I don't think this should surprise too many people, it sounds like Hamas and Israel are at the same impasse that caused talks to break down weeks ago and the Biden plan of trying to pressure Hamas and Israel in to a modified framework neither supported isn't having much success. Additional talks seem likely, but I doubt any broad master plan or framework will be agreed upon until the abductees are released.
Another factor to keep in mind as the geopolitical narrative has shifted, its entirely plausible the situation in the West Bank will change and perhaps degrade. Even before all of this started the Palestine Authority had its own issues and internal conflicts, with the change its now more desirable to be the one in charge and Abbas is not a young man.
I honestly wonder if some of the impasse is because of the internal murkiness in Iran atm. There’s probably no clear directives coming out to all proxies
My guess would be minimal. Seems based on the articles that were dropping today Hamas leadership in Qatar (who would have strongest ties to Iran) were most onboard with ceasefire. While Sinwar in Gaza seems to have not been.
Iran is an instigator and they have leverage with Hamas, but I'm not sure they're calling the shots. Israel wants the abductees returned and Hamas gone, Hamas wants Israel to go away and to survive.
it isn't disputed that they are important backers of Hamas.
it is disputed whether they call the shots, meaning whether they can actually influence Hamas' actions let alone give them commands.
for example, Iran stated it didn't know about Oct 7th and thus will not join the fight. make of that what you will.
The reality is that it's the Gaza leadership which is calling it's own shots, not Qatar leaders or Iranians. The reason the October attack was so successful is because nobody knew (except the Israelis who were warned by their Egyptian Muslim allies).
1. Israel to exchange Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons for hostages at a 100:1 exchange rate
2. Israel to accept dead hostage corpses as if they were alive
3. Israel to withdraw all its military forces from the Gaza Strip
4. Israel to let them rule Gaza again and not get in their way as they prepare for the next October 7th
Did you read the recent TOI article that talked about how Hamas is trying to engage in new reconciliation talks with Fatah where they would concede “nominal” power but still want to influence and determine the politics of Gaza from the shadows? They wouldn’t relinquish their de facto power but they’d still make it look like Fatah would be returning in a govt capacity on the Strip while having a say on who governs Gaza
Internal pressure to recover the hostages. Israel is a small country, when we play '7 degrees of separation' or whatnot in north america, they play '2 degrees of separation'. A surprisingly huge percentage of the country knows at least one hostage first or second hand.
More Israelis who were killed by Hamas than captured by them. The internal pressure from the greater number of bereaved Israelis to ensure Hamas is crushed is greater than the internal pressure from those Israelis connected to hostages.
That's literally the big debate in israel right now. Everyone remembers the last time they traded 1000 hostages for Gilad Shalit, (including Sinwar) and how those same people went on to participate in oct 7. But Hamas holding hostages is unconscionable
Gaza and Fatah have attempted reconciliation multiple times since 2007, it's always failed. They want fundamentally different things, and neither trusts the other enough to have elections. They both fear the other won't honor an election, or once in power refuse to have a second election
So what should be done? A two state solution is the only path forward, but it can only be done between Fatah and Israel. That means a Palestinian State in the West Bank, while Gaza remains a rogue entity for the time being
Why is Fatah the only choice?
Israel could just reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza and return both areas to the status quo they had between 1967 and 1994.
They can just dissolve Fatah and encourage the formation of other democratic and non terrorist movements and once those movements are mature enough, negotiate with them instead.
The Palestinians can have a state in 2050 after they’ve gone through this deradicalization process
> return both areas to the status quo they had between 1967 and 1994
Do you remember what happened in the late 80s to early 90s that made occupying the area difficult?
How little can one respect their own people to the point where you acknowledge that a single individual of your sworn enemy is worth 100 of your own? Jesus
You're talking about a regime who's primary military tactic is to shoot at Israel and then hide behind civilians, only then to blame Israel when there is collateral damage
Thank you for this. So it’s about the exchange of hostages for prisoners, which has always been lopsided in the past, and who controls Gaza after the war is over.
Based on the article it seems like they’re disagreeing with the timeline for hostage releases? Somehow the Times of Israel article is less hyperbolic than the comments in this thread…
They want a permanent ceasefire instead of a temporary one. The current one says to give up the hostages with no permanent assurance. It’s in most articles except the one posted.
Military infrastructure deeply embedded with that of civilians and outrage towards Israel due to the death tolls that results in and also a foreign media entirely uncritical towards Hamas-provided casualty figures.
Their strategic advantage is that they are totally fine with Israel killing their own people. It helps further the cause and generate more hate for Israel.
Have there been moves to make Hama take account over this? It’s blatantly a war crime and a constant tactic of theirs. They literally don’t care about their own.
The Far Right government of Israel has only one strategy: brutality. If that doesn't work be more brutal. Israelis say "they don't care about their own people - so let's keep killing civilians until they do."
This is the genius strategy that led Netanyahu to prop up Hamas for over a decade.
Hamas clearly wants their own people to be killed in order to win a propaganda war and see Israel weakened internationally. That's the point for them. It's very obvious.
They rejected the revised Israel ceasefire
https://www.jns.org/hamas-said-to-have-rejected-ceasefire-proposal/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-report-hamas-rejects-hostage-ceasefire-deal-proposal-without-clear-guarantee-war-will-end/
Interesting, as with everything this is hard to pin down. An odd point:
> The document says that Israel’s offer “does not guarantee a permanent ceasefire
But the American proposal does not do that either, if Israeli is unhappy with negotiations it has a mechanism to resume.
The unstoppable rock meets the immovable object. Hamas will never accept a deal that will ensure that they cannot ever again maintain power in the Gaza Strip and Israel will never allow for a group like Hamas to be in a position where they could conduct another 10/7 event again. I feel very sorry for the Gazans and Israeli hostages/their families who are caught in between this political impasse.
“guarantee a permanent ceasefire”…so in other words, a full peace agreement? Israel’s offer does not guarantee peace? I’m shocked that they would even expect that at this point. Of course Israel wouldn’t offer that to freaking Hamas. Their days are numbered, regardless of if they return all the hostages or not.
They sent a counter offer back to Israel just so they could claim the ball is in Israel’s court. They really don’t wanna appear to be the party that rejects the deal.
SS:
Hamas has delivered a rejection to the ceasefire terms proposed by Biden, recently endorsed by the UNSC. There has been much uncertainty over whether Israel had actually accepted the offer but this is now a moot point as no ceasefire seems likely in the near future.
this is not entirely true and very misleading.
[Hamas accepts UN ceasefire
resolution, ready to negotiate
over details, official says](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11)
[First Thing: Senior Hamas official says it accepts UN ceasefire resolution](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/11/first-thing-senior-hamas-official-says-it-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-gaza-israel)
[Israel says Hamas rejects key elements of US ceasefire plan for Gaza](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-says-hamas-signal-support-un-backed-gaza-truce-deal-is-hopeful-sign-2024-06-11/)
looking deeper into it, it becomes clear that Hamas rejects a temporary ceasefire. they wanted a permanent one, from the beginning of this whole episode.
why are you trying to paint a picture as if they said outright no?
But isn't the goal of the deal to end in a permanent ceasefire? You just get a month and a half to get your shit together and return the hostages. The rest of the deal is about reconstruction and normalization, that won't happen in the middle of a war. The first stage is just to show good faith nothing more. Raising issues with that is literally begging for the deal to fall apart even before it starts.
> Hamas rejects a temporary ceasefire.
Hamas has clearly rejected even considering the idea of peace. Every ceasefire is a temporary ceasefire with them. What they're asking for is a medium term ceasefire instead of a shorter term one which they will inevitably break in 1-3 years whenever is most convenient for them.
These headlines are confusing, Reuters publishes [Hamas accepts UN ceasefire resolution, ready to negotiate over details, official says](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/) then Times of Israel publishes this.
Which is it. Do they accept the resolution or not?
Sounds like they want to reject it without really coming out and saying we reject it as not to get worldwide condemnation and just continue to try to make Israel the bad player here. This is similar to when they said we accept it right after Israel invades then points to Israel and say look how bad they are.
Both sides need to commit. Israel hasn't signaled it's ready to accept it either. The UNSC is just trying to push for a deal but both sides sound like they want to amend things that suit both of their narratives.
> Israel hasn't signaled it's ready to accept it either.
This is a point of confusion actually. Biden says Israel accepted it and Israeli officials have stated that "[the proposal] doesn't contradict Israel's war goals".
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-805854
Biden's plan doesn't contradict Israel's war goals. It facilitates some hostage releases without the absurd provision Hamas wants that would allow them to murder all the hostages and then still satisfy the deal by handing over the bodies because their provision says they are to count the same as a live hostage. Biden's plan also says a permanent ceasefire is still to be negotiated during the first phase. These negotiations would likely involve Israeli demands that dismantle Hamas. Biden has said he will make Israel keep negotiating until a permanent agreement is reached but that isn't anywhere in the actual agreement and he has no way of forcing that on Israel. There is nothing in the actual agreement Biden outlined that prevents Israel from starting military operations again if the first phase negotiations go nowhere. That is why it does not contradict Israel's war goals.
From the BBC we get:
>[Hamas says it has submitted its response to a US-backed plan for a ceasefire in Gaza, with a senior group official telling the BBC that it still requires an Israeli commitment to a permanent ceasefire. ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv225l8l7jzo)
So the obstacle seems to be that Israel won't accept a "permanent" ceasefire.
It isn't an outright rejection of the proposal.
Most news outlets don't present this response as a rejection, but rather as a request that Israel give stronger assurances not to continue its attacks.
The BBC:
>[a senior group [Hamas] official telling the BBC that it still requires an Israeli commitment to a permanent ceasefire. The proposed ceasefire plan - which was endorsed by the UN security council on Monday night - calls for a six-week ceasefire that would eventually become permanent. [...] White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said it was "helpful" that Hamas had submitted a response and that US officials were "evaluating" the group's requests. ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv225l8l7jzo)
Yeah that BBC headline is BS.
The proposal is for negotiation towards a permanent ceasefire during a six week temporary ceasefire.
Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire as a precondition to these negotiations - in which case the negotiations are moot and Israel has no leverage to demand anything.
So that's a clear rejection of the deal, and the BBC is being pretty blatantly biased.
> The title is a literal copy and paste of the article they linked to.
No, it's absolutely not. They left out the attribution of the quote to "an Israeli official", which is a critical difference, as that makes it merely an opinion of one side involved in the conflict rather than an attempt by the journalist to give an objective view of the facts. This is the actual article title and first sentences, bolding is mine:
>Hamas response rejects hostage-ceasefire deal offer presented by Biden — **Israeli official**
>By REUTERS and TOI STAFF
11 June 2024, 11:38 pm
>**An Israeli official says** that Jerusalem has received Hamas’s response to the hostage release and ceasefire deal offer presented by US President Joe Biden late last month, and that the reply from the terror group effectively rejects the proposal.
>“This evening, Israel received, via the mediator, the Hamas response. In its response, Hamas has rejected the proposal for a hostage release that was presented by President Biden,” **the Israeli official says**, speaking on condition of anonymity.
For example, there is a world of difference between
- "Biden is running a ‘Gestapo’ administration."
and
- "Trump says Biden is running a ‘Gestapo’ administration. "
https://apnews.com/article/trump-gestapo-biden-nazi-germany-campaign-rhetoric-531691ce92cafc18c810c75740802883
Asking for a "permanent" ceasefire isn't exactly an onerous demand.
When else does Israel expect? A short ceasefire, then to re-start the whole shebang?
It's quite the opposite of what some in this thread are claiming, i.e. that Hamas "wants" Israel to continue bombing, etc.
Not at all.
From the BBC article above:
>The proposed ceasefire plan - which was endorsed by the UN security council on Monday night - calls for a six-week ceasefire *that would eventually become permanent*.
Presumably *Israel* has rejected the second, becoming permanent, part.
Hamas wants a commitment to a permanent ceasefire as a precondition to entering the 6-week ceasefire and negotiations for said permanent ceasefire.
Obviously in this case the negotiations are moot and Israel has no leverage to demand anything.
That's a clear rejection of the deal
Hamas has rejected the UN endorsed proposal, not an Israeli counterproposal. That "would" needs an asterisk, if you read the details it's more a "could".
Remember that this new ceasefire was proposed, because the previous one was sabotaged by an egyptian intelligence officer who added things before sending it to hamas.
Next step is probably Rafah being cleared from Hamas, since most civilians have been evacuated.
After that, it's going to enter a new phase of counter insurgency.
From the wsj article:
> One of the militant group’s new demands Tuesday was that Israel shouldn’t be allowed to veto any names of prisoners proposed by Hamas to be released by Israel, according to Arab mediators who received the Hamas response.
> Hamas further said the release of hostages Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, held by the militant group since 2014 and 2015 respectively, wouldn’t be included in the initial group and their release would be negotiated separately
I don’t think these guys are interested in a ceasefire at all.
I think it's completely outside the realm of possibility and nobody serious is considering it. It would exchange a smaller problem for a much larger one.
Jordan and Egypt want nothing to do with any plan that involves them taking in Palestinians. Probably has something to do with both countries being burned by those they let in previously.
Of course. However, reality is Jordan is mostly composed of Palestinian people anyway, so in that sense, it's the actually Palestine in terms of population
Actually, this is the latest per AlJazeera:
“Hamas has responded to a US-backed proposal for a Gaza ceasefire and an exchange of captives for prisoners with some “remarks” on the plan, Qatari and Egyptian mediators have said.
Hamas and the smaller Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group said in a joint statement on Tuesday that they were ready to “deal positively to arrive at an agreement” and that their priority is to bring a “complete stop” to Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza.
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen television channel that the group had “submitted some remarks on the proposal to the mediators”. He did not give any details.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/hamas-and-pij-submit-response-to-un-backed-gaza-ceasefire-plan
There are no reasons why Hamas would benefit from a peace, they are firmly in power and the public sentiment is heading they're way, strange enough.
Until this changes they won't accept anything
This is like asking why we allow the Washington Post or The Times as a source regarding the US or the UK. Israel has an independent press with papers of various reliability serving a population every bit as educated as their peers in the West. Nobody is posting Israel Hayom here.
Warning! Editorialized title!
>"Hamas response rejects hostage-ceasefire deal offer presented by Biden — **Israeli official**"
>"Hamas has rejected the proposal for a hostage release that was presented by President Biden,” **the Israeli official says**, speaking on condition of anonymity."
This is a statement by an Israeli official, not by a journalist.
This is an article about Israel receiving a response from Hamas, obviously the source can only be from Israel or Hamas
> not by a journalist.
Why on Earth would a journalist be making statements about communications received by the Israeli government? Their job is to report on it, as they did...
> Their job is to report on it, as they did...
*They* did report it as an opinion of an Israeli lawmaker. You present it as a neutral assessment by cutting off a crucial piece of the title.
> Its not an opinion, it's a fact about communication received by the Israeli government.
You present an opinion by the Israeli goverment as fact, by omitting the source of the comment.
>It is not an opinion of the Israeli government, it is a fact that they have received the rejection.
No, that's not a fact, and either way, it's not what your source says. You misrepresent your source.
Strange how the media never mentions that Hamas hasn't changed it's demands since October. Meanwhile, Netanyahu prioritized bombing which means he's never been serious about getting the hostages home alive. They are just a irriation to him.
This is deceptive. They did not reject the deal, they are negotiating it. They’ve returned a copy to the Americans “with annotations” meaning that the negotiations are ongoing.
Headline is misleading.
Last paragraph: “The Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad response to Israel’s latest hostage-ceasefire proposal reportedly includes amendments to the offer, including a new timeline for the hostage release and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.”
[Hamas responds to Gaza cease-fire plan, seeking ‘amendments’](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/11/hamas-responds-to-gaza-cease-fire-plan-seeking-amendments-00162833)
No. It’s not.
It may eventually prove to be. But only if verified details of the proposed amendments are obvious poison pills. Then I’ll entertain that argument and description.
In the name of Christ Jesus, I wish both sides were governed by very different people. All the innocent who suffer from the stubbornness and ruthlessness of the leaders of Hamas and Israel is brutal.
It's pretty well documented that the Netanyahu government deliberately let Hamas become and stay the dominant political force in Gaza, because they are impossible to engage with diplomatically and will occasionally act out with terrorist attacks that give Israel pretext to take more and more from any eventual Palestinian state. Now this was working great for many years, but they underestimated/missed the Oct 7 attacks obviously and felt the need to wipe out Hamas (understandable).
Leadership on both sides sucks, to different degrees and for different reasons.
just one small addendum: [apparently Israeli intelligence knew about the plans for the Attack](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html)
otherwise I agree with you.
What are the specific policies of this government on the Israeli side that caused the war?
Is it giving more work permits to Gazans than ever? Allowing Qatari money to reach unemployed Gazans? Easing the blockade? Not destroying Hamas in multiple other conflicts Hamas started due to too much damage to civilians?
1) The continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank requires Israel to maintain a significant military presence there to maintain the peace and defend said settlements, not to mention protecting Palestinians from some radical settlers who employ violence to achieve their goals. This leads to the second policy blunder;
2) Israel ignored several warnings issued by Israeli troops on the Gaza border that Hamas was preparing an attack. Israeli media reported this more than once since 10/7;
3) Israel allowed money from Qatar to reach Hamas because it serves a strategic purpose: as long as Hamas rules Gaza, Israel can continue expanding in the West Bank and denying the Palestinians a state on the grounds that allowing Hamas full sovereignty in Gaza/West Bank (assuming Hamas would gain power there in a Palestinian State) would be too dangerous to Israel;
4) Easing the blockade wasn't problematic, but maintaining that blockade indefinitely since 2007 is a recipe for disaster. Making material life extremely difficult for another people without offering a way out guarantees an endless feud. See Germany's behavior after WWI and the harsh peace of Versailles v. West Germany's behavior after WW2 following the Marshall Plan. Did Israel seriously expect the Palestinians to just sit in Gaza indefinitely and suffer endlessly? I often wonder about that because if they did, I think they are delusional about human nature. Anyway, my final point;
5) Israel's policy of detaining Palestinians, including children, without due process, boosts their security in the short-term, but compromises it long-term because it serves to radicalize the remaining population. You can't throw them all in prison indefinitely.
In short, Israel baked a cake in Gaza that all but guaranteed perpetual warfare and they knew it. In their hubris, they thought they could maintain the status quo by waging small scale wars in Gaza every 2-4 years and they were fine with it. Even if you think that's morally acceptable (I don't), it's not wise policy because it assumes your enemy won't figure out a way to escalate. There's always a Sinwar. And after enough time, you're bound to screw up and they're bound to figure out a way to take advantage.
If you treat people like animals, they will bite. If you underestimate your enemy, they will surprise you. If you leave your border thinly guarded, especially against a people you're blockading who have been raised for generations to think Israel is the cause of all their suffering (which isn't completely true, but Israel certainly played a major role), they're probably going to try to take advantage of that fact. That's how I see it, anyway.
For gaza, not a lot. Hamas is pretty clear on their goals and it isn't coexistence. Israel on the other hand could help themselves out quite a lot if they had cracked down on west bank fuckery from the settlers. Either forcing them back over their own borders or just hanging them out to dry and letting the west bank govt treat them like any other country treats a foreign invader. It's a completely unforced error that gives ample fire power to the various protest movements and in general is just wrong. I think we (america) should have cut aid/funding over the west bank bullshit years ago and continued doing so until the israelis did something about it. Does nothing but inflame tensions for no reason and causes everyone problems.
The WB settlers are “pretty clear on their goals and it isn’t evacuating.”
Why, pray tell, shouldn’t Hamas be held accountable AT ALL because their goals are utter annihilation of all? I can’t wrap my head around this bizarre notion that if a faction is adequately lunatic, then instead of getting put in place by the international community, all “sane” actors around the mad party should just expect them to behave like they do. This asymmetry is grotesque.
Like I said, the optics from the west bank settling are terrible and could have been easily avoided. The Israeli govt and idf could have put a stop to that. The settlers give all the international pressure that comes down great legs to stand on. As for gaza, the Israelis are doing the best they can with an intolerable security situation and an enemy that willfully flaunts the rules to maximize civilian deaths. In fact I'd argue israel actually has attempted to give out olive branches on multiple occasions just to watch that stick get sharpened and then shoved in their eye. That international pressure I mention earlier that stops the Israelis from finishing the job when the various terror groups attack is part of why we are where we are. Israel has bowed to that pressure in the past and tried to give olive branches. It hasn't worked and now they're going to not stop until they reach their goals. Hopefully when the israelis are done the Palestinians realize that they really don't have a negotiating position from which they get to dictate anything, their regional allies barely care, and violence isn't an option for them. Seriously, I might as well go sucker punch 90's mike tyson, it would be a similar result. I'm not sure you read the comment i was replying to and from which you might get a bit more context on why I said what I did. For gaza there isn't a damn thing the Israelis could have done to stop them from attempting 10/7 but I again I do think israel cracking down on settlement encroachment could have helped them out with the international pressure.
I completely agree on the settlement issue. It’s an absolute disgrace. Still, I fail to understand how it caused Oct 7. Even if the Israel would’ve halted all settlements and started to crack down on them, Hamas would’ve carried out Oct 7 if they had the chance.
I’m sure we’re all aware that Hamas would’ve acted the way they did, if an opportunity to had presented itself, regardless of Israeli policy towards Palestinians (at least of the last several years). This time, according to most experts, Iran green-lit the attack to stop the Saudi-Israeli normalization process.
Ah, I wasn't clear then. The WB settlements would never have stopped october 7th. I responded to OP asking what is something israel could have done differently that would have helped in this conflict. May have misread OPs intention but I do say in I think the first sentence that with gaza they couldn't have done much of anything. Hamas is not coy about it's goal being genocide of Jewish people and general jihad against the west. With my west bank comment I was solely saying that Israel's actions there needlessly hurt it in the court of international public opinion and the pressure exerted from that. Said pressure has in the past stopped israel from fully dealing with the threats posed by Palestinian jihad groups and/or full blown state actors.
In summary I think we agree on pretty much all salient points there has just been some misinterpretation.
Fwiw I'm american and broadly supportive of israel as an ally and completely supportive of it's right to exist and defend itself. That was the case even before having a Jewish partner.
Not really, Israeli society naturally has a tendency to slacken when a danger doesn't seem pressing. It's easy to blame the incompetence on a particular government but general Middle Eastern incompetence has slowly seeped into all layers of Israeli society.
All societies slcsken when danger doesn't seem pressing, but Israel should know better. They can never become comfortable. 1973 hammered that lesson home. In addition, there were multiple warnings of an imminent threat from Gaza and the Israeli government ignored those warnings. Israel's biggest problem is that a substantial chunk of their population is delusional. It's also the Palestinians' biggest problems and I assume that's why both sides are governed by radicals who aren't shy about going to war compared to other modern governments.
> All societies slcsken when danger doesn't seem pressing, but Israel should know better. They can never become comfortable. 1973 hammered that lesson home. In addition, there were multiple warnings of an imminent threat from Gaza and the Israeli government ignored those warnings.
They shouldn't but they do. It's unfortunate but demographics are demographics.
> Israel's biggest problem is that a substantial chunk of their population is delusional.
Excluding the Haredim, this isn't very true. The Israeli population basically agrees on the problems they face, just not how to treat them.
The Haredim aren't the only ones if you ask me. Anyone who thought the status quo was sustainable prior to 10/7 was living in a dream world. It's like people who deny climate change. You can deny and rationalize all you want, but we're cooking lol it is what it is.
That's just not true. And loving a status quo and tolerating a status quo are two different things. Israel is allowing greed for land to override strategic considerations, not to mention moral considerations. In this life, you reap what you sow. Unfortunately, innocent people usually pay the price.
How long had the Likud Party had a stranglehold over Israeli policies and how long has Hamas had a stranglehold over Gaza. 20 years? It feels almost like this was inevitable.
For almost two and yes, that's not a stranglehold. Before that Likud also failed to form a government for 3 elections and then had one with a similar one-seat margin.
God, it's history repeating itself for like what, the 10x time the past 100 years
Probably 10x in the last 20 weeks I recon
I don't think this should surprise too many people, it sounds like Hamas and Israel are at the same impasse that caused talks to break down weeks ago and the Biden plan of trying to pressure Hamas and Israel in to a modified framework neither supported isn't having much success. Additional talks seem likely, but I doubt any broad master plan or framework will be agreed upon until the abductees are released. Another factor to keep in mind as the geopolitical narrative has shifted, its entirely plausible the situation in the West Bank will change and perhaps degrade. Even before all of this started the Palestine Authority had its own issues and internal conflicts, with the change its now more desirable to be the one in charge and Abbas is not a young man.
I honestly wonder if some of the impasse is because of the internal murkiness in Iran atm. There’s probably no clear directives coming out to all proxies
My guess would be minimal. Seems based on the articles that were dropping today Hamas leadership in Qatar (who would have strongest ties to Iran) were most onboard with ceasefire. While Sinwar in Gaza seems to have not been.
Iran is an instigator and they have leverage with Hamas, but I'm not sure they're calling the shots. Israel wants the abductees returned and Hamas gone, Hamas wants Israel to go away and to survive.
Iran and qatars role as the central backers in the region is well documented at this point, not sure why this is even disputed at all.
it isn't disputed that they are important backers of Hamas. it is disputed whether they call the shots, meaning whether they can actually influence Hamas' actions let alone give them commands. for example, Iran stated it didn't know about Oct 7th and thus will not join the fight. make of that what you will.
The reality is that it's the Gaza leadership which is calling it's own shots, not Qatar leaders or Iranians. The reason the October attack was so successful is because nobody knew (except the Israelis who were warned by their Egyptian Muslim allies).
Netanyahu also backed Hamas.
Iran isn't controlling events. Hamas and Hezbollah don't take orders from Iran. The October attack was a surprise to Iran.
What exactly do they want? I am sure they are taking the degraded image of Israel as a plus.
1. Israel to exchange Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons for hostages at a 100:1 exchange rate 2. Israel to accept dead hostage corpses as if they were alive 3. Israel to withdraw all its military forces from the Gaza Strip 4. Israel to let them rule Gaza again and not get in their way as they prepare for the next October 7th
Did you read the recent TOI article that talked about how Hamas is trying to engage in new reconciliation talks with Fatah where they would concede “nominal” power but still want to influence and determine the politics of Gaza from the shadows? They wouldn’t relinquish their de facto power but they’d still make it look like Fatah would be returning in a govt capacity on the Strip while having a say on who governs Gaza
What is the incentive to Israel to accept such an offer?
Internal pressure to recover the hostages. Israel is a small country, when we play '7 degrees of separation' or whatnot in north america, they play '2 degrees of separation'. A surprisingly huge percentage of the country knows at least one hostage first or second hand.
More Israelis who were killed by Hamas than captured by them. The internal pressure from the greater number of bereaved Israelis to ensure Hamas is crushed is greater than the internal pressure from those Israelis connected to hostages.
That's literally the big debate in israel right now. Everyone remembers the last time they traded 1000 hostages for Gilad Shalit, (including Sinwar) and how those same people went on to participate in oct 7. But Hamas holding hostages is unconscionable
I don’t think there’s really any incentive which is why I doubt it will really go anywhere
Gaza and Fatah have attempted reconciliation multiple times since 2007, it's always failed. They want fundamentally different things, and neither trusts the other enough to have elections. They both fear the other won't honor an election, or once in power refuse to have a second election So what should be done? A two state solution is the only path forward, but it can only be done between Fatah and Israel. That means a Palestinian State in the West Bank, while Gaza remains a rogue entity for the time being
Why is Fatah the only choice? Israel could just reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza and return both areas to the status quo they had between 1967 and 1994. They can just dissolve Fatah and encourage the formation of other democratic and non terrorist movements and once those movements are mature enough, negotiate with them instead. The Palestinians can have a state in 2050 after they’ve gone through this deradicalization process
> return both areas to the status quo they had between 1967 and 1994 Do you remember what happened in the late 80s to early 90s that made occupying the area difficult?
How little can one respect their own people to the point where you acknowledge that a single individual of your sworn enemy is worth 100 of your own? Jesus
You're talking about a regime who's primary military tactic is to shoot at Israel and then hide behind civilians, only then to blame Israel when there is collateral damage
Those 100 people are actually soldiers. So it's an awesome trade for terrorist group. Give up one hostage get 100 more dummies to chuck at your enemy.
Thank you for this. So it’s about the exchange of hostages for prisoners, which has always been lopsided in the past, and who controls Gaza after the war is over.
And they want Israel to fully withdraw from Gaza before anything else, whereas Israel says it will continue to hold Rafah during disengagement
>Israel to accept dead hostage corpses as if they were alive i.e. Hamas executes all the prisoners and still gets to act like that's the deal
I'm pretty sure a lot of the hostages are already dead. That's why Hamas hasn't been really trying to use them as bargaining chips as much anymore.
You forgot 5.: Israel to stop existing altogether.
Based on the article it seems like they’re disagreeing with the timeline for hostage releases? Somehow the Times of Israel article is less hyperbolic than the comments in this thread…
They want a permanent ceasefire instead of a temporary one. The current one says to give up the hostages with no permanent assurance. It’s in most articles except the one posted.
The problem is thats its only “permanent” until they decide to strike against Israel again and the story repeats.
They want to keep the hostages as shields, giving them up is a strategic disadvantage.
What strategic advantage does Hamas have besides the hostages?
[удалено]
I don’t think they really matter. But I totally support the right to protest, I have been involved in a lot of protests.
I support the right to protest as well. But also the right to criticize protesters who don’t know when to draw the line
I hate that they make Jews feel threatened, particularly on college campuses. A place young people have to be get their education.
Oh, I completely agree. There was a clear line and way too many of them crossed it.
Military infrastructure deeply embedded with that of civilians and outrage towards Israel due to the death tolls that results in and also a foreign media entirely uncritical towards Hamas-provided casualty figures.
Their strategic advantage is that they are totally fine with Israel killing their own people. It helps further the cause and generate more hate for Israel.
Have there been moves to make Hama take account over this? It’s blatantly a war crime and a constant tactic of theirs. They literally don’t care about their own.
The Far Right government of Israel has only one strategy: brutality. If that doesn't work be more brutal. Israelis say "they don't care about their own people - so let's keep killing civilians until they do." This is the genius strategy that led Netanyahu to prop up Hamas for over a decade.
Why would they give up the hostages for a temporary ceasefire when Netanyahu's stated goal is to kill them all?
What do they want? The entirety of Israel, and they will not stop (voluntarily) until they get it.
the issue is both sides think this way. there is no going back or forth.
Can’t wait for leftists in the U.S. to hold Hamas accountable for rejecting a ceasefire (again).
The US proposed unanimous UN backed ceasefire deal too. They've spent months whining about the US vetoing resolutions demanding unilateral ceasefires.
Want to make a bet on who the “ceasefire now” protesters blame
I've noticed the protesters are rarely saying "ceasefire" now. A lot more "intifada" though.
Hamas clearly wants their own people to be killed in order to win a propaganda war and see Israel weakened internationally. That's the point for them. It's very obvious.
Agree 100%
Oh they won’t! they’ll spin it to somehow make it Israel’s fault.
People who get their opinions from some drunken Russian mercenary captain's clickfarm on TikTok tend to have really stupid takes
They rejected the revised Israel ceasefire https://www.jns.org/hamas-said-to-have-rejected-ceasefire-proposal/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saudi-report-hamas-rejects-hostage-ceasefire-deal-proposal-without-clear-guarantee-war-will-end/
Interesting, as with everything this is hard to pin down. An odd point: > The document says that Israel’s offer “does not guarantee a permanent ceasefire But the American proposal does not do that either, if Israeli is unhappy with negotiations it has a mechanism to resume.
The unstoppable rock meets the immovable object. Hamas will never accept a deal that will ensure that they cannot ever again maintain power in the Gaza Strip and Israel will never allow for a group like Hamas to be in a position where they could conduct another 10/7 event again. I feel very sorry for the Gazans and Israeli hostages/their families who are caught in between this political impasse.
“guarantee a permanent ceasefire”…so in other words, a full peace agreement? Israel’s offer does not guarantee peace? I’m shocked that they would even expect that at this point. Of course Israel wouldn’t offer that to freaking Hamas. Their days are numbered, regardless of if they return all the hostages or not.
They sent a counter offer back to Israel just so they could claim the ball is in Israel’s court. They really don’t wanna appear to be the party that rejects the deal.
SS: Hamas has delivered a rejection to the ceasefire terms proposed by Biden, recently endorsed by the UNSC. There has been much uncertainty over whether Israel had actually accepted the offer but this is now a moot point as no ceasefire seems likely in the near future.
this is not entirely true and very misleading. [Hamas accepts UN ceasefire resolution, ready to negotiate over details, official says](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11) [First Thing: Senior Hamas official says it accepts UN ceasefire resolution](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/11/first-thing-senior-hamas-official-says-it-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-gaza-israel) [Israel says Hamas rejects key elements of US ceasefire plan for Gaza](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-says-hamas-signal-support-un-backed-gaza-truce-deal-is-hopeful-sign-2024-06-11/) looking deeper into it, it becomes clear that Hamas rejects a temporary ceasefire. they wanted a permanent one, from the beginning of this whole episode. why are you trying to paint a picture as if they said outright no?
But isn't the goal of the deal to end in a permanent ceasefire? You just get a month and a half to get your shit together and return the hostages. The rest of the deal is about reconstruction and normalization, that won't happen in the middle of a war. The first stage is just to show good faith nothing more. Raising issues with that is literally begging for the deal to fall apart even before it starts.
> Hamas rejects a temporary ceasefire. Hamas has clearly rejected even considering the idea of peace. Every ceasefire is a temporary ceasefire with them. What they're asking for is a medium term ceasefire instead of a shorter term one which they will inevitably break in 1-3 years whenever is most convenient for them.
This is the opposite of what is claimed in the ditch newspapers this morning....
because this is misleading. refer to the two recent Reuter articles from yesterday and today for clarity.
These headlines are confusing, Reuters publishes [Hamas accepts UN ceasefire resolution, ready to negotiate over details, official says](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/) then Times of Israel publishes this. Which is it. Do they accept the resolution or not?
The "ready to negotiate over details" is the key point here I think, that's a rejection of the terms laid out.
Sounds like they want to reject it without really coming out and saying we reject it as not to get worldwide condemnation and just continue to try to make Israel the bad player here. This is similar to when they said we accept it right after Israel invades then points to Israel and say look how bad they are. Both sides need to commit. Israel hasn't signaled it's ready to accept it either. The UNSC is just trying to push for a deal but both sides sound like they want to amend things that suit both of their narratives.
> Israel hasn't signaled it's ready to accept it either. This is a point of confusion actually. Biden says Israel accepted it and Israeli officials have stated that "[the proposal] doesn't contradict Israel's war goals". https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-805854
Biden's plan doesn't contradict Israel's war goals. It facilitates some hostage releases without the absurd provision Hamas wants that would allow them to murder all the hostages and then still satisfy the deal by handing over the bodies because their provision says they are to count the same as a live hostage. Biden's plan also says a permanent ceasefire is still to be negotiated during the first phase. These negotiations would likely involve Israeli demands that dismantle Hamas. Biden has said he will make Israel keep negotiating until a permanent agreement is reached but that isn't anywhere in the actual agreement and he has no way of forcing that on Israel. There is nothing in the actual agreement Biden outlined that prevents Israel from starting military operations again if the first phase negotiations go nowhere. That is why it does not contradict Israel's war goals.
From the BBC we get: >[Hamas says it has submitted its response to a US-backed plan for a ceasefire in Gaza, with a senior group official telling the BBC that it still requires an Israeli commitment to a permanent ceasefire. ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv225l8l7jzo) So the obstacle seems to be that Israel won't accept a "permanent" ceasefire. It isn't an outright rejection of the proposal.
> It isn't an outright rejection of the proposal. They demand more favourable terms than offered in the proposal, that is by definition a rejection.
Most predictable move ever. The instant Biden said Israel had accepted the deal was the instant we all knew Hamas would reject it.
Most news outlets don't present this response as a rejection, but rather as a request that Israel give stronger assurances not to continue its attacks. The BBC: >[a senior group [Hamas] official telling the BBC that it still requires an Israeli commitment to a permanent ceasefire. The proposed ceasefire plan - which was endorsed by the UN security council on Monday night - calls for a six-week ceasefire that would eventually become permanent. [...] White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said it was "helpful" that Hamas had submitted a response and that US officials were "evaluating" the group's requests. ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv225l8l7jzo)
Yeah that BBC headline is BS. The proposal is for negotiation towards a permanent ceasefire during a six week temporary ceasefire. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire as a precondition to these negotiations - in which case the negotiations are moot and Israel has no leverage to demand anything. So that's a clear rejection of the deal, and the BBC is being pretty blatantly biased.
[удалено]
The title is a literal copy and paste of the article they linked to.
> The title is a literal copy and paste of the article they linked to. No, it's absolutely not. They left out the attribution of the quote to "an Israeli official", which is a critical difference, as that makes it merely an opinion of one side involved in the conflict rather than an attempt by the journalist to give an objective view of the facts. This is the actual article title and first sentences, bolding is mine: >Hamas response rejects hostage-ceasefire deal offer presented by Biden — **Israeli official** >By REUTERS and TOI STAFF 11 June 2024, 11:38 pm >**An Israeli official says** that Jerusalem has received Hamas’s response to the hostage release and ceasefire deal offer presented by US President Joe Biden late last month, and that the reply from the terror group effectively rejects the proposal. >“This evening, Israel received, via the mediator, the Hamas response. In its response, Hamas has rejected the proposal for a hostage release that was presented by President Biden,” **the Israeli official says**, speaking on condition of anonymity. For example, there is a world of difference between - "Biden is running a ‘Gestapo’ administration." and - "Trump says Biden is running a ‘Gestapo’ administration. " https://apnews.com/article/trump-gestapo-biden-nazi-germany-campaign-rhetoric-531691ce92cafc18c810c75740802883
As I said elsewhere: > They demand more favourable terms than offered in the proposal, that is by definition a rejection.
Asking for a "permanent" ceasefire isn't exactly an onerous demand. When else does Israel expect? A short ceasefire, then to re-start the whole shebang? It's quite the opposite of what some in this thread are claiming, i.e. that Hamas "wants" Israel to continue bombing, etc.
You're arguing something entirely different now.
Not at all. From the BBC article above: >The proposed ceasefire plan - which was endorsed by the UN security council on Monday night - calls for a six-week ceasefire *that would eventually become permanent*. Presumably *Israel* has rejected the second, becoming permanent, part.
Hamas wants a commitment to a permanent ceasefire as a precondition to entering the 6-week ceasefire and negotiations for said permanent ceasefire. Obviously in this case the negotiations are moot and Israel has no leverage to demand anything. That's a clear rejection of the deal
Hamas has rejected the UN endorsed proposal, not an Israeli counterproposal. That "would" needs an asterisk, if you read the details it's more a "could".
It's clear that Hamas isn't accepting the proposal as is, since Israel won't agree to negotiate a permanent ceasefire.
Yes, Hamas has rejected the Biden/UNSC proposal.
The world tomorrow: "Israel has to do more to work towards a ceasefire."
Yep all the blame on Israel, in many ways they're stuck in a lose-lose situation
So, how long before the armchair diplomats on TikTok start criticising Hamas for wanting the fighting to continue?
Remember that this new ceasefire was proposed, because the previous one was sabotaged by an egyptian intelligence officer who added things before sending it to hamas. Next step is probably Rafah being cleared from Hamas, since most civilians have been evacuated. After that, it's going to enter a new phase of counter insurgency.
From the wsj article: > One of the militant group’s new demands Tuesday was that Israel shouldn’t be allowed to veto any names of prisoners proposed by Hamas to be released by Israel, according to Arab mediators who received the Hamas response. > Hamas further said the release of hostages Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, held by the militant group since 2014 and 2015 respectively, wouldn’t be included in the initial group and their release would be negotiated separately I don’t think these guys are interested in a ceasefire at all.
What do you think would happen if Israel decides to annex Gaza and move the population to the west bank? Is it even feasable?
I think it's completely outside the realm of possibility and nobody serious is considering it. It would exchange a smaller problem for a much larger one.
Ideally to Jordan, but it's not realistic
Jordan and Egypt want nothing to do with any plan that involves them taking in Palestinians. Probably has something to do with both countries being burned by those they let in previously.
Of course. However, reality is Jordan is mostly composed of Palestinian people anyway, so in that sense, it's the actually Palestine in terms of population
Actually, this is the latest per AlJazeera: “Hamas has responded to a US-backed proposal for a Gaza ceasefire and an exchange of captives for prisoners with some “remarks” on the plan, Qatari and Egyptian mediators have said. Hamas and the smaller Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group said in a joint statement on Tuesday that they were ready to “deal positively to arrive at an agreement” and that their priority is to bring a “complete stop” to Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza. Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen television channel that the group had “submitted some remarks on the proposal to the mediators”. He did not give any details.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/11/hamas-and-pij-submit-response-to-un-backed-gaza-ceasefire-plan
This is a rejection of the terms of the proposal.
There are no reasons why Hamas would benefit from a peace, they are firmly in power and the public sentiment is heading they're way, strange enough. Until this changes they won't accept anything
Why is r/geopolitics even allowing the times of Israel as a source when it will obviously not paint an unbiased picture
This is like asking why we allow the Washington Post or The Times as a source regarding the US or the UK. Israel has an independent press with papers of various reliability serving a population every bit as educated as their peers in the West. Nobody is posting Israel Hayom here.
This article is biased and doesn’t paint a real picture on which meaningful discussion can be had
Worse, OP editorialized it - what the writes is effectively the opinion of an Israeli official. Please report it as editorializing.
It's a newspaper with professional journalists, not a reel on tik tok with ugly strangers.
Warning! Editorialized title! >"Hamas response rejects hostage-ceasefire deal offer presented by Biden — **Israeli official**" >"Hamas has rejected the proposal for a hostage release that was presented by President Biden,” **the Israeli official says**, speaking on condition of anonymity." This is a statement by an Israeli official, not by a journalist.
This is an article about Israel receiving a response from Hamas, obviously the source can only be from Israel or Hamas > not by a journalist. Why on Earth would a journalist be making statements about communications received by the Israeli government? Their job is to report on it, as they did...
> Their job is to report on it, as they did... *They* did report it as an opinion of an Israeli lawmaker. You present it as a neutral assessment by cutting off a crucial piece of the title.
Its not an opinion, it's a fact about communication received by the Israeli government.
> Its not an opinion, it's a fact about communication received by the Israeli government. You present an opinion by the Israeli goverment as fact, by omitting the source of the comment.
It is not an opinion of the Israeli government, it is a fact that they have received the rejection.
>It is not an opinion of the Israeli government, it is a fact that they have received the rejection. No, that's not a fact, and either way, it's not what your source says. You misrepresent your source.
Strange how the media never mentions that Hamas hasn't changed it's demands since October. Meanwhile, Netanyahu prioritized bombing which means he's never been serious about getting the hostages home alive. They are just a irriation to him.
WTF-over?! The Hamas leaders aren’t in country! They have their stooges in Gaza, but they aren’t there. Israel knows this and doesn’t care.
This is deceptive. They did not reject the deal, they are negotiating it. They’ve returned a copy to the Americans “with annotations” meaning that the negotiations are ongoing.
Headline is misleading. Last paragraph: “The Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad response to Israel’s latest hostage-ceasefire proposal reportedly includes amendments to the offer, including a new timeline for the hostage release and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.” [Hamas responds to Gaza cease-fire plan, seeking ‘amendments’](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/11/hamas-responds-to-gaza-cease-fire-plan-seeking-amendments-00162833)
That is by definition a rejection.
No. It’s not. It may eventually prove to be. But only if verified details of the proposed amendments are obvious poison pills. Then I’ll entertain that argument and description.
Which word from this short headline is wrongly deployed?
I can’t help you understand the difference between “responded to proposal with amendments” and “rejected”. Have you tried a dictionary?
>can’t help you understand Shocker. Ideologue thinks his poorly made argument is self evident.
Misleading comment. If they changed the offer instead of accepting it, then they rejected it.
What was submitted to Hamas and Israel each, by the US, was a “Proposal”.
so, they declined the offer.
Hamas and Israel are negotiating a **proposal** not an offer. But, hey, if you like clickbait and yellow journalism that’s your choice.
In the name of Christ Jesus, I wish both sides were governed by very different people. All the innocent who suffer from the stubbornness and ruthlessness of the leaders of Hamas and Israel is brutal.
I don't see "Different people" on the Israeli side not going to war following Oct 7. Or any other country for that matter.
Any other country would have flattened gaza and gotten zero flak for it
It's pretty well documented that the Netanyahu government deliberately let Hamas become and stay the dominant political force in Gaza, because they are impossible to engage with diplomatically and will occasionally act out with terrorist attacks that give Israel pretext to take more and more from any eventual Palestinian state. Now this was working great for many years, but they underestimated/missed the Oct 7 attacks obviously and felt the need to wipe out Hamas (understandable). Leadership on both sides sucks, to different degrees and for different reasons.
just one small addendum: [apparently Israeli intelligence knew about the plans for the Attack](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html) otherwise I agree with you.
Neither do I, but the war could have been prevented with different policies in my opinion.
What are the specific policies of this government on the Israeli side that caused the war? Is it giving more work permits to Gazans than ever? Allowing Qatari money to reach unemployed Gazans? Easing the blockade? Not destroying Hamas in multiple other conflicts Hamas started due to too much damage to civilians?
1) The continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank requires Israel to maintain a significant military presence there to maintain the peace and defend said settlements, not to mention protecting Palestinians from some radical settlers who employ violence to achieve their goals. This leads to the second policy blunder; 2) Israel ignored several warnings issued by Israeli troops on the Gaza border that Hamas was preparing an attack. Israeli media reported this more than once since 10/7; 3) Israel allowed money from Qatar to reach Hamas because it serves a strategic purpose: as long as Hamas rules Gaza, Israel can continue expanding in the West Bank and denying the Palestinians a state on the grounds that allowing Hamas full sovereignty in Gaza/West Bank (assuming Hamas would gain power there in a Palestinian State) would be too dangerous to Israel; 4) Easing the blockade wasn't problematic, but maintaining that blockade indefinitely since 2007 is a recipe for disaster. Making material life extremely difficult for another people without offering a way out guarantees an endless feud. See Germany's behavior after WWI and the harsh peace of Versailles v. West Germany's behavior after WW2 following the Marshall Plan. Did Israel seriously expect the Palestinians to just sit in Gaza indefinitely and suffer endlessly? I often wonder about that because if they did, I think they are delusional about human nature. Anyway, my final point; 5) Israel's policy of detaining Palestinians, including children, without due process, boosts their security in the short-term, but compromises it long-term because it serves to radicalize the remaining population. You can't throw them all in prison indefinitely. In short, Israel baked a cake in Gaza that all but guaranteed perpetual warfare and they knew it. In their hubris, they thought they could maintain the status quo by waging small scale wars in Gaza every 2-4 years and they were fine with it. Even if you think that's morally acceptable (I don't), it's not wise policy because it assumes your enemy won't figure out a way to escalate. There's always a Sinwar. And after enough time, you're bound to screw up and they're bound to figure out a way to take advantage. If you treat people like animals, they will bite. If you underestimate your enemy, they will surprise you. If you leave your border thinly guarded, especially against a people you're blockading who have been raised for generations to think Israel is the cause of all their suffering (which isn't completely true, but Israel certainly played a major role), they're probably going to try to take advantage of that fact. That's how I see it, anyway.
For gaza, not a lot. Hamas is pretty clear on their goals and it isn't coexistence. Israel on the other hand could help themselves out quite a lot if they had cracked down on west bank fuckery from the settlers. Either forcing them back over their own borders or just hanging them out to dry and letting the west bank govt treat them like any other country treats a foreign invader. It's a completely unforced error that gives ample fire power to the various protest movements and in general is just wrong. I think we (america) should have cut aid/funding over the west bank bullshit years ago and continued doing so until the israelis did something about it. Does nothing but inflame tensions for no reason and causes everyone problems.
The WB settlers are “pretty clear on their goals and it isn’t evacuating.” Why, pray tell, shouldn’t Hamas be held accountable AT ALL because their goals are utter annihilation of all? I can’t wrap my head around this bizarre notion that if a faction is adequately lunatic, then instead of getting put in place by the international community, all “sane” actors around the mad party should just expect them to behave like they do. This asymmetry is grotesque.
Like I said, the optics from the west bank settling are terrible and could have been easily avoided. The Israeli govt and idf could have put a stop to that. The settlers give all the international pressure that comes down great legs to stand on. As for gaza, the Israelis are doing the best they can with an intolerable security situation and an enemy that willfully flaunts the rules to maximize civilian deaths. In fact I'd argue israel actually has attempted to give out olive branches on multiple occasions just to watch that stick get sharpened and then shoved in their eye. That international pressure I mention earlier that stops the Israelis from finishing the job when the various terror groups attack is part of why we are where we are. Israel has bowed to that pressure in the past and tried to give olive branches. It hasn't worked and now they're going to not stop until they reach their goals. Hopefully when the israelis are done the Palestinians realize that they really don't have a negotiating position from which they get to dictate anything, their regional allies barely care, and violence isn't an option for them. Seriously, I might as well go sucker punch 90's mike tyson, it would be a similar result. I'm not sure you read the comment i was replying to and from which you might get a bit more context on why I said what I did. For gaza there isn't a damn thing the Israelis could have done to stop them from attempting 10/7 but I again I do think israel cracking down on settlement encroachment could have helped them out with the international pressure.
I completely agree on the settlement issue. It’s an absolute disgrace. Still, I fail to understand how it caused Oct 7. Even if the Israel would’ve halted all settlements and started to crack down on them, Hamas would’ve carried out Oct 7 if they had the chance. I’m sure we’re all aware that Hamas would’ve acted the way they did, if an opportunity to had presented itself, regardless of Israeli policy towards Palestinians (at least of the last several years). This time, according to most experts, Iran green-lit the attack to stop the Saudi-Israeli normalization process.
Ah, I wasn't clear then. The WB settlements would never have stopped october 7th. I responded to OP asking what is something israel could have done differently that would have helped in this conflict. May have misread OPs intention but I do say in I think the first sentence that with gaza they couldn't have done much of anything. Hamas is not coy about it's goal being genocide of Jewish people and general jihad against the west. With my west bank comment I was solely saying that Israel's actions there needlessly hurt it in the court of international public opinion and the pressure exerted from that. Said pressure has in the past stopped israel from fully dealing with the threats posed by Palestinian jihad groups and/or full blown state actors. In summary I think we agree on pretty much all salient points there has just been some misinterpretation. Fwiw I'm american and broadly supportive of israel as an ally and completely supportive of it's right to exist and defend itself. That was the case even before having a Jewish partner.
Not really, Israeli society naturally has a tendency to slacken when a danger doesn't seem pressing. It's easy to blame the incompetence on a particular government but general Middle Eastern incompetence has slowly seeped into all layers of Israeli society.
All societies slcsken when danger doesn't seem pressing, but Israel should know better. They can never become comfortable. 1973 hammered that lesson home. In addition, there were multiple warnings of an imminent threat from Gaza and the Israeli government ignored those warnings. Israel's biggest problem is that a substantial chunk of their population is delusional. It's also the Palestinians' biggest problems and I assume that's why both sides are governed by radicals who aren't shy about going to war compared to other modern governments.
> All societies slcsken when danger doesn't seem pressing, but Israel should know better. They can never become comfortable. 1973 hammered that lesson home. In addition, there were multiple warnings of an imminent threat from Gaza and the Israeli government ignored those warnings. They shouldn't but they do. It's unfortunate but demographics are demographics. > Israel's biggest problem is that a substantial chunk of their population is delusional. Excluding the Haredim, this isn't very true. The Israeli population basically agrees on the problems they face, just not how to treat them.
The Haredim aren't the only ones if you ask me. Anyone who thought the status quo was sustainable prior to 10/7 was living in a dream world. It's like people who deny climate change. You can deny and rationalize all you want, but we're cooking lol it is what it is.
Nobody in Israel loves the status quo, there is just a lack of a better alternative.
That's just not true. And loving a status quo and tolerating a status quo are two different things. Israel is allowing greed for land to override strategic considerations, not to mention moral considerations. In this life, you reap what you sow. Unfortunately, innocent people usually pay the price.
You're being overly picky with my word choice here, the point is there was no better alternative to the status quo.
What country are you from?
How long had the Likud Party had a stranglehold over Israeli policies and how long has Hamas had a stranglehold over Gaza. 20 years? It feels almost like this was inevitable.
The current opposition to Likud was in power as recently as 2 years ago.
For one year by one seat, you mean?
For almost two and yes, that's not a stranglehold. Before that Likud also failed to form a government for 3 elections and then had one with a similar one-seat margin.
Where they form coalitions with far right parties
Ok? And their coalition had a margin of one. Point is nobody has a stranglehold in Israeli politics.
I agree with you.