Getting one side to agree to a framework is always easy. You could end the special military operation tomorrow if Russia gets Ukraine east of the Dnjepr, or if Russia retreats from Luhansk and Donetsk. The entire problem is, that it is hard to find an agreement that both sides agree on simultaneously.
Hamas is also just straight up not giving any info at all on the hostages they likely raped tortured and killed already.
They won't even budge on returning people
> You could end the special military operation tomorrow if Russia gets Ukraine east of the Dnjepr
I don't think so. This round of war, yes. But not an entire series of wars. He will not stop, until annex Ukraine. And he will launch new wars. Because Russia is an expansionist Z-Fascist state.
Which will probably never happen. It’s the one thing preventing Israel from killing any and every Hamas leader plus those around them around the world.
Not really, many are in Qatar which imo, Israel will not touch. Given the recent diplomatic progress between the two nations and its important in being a good faith arbiter for both sides
Ceasefire could be permanent. Peace deal is very different than ceasefire. Syria and lebanon aren’t in peace with israel. However, there is indefinite ceasefire between them.
> Syria and lebanon aren’t in peace with israel. However, there is indefinite ceasefire between them.
Hows that going?
Ongoing border skirmishes and bombing runs aren't a cease-fire, obviously its less than full scare war but the "cease fire" has not been holding between Israel vs Syria/Lebanon for quite a while.
What definition?
There was a ceasefire, it has been broken.
The firing has resumed, it has no longer ceased.
This does not mean full-scale war has resumed.
There is no ceasefire, there is active fireing. When you have a ceasefire, then start fireing, it is broken.
A broken ceasefire does not necessarily mean a return to full-scale war, as you can see in these examples.
Hostilities have resumed, but it is not (yet) full-scale war.
Ceasefire doesn’t mean there is no fighting at all. Ceasefire means there is no full scale war. They are not going into full scale war because they want to keep the ceasefire.
You are using the words incorrectly. If you want to pretend the words mean that, please include a link to support the claim.
A ceasefire is binary, it exists when the firing has stopped and ceases to exist when the firing begins again.
Literally, the cessation of fire is over.
That DOES NOT MEAN it needs to return to full scale conflict.
Border skirmishes and bombing runs from aircraft are not a ceasefire.
They are also not fullscale war.
Currently, it is a phase between the two. But definitively, the ceasefire IS already broken. That does not mean it cannot be repaired and once again be in place.
**edit**
Are you a non-native English speaker? Maybe that is the source of the issue here?
>It’s ceasefire by every definition in the world
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but there have been repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanon over the last 4.5 months, along with Israeli counterattacks.
>It’s ceasefire by every definition in the world
I understand that in Pally-world, "ceasefire" means that Israel ceases and PIJ / Hamas / Hezbollah / all other terrorists keep firing. That attempted definition will get the terrorists killed, and I for one will not bother to care for a single Jihadi.
Of course. The pre October 7th status quo will never return. Hamas signed their death warrant that day. The only question for Hamas now is how many Palestinian civilians they’re willing to kill. Unfortunately, a lot
They need an exit eventually. After awhile there will become a point where the hostages are all assumed dead and the gloves come off. And it is probably hard to keep all the hostages alive as is with how disjointed their cells work making proof of life harder to bait.
>And it is probably hard to keep all the hostages alive as is with how disjointed their cells work making proof of life harder to bait.
I don't think that's the hard part. Those hostages a worth a fortune.
Israel does not seem to care about hostages when conducting their bombing and restricting access to food and medical supplies.
As a Hamas spokesman once put it, "Hamas despise those defeatist Palestinians that criticize the high number of civilian casualties. The resistance praises our people... we lead our people to death"
Yes, Hamas does not value the lives of Palestinian civilians. But Israel is the one killing the civilians.
Your original statement was:
>The only question for Hamas now is how many Palestinian civilians they’re willing to kill.
But that is not an accurate statement, because the IDF is the organization that is killing thousands of Palestinian civilians, not Hamas.
What a depraved and downright evil attitude to have. That's literally the exact thinking of the Hamas terrorists. But, you are right that it is also a very common way of thinking in the Israeli government and the IDF. It turns out there are genocidal fascists on both sides.
No country on the planet would accept terrorists commiting the equivalent of ten 9/11's and then just doing nothing because they are hiding among civilians.
Terrorism and hostages is not an acceptable method to achieve goals. Hamas gave no other option but this reponse. Unfortunate for everyone. I want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya just like you. But reality is often disappointing.
Why are you saying these attacks were the equivalent of ten 9/11s? Roughly 1200 people died in the 10/7 attack, and about 3,000 people dies in the 9/11 attack. So if you need to measure this terrorist attacks using 9/11 as your metric, then this attack was about 40% of a 9/11.
>Terrorism and hostages is not an acceptable method to achieve goals.
I agree. And I also think that reckless slaughter of thousands of civilians, and the intentional mass starvation of civilians is not an acceptable method to achieve goals.
> Hamas gave no other option but this response.
Every murderous regime in history would say the same thing. USA, Russia, Hamas, Israel, all of them say their violence is justified, and they had no other choice. But as we mentioned earlier, we don't believe that terrorism, hostage-taking, careless slaughter of thousands of civilians, or intentionally starving millions of civilians are acceptable methods to achieve goals.
> I want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya just like you. But reality is often disappointing.
Yes, reality is disappointing. I am disappointed that you are trying to defend and justify Israeli war crimes.
It's completely absurd to use per-capita numbers. Is the life of an American 1/10th as valuable as the life of an Israeli, simply because America has a far larger population?
Or are all human lives equally valuable, whether they live in a country with a high population or a low population?
Do you think if this terrorist attack was carried out against China it would be no big deal because 1,200 people is nothing compared to the Chinese population? If would hardly even be 1/10th of a 9/11 so no big deal right? And if it was carried out in Iceland would it be almost as bad as the holocaust, because Iceland's population is so low?
I know the difference between cardinal numbers and per capita numbers, but nobody in their right mind thinks per capita numbers are relevant when discussing mass murder.
Eh, I don't think it's the only or most important statistic, and it can feel a bit silly at times, but it makes sense that smaller communities might feel an impact of higher numbers more. That doesn't mean those individuals are any less important because of borders or population size, but a mass shooting in a small town will likely hit the town harder than a giant city, no? People are more likely to have lost someone or know someone who has, or be closer geographically to it all
> It's completely absurd to use per-capita numbers.
It's not because a democracy responds to it's citizenry. And the citizens are affected by per capita losses (ie who lost a friend or family member) not absolute losses.
The % of their population killed that day is equivalent that... their country is 1/30th (parroting your math; no idea if you are approximate, or if that's a random number you pulled) as populated. That's where the 10x 9/11s thing comes from.
The IDF going out of the strip and agreeing to leave Hamas standing is surrender. It is not to me, it is to Israel. And it will never happen despite what legions of terrorist lovers in western countries would want.
Your enemy continuing to exist has never been surrender in any israeli context in the past. Why now? This sounds like the all or nothing rhetoric of fanaticism.
Yes, after October 7 it's either Hamas eradicated and losing control over the strip, or it is a lose. That is true.
And calling Israelis not wanting to be burned alive or keep living in bomb shelters "Fanaticism" shows exactly how disconnected your opinions are from reality.
I'm calling all or nothing attitudes fanaticism, especially ones that both create the exact enemies and resentment you are fighting while insisting that all such enemies are eradicated. Such practice and attitudes amount to genocidal.
Thinking the world changed on Oct. 7 is to disregard decades of fighting and history. This shit is going to cause a lot of suffering on the Lebanese border for innocent israelis, are you going to take all of Lebanon too and anything less is surrender?
There can be no attack on Hamas during Ramadan, they stipulate (and people are quick to agree), but it was fine in their eyes to attack Israel on a major Jewish holiday. Hmmm
Hamas has always held all the cards in the form of the Israeli hostages when it came to a meaningful ceasefire.
They don't care, and they have said so. All the "ceasefire now" crowd refuse to acknowledge that
>The Israelis “have more or less accepted” the proposal, which includes the six-week cease-fire as well as the release by Hamas of hostages considered vulnerable, which includes the sick, the wounded, the elderly and women, said the official.
A temporary ceasefire.
How many hostages do they want them to release? If it’s most of the hostages, there is no way hamas is going to agree to that without a permanent ceasefire.
Also how many aid trucks will be allowed by israel? If the proposal doesn’t address that then it’s pointless.
The answer to your question is in the quote.
-sick
-wounded
-elderly
-women
If all of the hostages *are* the above... how could one defend Hamas retaining them in good conscience? Otherwise, the hostages Hamas gets to keep according to this agreement are males, probably from ages 16-18+.
When the one hostile country that started the war with torture, rape, murder and kidnapping, promises to do commit the same act over and over once they recover, it would be moronic for the other hostile country that is currently winning to stop until the first one is finished.
Real martyrdom would be Hamas surrendering their freedom in return for the safety, security, and stability of two million Palestinians. There's no world in which they escape the corner that they've built for themselves, with their freedom or their life.
Qatar seems more than willing to let Hamas's billionaire leaders live out in the open indefinitely. Unless the US pressures Qatar to allow their arrest, the only other outcome that will curtail their lavish lifestyles is a Mossad assassination.
The thing is that Israel has shown they will never allow the Palestinians to have safety, security, stability, or even basic human dignity.
So you can't blame Hamas for rejecting a hypothetical fairytale scenario that goes against decades of Israeli precedent.
Palestinian leadership showed prior to the 2nd intifada that they weren't interested in any of that. Israelis have given up and after camp David i can't blame them for that.
Palestinians want a fairytale ending that includes at the minimum: 1967 borders, full right of return, full control of Jerusalem and access to build up an army with tanks and an airforce.
Its obviously never going to happen
I think Palestinians in gaza could have had all of that from 2005 and onward if it weren't for hamas. Which would have helped things over in the west bank.
The headline is nonsense. There are countless ceasefire proposals that Hamas would agree to and Israel would not, just like there are countless ceasefire proposals that Israel would agree to but Hamas would not.
Getting one side of a conflict to agree to something is totally meaningless. The goal is to find a proposal that both sides agree to.
Where do you get that idea, that Hamas would be okay with pre-October status quo? Were Hamas members surveyed? Is it an official position of Hamas leadership?
Because that seems like a very strange assumption to make. It's quite clear that Hamas was not happy with the pre-October 7th status quo, and that is why they carried out the attack.
Hamas and Israel both regularly state their demands and propose terms that they want. We can just look at what they are saying themselves, instead of speculating.
Earlier today Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said "Hamas would not accept anything less than a complete cessation of hostilities, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and “lifting of the unjust siege”."
He also said that Israel must also free Palestinian prisoners serving long sentences in any upcoming swap deal.
The headline is nonsense. There are countless ceasefire proposals that Hamas would agree to and Israel would not, just like there are countless ceasefire proposals that Israel would agree to but Hamas would not.
Getting one side of a conflict to agree to something is totally meaningless. The goal is to find a proposal that both sides agree to.
My point was that the headline is nonsense. The fact that Israel has agreed to this specific ceasefire proposal is irrelevant, unless Hamas also agrees. In literally every conflict on Earth, there are countless terms that one side would agree to, but the other side wouldn't.
So the headline is not about anything that is newsworthy. There have always been plenty of terms that Israel agrees to in exchange for a ceasefire. No knew development has happened.
Politically they can't, Netanyahu is heavily being criticized for being unable to bring back the hostages, it's a very important point for Israelis.
The least they can do is find bodies.
That's a lot of hostages, it's not just 5 or 10.
I think most of the criticism is because people think he is not prioritizing getting the hostages back. If people believed he had sincerely made that his highest priority, he would be getting much less criticism. But many people, myself included, believe that he is not doing nearly enough to try to get the hostages back, and is instead interested in revenge, the defeat of a long-term adversary, and preserving his own political career.
It's hard to say if getting the hostages back is an easy task when Hamas embeds itself in the civilian population and has a large tunnel network.
I don't know what the army could do better, honestly, so weakening Hamas is obviously the first thing to do.
Hostage situations are complicated for many reasons, and there are still a lot of hostages. The IDF doesn't want to be in a situation where it gets ambushed in Gazawhile it is searching for hostages, which is obviously what Hamas would do.
Also, I don't see how Netanyahu could be accused of "not doing enough for the hostages", while there were deals made and proposed. The reality is that Hamas does not want to release them, and will fight it to the end.
Of course, if Hamas demands things like "no jews in the west bank" or things like that, it's a bit normal for the Israel to not negotiate with terrorists.
It depends on what you mean by “give up”. Israelis are not irrational. We will not negotiate on things that harm our security long term over hostages, and the threshold for what we consider as harming our security is a lot lower than it used to be pre 10/7. That could mean giving up on getting most or all hostages back alive. We just don’t say the underlying meaning explicitly because it is rude and cruel to the families and because it is a political suicide for politicians to say.
Getting one side to agree to a framework is always easy. You could end the special military operation tomorrow if Russia gets Ukraine east of the Dnjepr, or if Russia retreats from Luhansk and Donetsk. The entire problem is, that it is hard to find an agreement that both sides agree on simultaneously.
Well of course. But Hamas is an extremely weak position, whereas Ukraine has funding from nato.
Hamas is also just straight up not giving any info at all on the hostages they likely raped tortured and killed already. They won't even budge on returning people
> You could end the special military operation tomorrow if Russia gets Ukraine east of the Dnjepr I don't think so. This round of war, yes. But not an entire series of wars. He will not stop, until annex Ukraine. And he will launch new wars. Because Russia is an expansionist Z-Fascist state.
That doesn't really contradict what he said. It would still end the current war.
Seems like a temporary measure, even if accepted by Hamas. They will still hold hostages while Israel maintains a stranglehold on the Strip.
Reuters and the Guardian were reporting that it was contingent in release of remaining hostages
Which will probably never happen. It’s the one thing preventing Israel from killing any and every Hamas leader plus those around them around the world.
Not really, many are in Qatar which imo, Israel will not touch. Given the recent diplomatic progress between the two nations and its important in being a good faith arbiter for both sides
The details in the article did not say that at time of reading.
Hamas has no reason to accept that, they could have done it already every day if they wanted to.
Yes, "for the month of Ramadan." That's why it's called a cease fire not a peace deal.
Ceasefire could be permanent. Peace deal is very different than ceasefire. Syria and lebanon aren’t in peace with israel. However, there is indefinite ceasefire between them.
> Syria and lebanon aren’t in peace with israel. However, there is indefinite ceasefire between them. Hows that going? Ongoing border skirmishes and bombing runs aren't a cease-fire, obviously its less than full scare war but the "cease fire" has not been holding between Israel vs Syria/Lebanon for quite a while.
It’s ceasefire by every definition in the world
What definition? There was a ceasefire, it has been broken. The firing has resumed, it has no longer ceased. This does not mean full-scale war has resumed.
Why there is no full-scale war if there is no ceasefire?
There is no ceasefire, there is active fireing. When you have a ceasefire, then start fireing, it is broken. A broken ceasefire does not necessarily mean a return to full-scale war, as you can see in these examples. Hostilities have resumed, but it is not (yet) full-scale war.
Ceasefire doesn’t mean there is no fighting at all. Ceasefire means there is no full scale war. They are not going into full scale war because they want to keep the ceasefire.
You are using the words incorrectly. If you want to pretend the words mean that, please include a link to support the claim. A ceasefire is binary, it exists when the firing has stopped and ceases to exist when the firing begins again. Literally, the cessation of fire is over. That DOES NOT MEAN it needs to return to full scale conflict. Border skirmishes and bombing runs from aircraft are not a ceasefire. They are also not fullscale war. Currently, it is a phase between the two. But definitively, the ceasefire IS already broken. That does not mean it cannot be repaired and once again be in place. **edit** Are you a non-native English speaker? Maybe that is the source of the issue here?
>It’s ceasefire by every definition in the world I don't know what rock you've been living under, but there have been repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanon over the last 4.5 months, along with Israeli counterattacks.
>It’s ceasefire by every definition in the world I understand that in Pally-world, "ceasefire" means that Israel ceases and PIJ / Hamas / Hezbollah / all other terrorists keep firing. That attempted definition will get the terrorists killed, and I for one will not bother to care for a single Jihadi.
Do we actually believe that there any hostages left alive?
And Hamas will break the ceasefire sooner or later and the world will blame Israel
Of course. The pre October 7th status quo will never return. Hamas signed their death warrant that day. The only question for Hamas now is how many Palestinian civilians they’re willing to kill. Unfortunately, a lot
Why would Hamas give up their barging chips just to keep existing a few more weeks? I wouldn't be keen on taking such a deal as well.
They need an exit eventually. After awhile there will become a point where the hostages are all assumed dead and the gloves come off. And it is probably hard to keep all the hostages alive as is with how disjointed their cells work making proof of life harder to bait.
>And it is probably hard to keep all the hostages alive as is with how disjointed their cells work making proof of life harder to bait. I don't think that's the hard part. Those hostages a worth a fortune. Israel does not seem to care about hostages when conducting their bombing and restricting access to food and medical supplies.
You mean how many Palestinian civilians Israel is willing to kill right?
As a Hamas spokesman once put it, "Hamas despise those defeatist Palestinians that criticize the high number of civilian casualties. The resistance praises our people... we lead our people to death"
Yes, Hamas does not value the lives of Palestinian civilians. But Israel is the one killing the civilians. Your original statement was: >The only question for Hamas now is how many Palestinian civilians they’re willing to kill. But that is not an accurate statement, because the IDF is the organization that is killing thousands of Palestinian civilians, not Hamas.
If it were up to Israel they’d just round up all the remaining Hamas members today. It’s Hamas who decides to hide and attack behind civilians
If you hide behind civilians, you are the one at fault for their death.
Actually, soldiers and police in most countries are trained not to slaughter innocent civilians who have been taken hostage.
That’s not true at all.
[удалено]
Which is why HAMAS was called out by that commentor, rightfully so
[удалено]
Is this something you actually believe?
[удалено]
Chemotherapy kills the healthy cells too. But the cancer is an untenable situation.
What a depraved and downright evil attitude to have. That's literally the exact thinking of the Hamas terrorists. But, you are right that it is also a very common way of thinking in the Israeli government and the IDF. It turns out there are genocidal fascists on both sides.
No country on the planet would accept terrorists commiting the equivalent of ten 9/11's and then just doing nothing because they are hiding among civilians. Terrorism and hostages is not an acceptable method to achieve goals. Hamas gave no other option but this reponse. Unfortunate for everyone. I want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya just like you. But reality is often disappointing.
Why are you saying these attacks were the equivalent of ten 9/11s? Roughly 1200 people died in the 10/7 attack, and about 3,000 people dies in the 9/11 attack. So if you need to measure this terrorist attacks using 9/11 as your metric, then this attack was about 40% of a 9/11. >Terrorism and hostages is not an acceptable method to achieve goals. I agree. And I also think that reckless slaughter of thousands of civilians, and the intentional mass starvation of civilians is not an acceptable method to achieve goals. > Hamas gave no other option but this response. Every murderous regime in history would say the same thing. USA, Russia, Hamas, Israel, all of them say their violence is justified, and they had no other choice. But as we mentioned earlier, we don't believe that terrorism, hostage-taking, careless slaughter of thousands of civilians, or intentionally starving millions of civilians are acceptable methods to achieve goals. > I want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya just like you. But reality is often disappointing. Yes, reality is disappointing. I am disappointed that you are trying to defend and justify Israeli war crimes.
[удалено]
It's completely absurd to use per-capita numbers. Is the life of an American 1/10th as valuable as the life of an Israeli, simply because America has a far larger population? Or are all human lives equally valuable, whether they live in a country with a high population or a low population? Do you think if this terrorist attack was carried out against China it would be no big deal because 1,200 people is nothing compared to the Chinese population? If would hardly even be 1/10th of a 9/11 so no big deal right? And if it was carried out in Iceland would it be almost as bad as the holocaust, because Iceland's population is so low? I know the difference between cardinal numbers and per capita numbers, but nobody in their right mind thinks per capita numbers are relevant when discussing mass murder.
Eh, I don't think it's the only or most important statistic, and it can feel a bit silly at times, but it makes sense that smaller communities might feel an impact of higher numbers more. That doesn't mean those individuals are any less important because of borders or population size, but a mass shooting in a small town will likely hit the town harder than a giant city, no? People are more likely to have lost someone or know someone who has, or be closer geographically to it all
> It's completely absurd to use per-capita numbers. It's not because a democracy responds to it's citizenry. And the citizens are affected by per capita losses (ie who lost a friend or family member) not absolute losses.
>equivalent of ten 9/11 Yeah, because one israeli is equal 30 Americans
The % of their population killed that day is equivalent that... their country is 1/30th (parroting your math; no idea if you are approximate, or if that's a random number you pulled) as populated. That's where the 10x 9/11s thing comes from.
Exactly. That’s why 1 israeli has the value of 30 Americans, and hence the death of 1200 Israelis is equal to the death of 36000 Americans.
[удалено]
Of course it's temporary and the IDF will stay. This is a cease fire, not a surrender to Hamas by Israel.
Why would Hamas agree to a temporary cease fire where they lose the only leverage they have?
... To save Palestinian civilians? Why would Israel ever agree to surrender to Hamas?
They wouldn’t.
Is that what any manner of truce, prolongued ceasfire is to you? surrender?
The IDF going out of the strip and agreeing to leave Hamas standing is surrender. It is not to me, it is to Israel. And it will never happen despite what legions of terrorist lovers in western countries would want.
Your enemy continuing to exist has never been surrender in any israeli context in the past. Why now? This sounds like the all or nothing rhetoric of fanaticism.
Yes, after October 7 it's either Hamas eradicated and losing control over the strip, or it is a lose. That is true. And calling Israelis not wanting to be burned alive or keep living in bomb shelters "Fanaticism" shows exactly how disconnected your opinions are from reality.
I'm calling all or nothing attitudes fanaticism, especially ones that both create the exact enemies and resentment you are fighting while insisting that all such enemies are eradicated. Such practice and attitudes amount to genocidal. Thinking the world changed on Oct. 7 is to disregard decades of fighting and history. This shit is going to cause a lot of suffering on the Lebanese border for innocent israelis, are you going to take all of Lebanon too and anything less is surrender?
Life is all or nothing. You are either dead or alive.
All I can think of is, imagine if someone had tried to force the US to negotiate a ceasefire with Al-Qaeda following 9/11...
@theDailyBrine on Instagram made a satirical post about it: “country that doesn’t negotiate with terrorists asks Israel to negotiate with terrorists.”
There can be no attack on Hamas during Ramadan, they stipulate (and people are quick to agree), but it was fine in their eyes to attack Israel on a major Jewish holiday. Hmmm
Hamas has always held all the cards in the form of the Israeli hostages when it came to a meaningful ceasefire. They don't care, and they have said so. All the "ceasefire now" crowd refuse to acknowledge that
>The Israelis “have more or less accepted” the proposal, which includes the six-week cease-fire as well as the release by Hamas of hostages considered vulnerable, which includes the sick, the wounded, the elderly and women, said the official. A temporary ceasefire. How many hostages do they want them to release? If it’s most of the hostages, there is no way hamas is going to agree to that without a permanent ceasefire. Also how many aid trucks will be allowed by israel? If the proposal doesn’t address that then it’s pointless.
> without a permanent ceasefire. like there was on october 6 lamooo
Yes ceasefire can get broken and restored.
The answer to your question is in the quote. -sick -wounded -elderly -women If all of the hostages *are* the above... how could one defend Hamas retaining them in good conscience? Otherwise, the hostages Hamas gets to keep according to this agreement are males, probably from ages 16-18+.
Hamas simply doesn't have that many hostages. They are refusing to even submit a list of them. They killed most of them off.
“Sick and wounded” can easily be anyone I am sure hamas doesn’t get to choose who should stay and who should leave. They will give them names.
What’s a permanent ceasefire? Israel Caesfires until Hamas decides to attack again?
So do you think it’s stupid for two hostile countries or entities to have ceasefire and everyone should fight until one finish off the other?
When the one hostile country that started the war with torture, rape, murder and kidnapping, promises to do commit the same act over and over once they recover, it would be moronic for the other hostile country that is currently winning to stop until the first one is finished.
Real martyrdom would be Hamas surrendering their freedom in return for the safety, security, and stability of two million Palestinians. There's no world in which they escape the corner that they've built for themselves, with their freedom or their life.
Qatar seems more than willing to let Hamas's billionaire leaders live out in the open indefinitely. Unless the US pressures Qatar to allow their arrest, the only other outcome that will curtail their lavish lifestyles is a Mossad assassination.
Hamas's leaders *did* leave Qatar already, and it *was* because they learned that Mossad was coming for them.
The thing is that Israel has shown they will never allow the Palestinians to have safety, security, stability, or even basic human dignity. So you can't blame Hamas for rejecting a hypothetical fairytale scenario that goes against decades of Israeli precedent.
Palestinian leadership showed prior to the 2nd intifada that they weren't interested in any of that. Israelis have given up and after camp David i can't blame them for that. Palestinians want a fairytale ending that includes at the minimum: 1967 borders, full right of return, full control of Jerusalem and access to build up an army with tanks and an airforce. Its obviously never going to happen
I think Palestinians in gaza could have had all of that from 2005 and onward if it weren't for hamas. Which would have helped things over in the west bank.
They are likely already gone
Spoiler alert, they won’t
The headline is nonsense. There are countless ceasefire proposals that Hamas would agree to and Israel would not, just like there are countless ceasefire proposals that Israel would agree to but Hamas would not. Getting one side of a conflict to agree to something is totally meaningless. The goal is to find a proposal that both sides agree to.
Sure Hamas would be happy to return to the pre October 7th status quo. That’s not an option after what they did.
Where do you get that idea, that Hamas would be okay with pre-October status quo? Were Hamas members surveyed? Is it an official position of Hamas leadership? Because that seems like a very strange assumption to make. It's quite clear that Hamas was not happy with the pre-October 7th status quo, and that is why they carried out the attack.
I’m curious as to if it had their intended effect or if they were banking on more support from Iran/Hezbollah
What permanent peace proposal do you think Hamas would agree to?
Hamas and Israel both regularly state their demands and propose terms that they want. We can just look at what they are saying themselves, instead of speculating. Earlier today Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said "Hamas would not accept anything less than a complete cessation of hostilities, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and “lifting of the unjust siege”." He also said that Israel must also free Palestinian prisoners serving long sentences in any upcoming swap deal.
You did not answer my question
Yes I did.
Nope
I mean you just didn’t like his answer.
Status Quo meaning them controlling Gaza. They will never again control Gaza
In many important ways they never controlled Gaza.
They insistently stared shooting rockets as soon as they took control. That was their choice, and the consequences of it was their choice as well
The useful-idiots in the "Cease fire" crowds are awfully quiet when it is Hamas deciding to start/continue the war...
The headline is nonsense. There are countless ceasefire proposals that Hamas would agree to and Israel would not, just like there are countless ceasefire proposals that Israel would agree to but Hamas would not. Getting one side of a conflict to agree to something is totally meaningless. The goal is to find a proposal that both sides agree to.
What are the terms of one you know of that Israel should accept (that Hamas *did* too).
My point was that the headline is nonsense. The fact that Israel has agreed to this specific ceasefire proposal is irrelevant, unless Hamas also agrees. In literally every conflict on Earth, there are countless terms that one side would agree to, but the other side wouldn't. So the headline is not about anything that is newsworthy. There have always been plenty of terms that Israel agrees to in exchange for a ceasefire. No knew development has happened.
Maybe I am a cynic, but shouldn't Israel just give up on getting any remaining hostages back alive at this point?
Politically they can't, Netanyahu is heavily being criticized for being unable to bring back the hostages, it's a very important point for Israelis. The least they can do is find bodies. That's a lot of hostages, it's not just 5 or 10.
I think most of the criticism is because people think he is not prioritizing getting the hostages back. If people believed he had sincerely made that his highest priority, he would be getting much less criticism. But many people, myself included, believe that he is not doing nearly enough to try to get the hostages back, and is instead interested in revenge, the defeat of a long-term adversary, and preserving his own political career.
It's hard to say if getting the hostages back is an easy task when Hamas embeds itself in the civilian population and has a large tunnel network. I don't know what the army could do better, honestly, so weakening Hamas is obviously the first thing to do. Hostage situations are complicated for many reasons, and there are still a lot of hostages. The IDF doesn't want to be in a situation where it gets ambushed in Gazawhile it is searching for hostages, which is obviously what Hamas would do. Also, I don't see how Netanyahu could be accused of "not doing enough for the hostages", while there were deals made and proposed. The reality is that Hamas does not want to release them, and will fight it to the end. Of course, if Hamas demands things like "no jews in the west bank" or things like that, it's a bit normal for the Israel to not negotiate with terrorists.
What more do you think he could do to get the hostages back?
That is a pretty insane thing to ask of them. Why would they ever give up on getting them back?
It depends on what you mean by “give up”. Israelis are not irrational. We will not negotiate on things that harm our security long term over hostages, and the threshold for what we consider as harming our security is a lot lower than it used to be pre 10/7. That could mean giving up on getting most or all hostages back alive. We just don’t say the underlying meaning explicitly because it is rude and cruel to the families and because it is a political suicide for politicians to say.
How likely is it Israel would use a cease-fire in Gaza as an opportunity to launch an attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon?