Another dead 40,000 civilians and they’ll have the remaining hostages freed, no problem!
But it’s not the bombings or other military actions, but rather negotiation, that obtained the release of all but a few of those hostages. Sadly, Israel’s attacks have probably directly killed more hostages than they’ve rescued.
(That’s the kind of counterfactual cognitive dissonance I’m talking about. “Only 111”, for Pete’s sake, like that’s somehow a negligible remnant rather than a major failure to achieve what most Israelis consider a primary objective.)
What a mental fucking take. No wonder you dumb fucks don’t understand how a war works.
Negotiations happen when you have something to offer the other side. In the case of the negotiations that released all those hostages, what Israel offered Hamas is a break in the fighting, which Hamas would never have agreed to unless they first had been placed under enormous military pressure.
That negotiation was possible because Israel placed Hamas under enormous military pressure. And your takeaway is “mIlItArY aCtIoN dOeSn’T wOrK”. Jesus fucking Christ that’s a new level of stupidity. It would be hilarious if there weren’t enough braindead idiots with this take to influence foreign policy, which is a terrifying prospect. If the US ever gets into a war with Russia or China while morons with these kinds of opinions hold any sway, we will lose to Russia’s paper tiger of an army.
You’re pretending that the negotiations could have come without significant military pressure and then lecturing us about counterfactual cognitive dissonance! This is fucking hilarious.
Hamas said, over and over and over, “no negotiations whatsoever unless Israel first agreed to a ceasefire, unilaterally on their part”. Israel (rightfully) said “you don’t get to do Oct 7 and then dictate terms; come negotiate and if your offer is good enough you can have a ceasefire”. Hamas said no, so we bombed the shit out of them until they were forced back to the negotiating table.
THAT is how fucking war works. You don’t let Hitler take Poland and then say “OK Mr Hitler what terms do you want?”. You win the fucking war and then the enemy offers terms.
Hamas hasn’t even been showing up to negotiations; Israel has. You can’t end a war unilaterally, except by surrender. If you have a plan for forcing Hamas back to the table other than continuing to fight them, I’m all ears.
Most of those 111 are dead, many have been dead since Oct 7. Hamas has made it pretty clear months ago that even getting 30 hostages together would be a challenge for them.
Despite this, Israel would love to negotiate for the remaining hostages, but Hamas is not showing up at negotiations. What can Israel do other than continue applying military pressure to Hamas to force them back to the table?
The war’s PRIMARY objective is making sure that Hamas doesn’t repeat this performance. If we exchange the remaining hostages for tens of thousands of terrorists, and end up releasing the mastermind of the next Oct 7 - the way we did with Sinwar in the Shalit deal - I don’t think anyone would consider that a win.
Erm, you DO realize that’s the TOTAL dead, not the CIVILIAN dead, right?
I know the Hamas Ministry of Health doesn’t make that distinction, but you’re pro Palestinian, not pro Hamas… Right?
Is Israel, publicly or privately, envisioning some sort of scenario where Hamas continues to function and exist? If not, then what reason does Hamas have to negotiate?
Statements by politicians aren’t worth the paper they aren’t written on, but Netanyahu originally declared that “every Hamas member is a dead man” and similar sentiments; and that the war would not end until “Hamas’s military and governing capabilities are destroyed”.
Did the Allies envision a scenario where the Nazis or Tojo would continue to govern their respective countries?
You might be referring to his statement that every Hamas member who crossed into Israel on Oct 7 would be killed or imprisoned? I don’t know of any other statement about killing every last Hamasnik.
Correct, if they don’t surrender first, we will need to destroy their military and governing capabilities instead. That’s how replacing a government works (and Hamas isn’t an insurgency, despite borrowing heavily from insurgent tactics; it’s the official governing body of Gaza, which makes a significant difference both in Hamas’ capabilities, their control over the Gazan population, and in the way they need to be tackled).
Do you have an article that quotes more than 2 or 3 words at a time? The only part with quotation marks around it is “a dead man”, I have no idea if he said “every Hamas member is a dead man” or if he said “every Hamas member who crossed into Israel on Oct 7 is a dead man” or any of a million and one other possibilities.
Holy shit they quote like 6 people 2 words at a time. Ok Biden said “Be careful” what the fuck was the rest of the sentence? I can’t stand it when “news” articles pull this shit.
This article has (slightly) more of the quote:
ISTM he was just declaring how every Hamas member is a dead man, without qualification.
Right. So until, and if, Hamas is ready to surrender unconditionally, what do they have to discuss or negotiate? Unconditional surrender does not require much negotiation, either; basically you can go on the media and declare that you are laying down your arms and that your government is dissolved.
Fucking finally, found it. I had to click on 7 videos titled “Netanyahu says every Hamas member is a dead man” where the thumbnail showed Netanyahu but the actual video had some idiot reporter talking the entire time. Finally, the 8th video was actually of Netanyahu talking, and you are right, he did say it.
Any number of things. Temporary ceasefires, instead of Israel declaring “this is the safe zone” Hamas could negotiate safe zones and humanitarian corridors, the list goes on and on. As the administrative body of Gaza, Hamas has both the right and responsibility to negotiate those sorts of things on behalf of their citizens, if they aren’t satisfied with the humanitarian areas Israel has declared.
Or they could negotiate for the release of Palestinian prisoners. Personally I think that’s a terrible mistake and Israel needs to stop letting out terrorists in exchange for dead bodies or for hostages - if we didn’t trade a thousand terrorists including Sinwar for Shalit, Oct 7 may never have happened - but practically speaking that IS something Israel has negotiated for in the past, so it’s an option that’s open to Hamas, if they cared to take it.
It’s not like “they won’t negotiate” is very high up on my list of complaints about Hamas, though. If they don’t want to negotiate, fine, they don’t have to; we can keep fighting.
A five-month-old girl was the only survivor of an Israeli strike as they sat down to dinner. Strangely enough, they were not planning evil deeds at the time and not a one of them as carrying a rifle at the time, not even the baby.
It is a good thing that there is still a village to raise that child…oh shit! There is still a damned good chance the village will be destroyed by yet another in a long line of Israeli strikes, isn’t there?
It will take a village to raise Reem, the baby whose entire family was killed in a strike (nbcnews.com)
Hey Babale, what lesson has this baby learned?
Here’s a thought: Don’t try to kill the people you are trying to negotiate with WHILE you are trying to negotiate with them.
Perhaps Hamas shouldn’t have rejected all those ceasefire proposals if they didn’t want their negotiators getting fired on.
I realized that the entire time since his assassination, I have been erroneously misattributing the “flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth” quote to Haniyeh, when it was actually Ghazi Hamad who said it. I was previously basing my thoughts about the killing on this quote, as I don’t think there’s any productive negotiation to be had with someone of such a mindset. Was Haniyeh more pragmatic?
See, in my opinion this only holds while they are actually going to or from the negotiations. In other words I think this obligation is only valid in the context of perfidy.
Now, striking on Iranian soil I consider a separate problem.
~Max
I assume that you are talking in terms of some sort of rules of war white flag of truce type understanding. I think that Czarcasm was speaking on more of a practical level that whether or not such a person is fair game, killing your negotiating partner in the middle of talks will guarantee the failure of said talks. I think it is more clear than ever that Netanyahu will do every thing he can to prevent peace. Not that Hamas is any more eager. The desire to keep the war going seems to be the one thing they can actually agree on, and they will seem to be taking turns to scuttle any agreement as it comes up.
I don’t make a distinction between a “rules of war white flag of truce type understanding” and “more of a practical level that whether or not such a person is fair game”. Rules of war are not humanitarian, they are practical.
~Max
Its the difference between is this something I’m allowed to do, versus is this a good strategy to do.
By virtue of the target being head of state, the strategic value of an assassination is vastly different than a mere ambassador for the peace negotiations.
~Max