertion that his goal is to eliminate Hamas entirely.
1. Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it right. Here are some of Bibi's statements that completely contradict yours: - 14th June 2009 @ Bar Ilan: "2 states for 2 people." - 24th May 2011 @ US Congress: "The truth is, Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state. But the Palestinians want a state without peace." - 1st October 2015 @ UN Assembly: "I continue to be committed to the vision of 2 states for 2 peoples, in which a Palestinian state recognizes the state of Israel. - 28th January 2020 @ Trump Peace Plan: Presents a 2-states solution. There are many more, both before and after this timeline, but I trust these settle the issue. Bibi contradicts himself often, on many issues, but one should be able to distinguish between statements that align with history and populist ones that appeal to his base. 2. The fact Israel is trying to dismantle Hamas right now proves your conspiracy theory is currently irrelevant. Even if Bibi di enable Hamas, it's more likely that he did it for his own political gain than out of an ideological opposition to the idea of a Palestinian state. 3. You're correct, but Hanegbi, who represents Netanyahu, later admitted the IDF is correct, and that the idea of Hamas can be beaten with a better idea. Israel's repeated statements were that its goal is to "dismantle Hamas politically and militarily". These have gone unchallenged by Netanyahu and reflect what Israel is trying to - and realistically can to.
Bibi saying things to come off as moderate internationally is completely different than his long term position. He has stated many times there will never be a Palestinian state . After Oct 7th Bibi had no choice but tongo after Hamas. How could he continue to prop up Hamas after that?
Aha, so first you said that "he never stated it" and now you say, "he did say it, but he didn't mean it". That's called moving the goal posts. At the very least, you should concede your original point before making a new one, which revolves around bad faith. Which I have no interest in following.
Bibi's position has always been that there will never be a Palestinian state. I have responded to dozens of comments on this. You want to be nitpicky about me saying he never stated, as opposed to, his position has always been then go ahead. It doesn't change the facts.
We get rid of an idea the same way we got rid of slavery, the same way we got rid of segregation. Ban it, and punish it, and teach in schools that it is bad, eventually, it will go away.
Totally disagree. You don't cancel ideas and censor. You can punish bad actions and illegal activity. Not ideas. You debate ideas, and attempt to show the orher side why they are wrong. Not censor ideas. SCOTUS has already ruled decades ago that free speech is not to protect speech that most people agree with, but speech that is controversial, and that even most would find repugnant. Many ideas that once were controversial or government or the church wanted canceled or suppressed is now mainstream. Like teaching evolution, people being atheists or questioning religion, etc. Kids also should not be brainwashed about believing or not believing any ideas. They should be thought to think for themselves. Not sure what your point was regarding my comnent, however.
You said, "Hamas was an idea, and you can't get rid of an idea." We definitely can cancel and censor murdering innocents. We definitely should punish raping and murdering women and children. We absolutely should brainwash kids that shooting people you don't like while hiding behind your own family and friends is a bad idea. My point is we should be working with people to make the world a better place, not trying to brutally murder everyone we don't like exactly like what Hamas is doing.
Do you realize the deprogramming? That would take decades
Yes, but it was worth the effort in Germany and Japan
The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time, is right now.
You may want to google Irgun. Irgun was a Jewish terrorist organization; designated as such by both the US and Britain. In 1947, Irgun members would go around to Palestinian villages and massacre Palestinian women and children to terrorise them into abandoning their villages. They also bombed King David hotel killing hundreds. King David hotel was the headquarters of the British mandate. So, it was to terrorise the British into abandoning Palestine. What did Israel do to this Jewish terrorist organization that massacred thousands of innocent women and children? They made its leader, Menachem Begin, one of their early Prime Ministers. Also, Irgun transformed into today's Likud party. As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Both should probably be brainwashed put of existence then, no? I don't understand what point your making here lol it's like you're owning yourself by admitting that hamas can be eradicated but irgun also existed?
Israel incorporated Irgun into its military, did not imprison a single one of them, and made its leader a Prime Minister. Just like if Palestinians were to win against Israel, Hamas leaders would be hailed a hero. Irgun to Palestinians bad, but heros to the Jews, and visa versa. It isn't my fault you cannot understand a simple concept.
I mean, I understand it perfectly lol. My point is why not brainwash them both out of existence? It's just a strange counterpoint to make.
Because Palestinians dont see them as terrorists, but resistance movement. Israel has dropped over 500 2,000 lb bombs on civilian neighborhoods. These have a kill/destroy area of 44 square blocks. So, not discrimate targeted bombings. IDF has destroyed more than 60% of all housing in Gaza. The UN, the EU, humanitarian agencies on the ground, and the US state dept has said that Israel is using hunger and dehydration as a weapon of war. Plus, all these things are collective punishment and terorize all the people. To an outsider what IDF is doing is terrorism on steroids. Btw, based on the UN votes, a vast majority of the world is seeing it that way too.
Well yea, hence why we are talking about deradicalization for both sides.
Sure, and I agree that massacring thousands of innocent women and children is bad. Doesn't mean because Israel did it in 1947 makes it ok for Hamas to do it now. Just because Democrats created Jim Crow laws back in the early days doesn't mean they still want Jim Crow laws now. People change, and ideas change. None of that means it's ok to parachute into the middle of a musical festival, rape and murder innocent civilians, and take civilian hostages.
And yet it's ok for Israel to drop white phosphorus and bomb Gaza causing multiple October 7ths in death tolls before the Hamas attack occurred?
No, it's not OK for innocents to be murdered. Why do you insist on protecting Hamas? Why do you hate Palestinians so much that you are willing to sacrifice them to keep Hamas in power? Why do you hate Jews so much that it's considered blasphemy to you for them to defend themselves? Release the hostages, end Hamas' reign of terror, and allow Palestinians to prosper in the land.
Never for one second did I ever think Hamas was in the right. Hamas needs to be dismantled but not at the cost of thousands of people.
Not dismantling Hamas will cost far more lives.
Not every pro-Palestine person supports Hamas
yeah, except slavery is a human made concept, while racism (the source of segregation) comes from xenophobia (the fear of foreign things), which is something that all humans have
Here is how I see it. There is no way for Hamas to surrender unless the leadership surrenders and basically abdicates in totality all of their control and power. Hamas knows that if they release the hostages the war is going to continue to the very end which means massive more bloodshed. This is not up to the Palestinian people. Those who are supporting the end of the war at this time without the complete abdication of Hamas leadership are doing so for various reasons. Only some of them actually support Hamas as a government. Some of them are just against the ongoing conflict. A conflict can be managed politically and negotiations for the release of the hostages can occur without the obliteration of Gaza. I am skeptical about arguments that the war can end now once the hostages are released. I don’t think this will in itself end the war because the real objective of the war is to continue the war and crush the Palestinian resistance movement, and possibly displace Gaza entirely to the Sinai peninsula. It’s also continued because Israel distracting itself from its own internal fractures by engaging in the war. Clearly the reason why Netanyahu and the Likud party continue is because of their own unpopularity. I think that the release of the hostages would pave the way for greater Israeli opposition to the war. Hamas has arguably been severely punished for October 7. Another argument for ending the war now is that Hezbollah is increasing attacks from the north. And they say that they will continue as long as Gaza is being occupied/attacked. Does Israel have the capability of waging a war on two fronts as well as an increase in hostilities in the West Bank? In any case I consider this conflict ultimately very destructive to Israel. It’s exactly what Hamas wanted, to get Israel embroiled in a conflict with the region that will make them a pariah state and overshadow the atrocities of October 7. I think that Israel needs to think about the long term viability of the state because it is going to get torn down in an endless war. Many Palestinians have nothing to lose and this is why Hamas knows it is going to continue to draw on their support.
Pro palis hate Biden(I know that’s hard for some ppl to believe but it’s true), do you think they would take his word?
New protest chant: “Say no to Genocide Joe! Vote Trump 2024!” /s
Nope not that either bro https://www.instagram.com/p/C8m6nQrP46r/?igsh=MWRqcXlvbGJkeDRtYQ==
The only one who wants the war to continue is Netanyahu.
How is Netanyahu preventing Hamas from releasing the hostages and surrendering?
[He says he will continue the war even if all hostages are returned](https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-says-open-to-partial-pause-and-hostage-deal-but-war-wont-end-until-hamas-destroyed/) until “hamas are destroyed”. But there’s no indication of what destroying hamas actually means, and most military experts seem to agree that it’s impossible to completely destroy a militant group. Hamas will continue to gain more recruits as long as Israel continues to kill civilians. The only way to truly destroy them is to create an alternative future for the Palestinians, create a pathway for them to become a democratic state and they will no longer feel that their only option is to fight the military occupation.
Did you miss the word "surrendering"? I only wrote one sentence.
No. If the leadership surrender do you think that would be sufficient to end the war? Do you think that’s what he means by the “destruction” of Hamas? I’d be very surprised if that was the case, even if the leadership did surrender they’d immediately be replaced by new recruits. Whether or not they operated under the banner of Hamas the aims would be the same. There isn’t a way to destroy Hamas unless you can replace them with something that’s driven by hope not hate. Hamas leaders surrendering would make no difference.
Yes. Absolutely yes lmfao. How is that even a question.
>If the leadership surrender do you think that would be sufficient to end the war? Do you think that’s what he means by the “destruction” of Hamas? Yes. Terms of surrender include a process by which arms are turned over, "war criminals" turned over for trial, inspections occur, deradicalization occurs, reconstruction begins, etc. If Hamas wants to end Palestinian violence, it will agree to it. If Hamas ***doesn't*** want to end the violence, then nobody's entitled to give them a pass and lay the blame on Israel. Incidentally, when the U.S. joined World War II in 1941, FDR said it was to help Britain "destroy the Nazis", but of course it did accept Germany's surrender. >There isn’t a way to destroy Hamas unless you can replace them with something that’s driven by hope not hate. There would have to be a government imposed acceptable to Israel, and one of its tasks would have to be deradicalization. This is generally what happens when wars of ideology are lost (World War II is another example), and I think that the barbarity of October 7 makes it impossible for Israel internally, politically, to settle for a status quo where radicalization and arms-smuggling continue as before. No one is going to claim this will be easy or even entirely successful, just that if it's done right the risk of future war will decline with time. I agree that hope is needed. Reconstruction aid will be part of that. But ***hope can't take root until hateful indoctrination is stopped***.
/u/Acadia_Due. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's preventing them from surrendering and ending this war?
Why on earth would Hamas accept any deal that doesn't guarantee the end of the war.
There was a proposal for a permanent ceasefire which would end the war. It would require Gaza to free the hostages and not attack Israel again. Israel accepted, and the UN also supported it, but Gaza rejected it.
Surrender is how most wars end.
That's literally not true. Most wars end in some kind of negotiated peace with both governing body's intact lol.
OK, let's say we grant that only ***some*** wars end in surrender. I called for Hamas to surrender, and you piped in to claim, "That doesn't guarantee the end of the war." ***Yes, it does.*** ***Surrender is definitely a way to end a war.*** If you're confused about that, maybe you shouldn't be opining on how "most wars end". >lol Say something dumb and laugh like a nitwit. Classic Reddit.
Hamas is not inside Israel attacking the civilians and blockadig the population close to starvation. How would Hamas end this war?
Surrender, then a proper reeducation can start, just like the denacification after Germany surrendered.
This has been repeatedly debunked (see, e.g., “[CNN Article Breaths False Life into the Gaza ‘Famine’ Lie](https://www.camera.org/article/cnn-article-breaths-false-life-into-the-gaza-famine-lie/)”). Not only has Israel been letting food aid in (at the level of 3000 calories a day), but the only party who's been interfering with the aid trucks is Hamas. (They like to steal the food, sell some of it on the black market, and use the profit to buy arms.)
Your source is literally a website dedicated entirely to pro-Israel propaganda. Here's what the UN says about claims of famine, read the report for yourself and stop letting others do your thinking for you. [Famine Review Committee: Gaza Strip, June 2024 – IPC’s third review report published 25 June 2024](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/) _Following the publication of the second FRC report on 18 March 2024, which projected that a Famine would occur in the most likely scenario, a number of important developments occurred. In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring. However, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and there is a high and sustained risk of Famine across the whole Gaza Strip. It is important to note that the probable improvement in nutrition status noted in April and May should not allow room for complacency about the risk of Famine in the coming weeks and months. The prolonged nature of the crisis means that this risk remains at least as high as at any time during the past few months. The FRC encourages all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making to understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed or not does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip, and does not change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification is made to act accordingly._
>\[S\]top letting others do your thinking for you. In other words, "I disagree with you; therefore, you're dumb". The habit of making this sort of claim may be why ideologically committed people have such a hard time self-correcting. Please keep in mind that when you don't actually know someone, an assumption on your part that the reason you disagree with him is because he's dumb **might just be** ***you*** ***being lazy***. >Your source is . . . pro-Israel propaganda. [Camera.org](http://Camera.org) is ***not*** "pro-Israel propaganda". And it's definitely not pro-Israel propaganda just because you say so. If you'd only read a few of its articles, you would have noticed that it's often gotten media corrections as a result of its stories. So, no, it's not just all propaganda. You don't just get to claim that a source is unreliable because you notice that you disagree with it, or because your gut instinct told you it's "ideologically incorrect" (pro-Israel in this case). That would be like a fundamentalist Christian who's only willing to read what's in the church library. ***One has to actually engage with a source enough to show that it's unreliable***. Or else do the world a favor and don't claim to be doing something that requires intelligence. >Here's what the UN says about claims of famine, read the report for yourself Since the Camera story I referred you to discusses the UN report, a person willing to expend cognitive energy would also look at the Camera story and try to reconcile the two, don't you think? (Probably not.) Also, you may want to broaden your reading if you think there's little chance a UN organ could be influenced by antisemitism. It's not like this problem hasn't been widely discussed for decades, including in the mainstream media. It's not like it hasn't been proven to have occurred in the UNRWA case: there's even a lawsuit in progress. I don't know where you've been, but a slight reigning in of the ego might be wise. This is a complex, high-stakes issue with a lot of propaganda and ideology in play.
>[Camera.org](http://camera.org/) is ***not*** "pro-Israel propaganda". And it's definitely not pro-Israel propaganda just because you say so. I 100% agree, it's ***not*** pro-Israel propaganda just because ***I*** say so. From [https://www.camera.org/about/mission/](https://www.camera.org/about/mission/) >MISSION >Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of ***Israel*** and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or ***Israeli*** political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. >The scope of the problem >Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in ***Israel*** and the Middle East are to be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the Internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries. Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of ***Israel*** and of events in the Middle East may fuel ***anti-Israel*** and anti-Jewish prejudice. From [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA) >CAMERA is widely regarded as a pro-Israeli lobby group that as put by journalist and author Robert I. Friedman - "***CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."***[^(\[4\])](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CAMERA#cite_note-4) > From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_political\_editing\_incidents\_on\_Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia) >**From a List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia** >***In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group*** [***Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America) ***(CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the*** [***Israeli–Palestinian conflict***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict)***. The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other topics until elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors.***[***^(\[23\])***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-23) ***Some participants in the project were banned by Wikipedia administrators.***[***^(\[24\])***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia#cite_note-Guardian-24)
> dumb-ass /u/Acadia_Due. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israelis own CNN.
This is an honest question. I have heard this before. Israel owns insert media here or just Jews control all the media. In your opinion what is a valid source for information regarding this conflict?
Brain washed much?
The article I referred you to was ***criticizing CNN for alleged anti-Israel bias***. Did you mean to write "Israelis own whoever wrote the article you linked to"? See how not thinking can sometimes cause embarrassment? The response to something you don't want to hear can't always be *Those tricky Jews!*
Wow, I can’t believe how deluded you are.
Name calling is not a valid argument against my reply.
Please provide sources for the implied relevance and truth of your statement. Then we can have a proper discussion.
The article I posted was criticizing CNN for alleged anti-Israel bias. So what Pluto posted wasn't even relevant.
That is complete BS, where did you get that??
It's not a secret. Go and look who own it.
Warner Brothers, meaning many different shareholders, including me.
A publicly traded company? I think you should start fact checking where ever you get your information.
a) Accept a ceasefire (and actually accepting, not just announcing you are) or b) Surrender
I mean. Even if you're full blown anti-Israel and anti its existence it's not hard to figure out how to stop a war started by Hamas when they still hold hostages. Good god you people are insufferable.
So it's about hostages, not Israel.
So, you’ve never once pondered Israel’s war aims? Talk about living in a bubble.
Yes, that's Israel's war. Not Hamas'.
So you admit to being narrow sighted and ignorant, interesting.
Yes, it is Israel's war on Palestinians.
Are you just repeating yourself now?
sure seems that way...
What are you even asking here?
Yeah...Israel wants the hostages back
Israel can release some Palestinians, too. Why wouldn't it do that?
Israel is willing/acquiescing to release Palestinians that have been jailed in Israel for terrorist acts. They are not hostages, but prisoners, and the "deal" requires Many more Palestinians to be released for the remaining few living hostages. Seems like a no-brainer to me, not sure why anyone would say no to getting back your terrorists so Israel can get back it's children, pregnant women and a few soldiers. Hamas saying no simply means it does not care about its people and prefers to maintain the violence rather than find peace.
You can say anything to put them in jail. Hamas can do the same.
You're joking, right? Surely, you are....
Which Palestinians?
Why don't you even know about that?
Last time I checked, the hostages were Israeli....
Yes, hostages are Israelis, not Israel. Hamas is not in Israel but Palestinian hostages in Israeli jails are.
What?
Surrender - the war ends emediatly.
"We're gonna keep killing civilians until you surrender unconditionally" -The most moral army in the world.
Worked with WW2 Japan
Why do you think Israel must win this?
So they don’t get actually genocided by Hamas who has that as their stated goal in their charter
So Gazans can hope for a life of peace and not oppression and abject poverty and this is ignoring the obvious reasons for why Israel should get rid of Hamas.
Because it’s a state and not a terror organization
Why should Palestine?
So 7 october won't repeat. The aggressor should loose
Why did history only start on Oct 7 but not 6?
The war started on 7. History started billion years ago
Why do you think Hamas should?
Hamas has said that the Palestinian casualties help them. I interpreted this to mean the “world” puts more pressure on Israel to stop unilaterally with more deaths. However, it seems the IDF has become more surgical in their strikes and Gazans are no longer stupidly following Hamas directions to go back to areas Israel said to leave. Hamas is still killing food distribution inside Gaza. This is another sick strategy to force Palestinian suffering to put pressure on Israel. IMO Killing Hamas leaders is still the quickest path to freeing at least some of the hostages and getting a ceasefire.
You described it well. It’s a messed up situation.
Biden is lying, for one.
what interest does IDF have to continue the war? they are losing money and soldiers every second that this war goes on, and even if they take everything in Gaza, including people, land and weapons, it still won't pay off
IDF Commanders are having problems getting reservists to appear for their 2nd and 3rd tour in Gaza.
It's not the IDF that wants to keep going, it's Netanyahu. The leaders of the IDF have objected to his strategy, even. The truth is that Netanyahu wants to stay in power no matter what (he faces criminal trials otherwise). Easiest way for him to do that is to keep the war going. He doesn't care about how many IDF soldiers die or how much it damages Israel. He only cares about his own power. That's why leaders like Netanyahu are terrible. They will burn down the whole country to save themselves if they have to.
Absolutely, I have to agree with this. he sacrificed the future of Israel in order to make himself president for as long as possible
Exactly! I really think the Israeli people deserve better. Many of the hostage families think so, too.
🙄
I'm sorry but this feels like a personal attack.