By the end of 90 days, all hostages would be released. At the end of day 90, the ceasefire would (absent further negotiations) end.
The big sticking point in my eyes is the release of Palestinian prisoners: all “women, children, elderly, and sick.” Some of those, especially the women and children, could be combatants, and their release should not be uniform. In addition, Hamas is asking for 1,500 adult male prisoners to be released, including 500 of their choice, and “additional prisoners” in the second 45 days. I don’t trust this at all.
But this is their proposal, and it seems to me that it’s a starting point for negotiations. Netanyahu’s refusal to use it as a starting point, choosing instead to continue the overwhelming military response with its concomitant loss of life, is a terrible choice.
What steps would you want Palestinian civilians in Gaza to take to separate themselves enough from Hamas?
As the entire population of Gaza is squeezed into a smaller space, at what point does it become physically impossible for there to be separation? Follow up to that question, if Israel demands that civilians move to designated safe spaces, isn’t it then Israel’s job to make sure those spaces are safe?
For example, here is an article from December about the Al Mawasi humanitarian zone where the subhead reads “Israel blames UN for poor conditions, says Hamas firing rockets from there.” To which I say to Israel, you are the fuckheads who declared it a safe zone, if Hamas is in there firing rockets that’s on you. Do your damn job.
I don’t understand this at all. If Israel says “here’s an area you can go where you won’t be killed”, and if they sincerely mean it and don’t intend to attack that area militarily; and then if Hamas fires rockets out of that are at Israel, and Israel strikes back; that’s somehow Israel’s fault and they were being fuckheads? “Do your job”? What?
If Israel is going to declare some place to be safe from combat, it is their job to first, make sure that the zone is cleared of any combatants, and second, prevent any combatants from entering the area. If they are incapable of performing those services, then they should not be declaring it a safe zone. Since eliminating Hamas is Israel’s stated goal, this is less of a safe zone and more of a we’re just going to attack this spot where people are packed together later zone. We have already seen Israel attack places once declared safe zones.
This also gets back to the question about civilians not doing enough to separate themselves from Hamas. If the IDF is incapable of keeping Hamas out of their self-proclaimed safe zone, what chance do civilians have of separating themselves from Hamas. If the answer is it is impossible to stop Hamas from moving around Gaza (likely true) then what if any steps could Palestinian civilians take to get to safety if they are not allowed to leave Gaza?
Don’t get me wrong, I get it. Keeping Hamas out of the “safe zone” would be impossible without an incredible investment of manpower, inspections, etc. But that is obvious to everyone, so why bother going through the farce of declaring something a safe zone if you can’t guarantee safety there? One could even argue that declaring a safe zone that you can’t maintain the safety of is a malicious act, since it encourages both combatants and non-combatants to congregate in a much smaller area. A smaller barrel to shoot fish in perhaps.
Side note: I was just involved in a similarly silly discussion at work where I had to inform people that no, we can’t just declare the basement in our 300-year-old building to be an emergency shelter. It just doesn’t meet the codes and giving it a fancy name and a sign doesn’t change that basic fact.
…well, Gaza has been described by humanitarian agencies on the ground as a “Graveyard for Children.” That was back at the end of October, when there were 3,450 dead. That number is at least 11,500 now, excluding those that are still missing, buried under the rubble.
How does that compare to other recent wars?
Again, that’s from early November. But in Gaza Israel were killing 130 children per day, compared to 3 per day in Syria, 2 per day in Afghanistan, 0.7 per day in the Ukraine.
At Nasser, one of the three hospitals that I’ve mentioned are currently under siege by Israeli forces, the largest functional hospital remaining after services at Al Shifa had to be reduced, 21 people were killed by Israeli snipers.
At one of the other hospitals under siege, Al-Amal Hospital, from the Palestinian Red Crescent:
OK, I’ll give you the answer you are looking for. Babies have been casualties in every war in recent memory.
Here’s the thing, nations at war have also been criticized for their actions in every war in recent memory. Do you think that Israel is above criticism? Do you think that there is no action that Israel could take in Gaza right now that would be too much, too far?
Or do you think that the deaths in 10/7 were unique and somehow allow Israel free reign? Well, bad news chum, as you say civilians die in war. The deaths on 10/7 aren’t special and really aren’t different from the deaths that have been happening in Gaza since then. You may feel differently about them, but at the most basic level they are all equally bad and all equally suck. And for those of you who are just cold bloodedly accepting X amount of Palestinian civilian deaths as collateral damage, I hope you are prepared to feel the same for the next round of Israeli civilian deaths. Because this is just the latest round in an endless cycle of violence.
Or you can at least be open to the idea of asking questions, asking if there are at least less violent ways of doing things.
That they’re not trying to make an ethical argument, to those who’d so attack them, about morality or humanity or whatever. That they’re not trying to appeal to such people based on the sort of high-minded reasons that lead to ICJ decisions that (a) the court has no way to enforce, but that (b) sure do sound noble. That, instead, they’re slowly and patiently explaining, hey, to anyone deciding whether to start a round of killing Israelis: you can expect this sort of response. There seems to be little point in saying that you Ought Not To Do That, so we’re instead just stating that This Will Be The Response — adding, as WreckingCrew would put it, “I Hope You Are Prepared To Feel The Same For The Next Round” — because, like WreckingCrew was just saying, either you’re cold-blooded enough to accept that, or you’re not. So if, after taking a good long look, you’re not prepared for a dose of what you’re seeing right now? Well, then, good news, chum: that’s your reason to refrain.
