If one is meant to take at all seriously the stated Israeli goal of “eliminating Hamas”, they absolutely had to wipe him out: he was one of their top guys. I doubt anyone is shedding any tears.
Less clear how genociding his entire extended family comes into it…
…its not about “shedding tears.”
Its about whether or not we should accept the fact that the side that is literally assassinating the people they are negotiating with are treating the negotiation process in good faith.
I think you misunderstand the role the UN resolution plays in this situation. I encourage you to look up why Russia abstained from the vote. Peace talks have not taken place under UN auspices. The UN resolution incorporates the actual proposal by reference and summarizes its contents. If you look at paragraph 1 you will see the security council “calls on” Hamas to accept “the ceasefire proposal announced on May 31”, because it is and always has been external to the U.N. The resolution is a summary of a separate set of documents held by the parties and mediators, which are not published. The UN resolution was never the actual “deal”. Hamas did not respond to the UN, nor did Hamas send the UN proposed “amendments” to a “resolution”.
For your convenience, here are official statements put out by President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu on May 31, the day the proposal was announced, clarifying that the six week (or more) negotiation period during phase 1 would be used to negotiate for Israel’s interests, to wit, the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.
President Biden, May 31:
During the six weeks of ph- — of phase one, Israel and Hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two, which is a permanent end to hostol- — to hostilities. Now, I’ll be straight with you. There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two. Israel will want to make sure its interests are protected.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, May 31:
The Prime Minister authorized the negotiating team to present a proposal to that end, which would also enable Israel to continue the war until all its objectives are achieved, including the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. The actual proposal put forward by Israel, including the conditional transition from one phase to the next, allows Israel to uphold these principles.
Here is Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on the record, June 10, that in his interpretation the transition from phase 1 (the temporary ceasefire) to phase 2 (the permanent ceasefire) is dependent on Israel and Hamas coming to an agreement, and one of the conditions Israel will require at that point is that Hamas is removed from power.
This seems to be a recurring thing so I will point it out. You are misusing the term “red line”. A red line is not the same as a must-have. A red line is something you don’t cross or go beyond. If you stand behind the red line, you don’t get hurt. If you cross the red line, you can get hurt. “Hamas’s red line is an actual ceasefire” means if the resolution goes beyond an actual ceasefire, Hamas will reject it. That can’t be what you meant. In other instances I could decipher the point you were trying to make, but here I don’t know what your point is. If you’re saying Hamas rejected the proposal because it contained an actual ceasefire, and Hamas considered an actual ceasefire a must-have item, well that still makes no sense.
Maybe your point is that a permanent ceasefire before releasing hostages was a must-have item for Hamas, and Hamas rejected the proposal because it required releasing hostages without guaranteeing a permanent ceasefire. But that can’t be right, because that is the point I made.
Irrelevant to any point I’ve made.
I obviously disagree. You can get more vaccines and food to people in six weeks than you can in zero. I’m also thinking domestic opinion will turn more doveish following a ceasefire. On the Gazan side, obviously the aid and ceasefire and return to what remains of their homes are huge incentives. On the Israeli side, aside from the growing anti-war movement, some of the hostages return and there will be immense pressure to adhere to the deal so Israel can retrieve the rest of the hostages.
I’m not sure I understand you correctly. Is it your position that a truce is worse than the status quo?
Irrelevant to any point I’ve made, and besides, brinkmanship is compatible with genocide.
I’m not sure I understand you correctly. Are you distinguishing between the summary of the proposal provided by President Biden on May 31 and the substantially identical summary submitted by Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield to the UN Security Council on behalf of President Biden? Why wouldn’t support for the one carry over to support for the other, seeing as the UN resolution refers to the exact same May 31 proposal?
What about them? Are you under the misapprehension that I am defending Israel or otherwise think the war is justified at all?
It does matter, in my opinion. You are not required to agree with me.
It can be and has been left out of the resolution. You are mistaken, sir. Look at the resolution. We already agreed that removing Hamas from power is not in there. We agree that it is an important demand that Israel insists on. Israel repeated the demand in the speech at the UN after the vote. Everybody knows about this demand. Nobody thinks Israel is relenting. But it’s not in the resolution. That proves that it can be left out.
That is irrelevant. For your convenience, let me explain exactly why it is irrelevant.
In the last two paragraphs of post #4265 you asserted the deal was made in bad faith. Your argument had nothing to do with Israel’s past actions or atrocities in the war. You made the argument that the deal (described by the UN resolution) was presented in bad faith because it was one-sided and deceptive, specifically, because
I have countered both of these specific points in support of the proposition that the terms of the deal itself are not evidence of bad faith. Insofar as you now attempt to argue that previous actions of Israel are evidence of bad faith, that is irrelevant to the point you made and the point I made. In fact I think you have inadvertently tried to shift the goalposts of the discussion from, the terms themselves are evidence of bad faith, to Israel is acting in bad faith generally. I don’t support Israel. I’m not here to defend Israel. So I’m going to cut you off there and hold you to your original argument.
I disagree, for reasons already discussed.
Irrelevant. I’m sorry, but I don’t feel like explaining why like I did two paragraphs up. I didn’t watch your cite. On the off chance that you misinterpreted “justified in fighting”, I assumed the status quo state of war as a fait accompli.
I cited neither a January 10th article nor a July 28th article. Because negotiations were and are ongoing, I am not aware of anybody confirming the peacekeeping force on the record. For obvious reasons Israel won’t allow anybody to go on the record about that until it’s a done deal, which it isn’t. There are enough indicators, which I cited, that I’m comfortable claiming it happened. I can’t help you access the July 10th Washington Post story, and as far as I know nobody else has the story. The force is supposed to be drawn from “supporters of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza” rather than officials in Hamas/Gaza PA or the West Bank PA, and the source was indeed an unnamed US official. The July 2 story in the Times of Israel should be free to read. It relies on unnamed Israeli officials, for obvious reasons.
That “agreement” in paragraph 2(b) is unambiguously the product of “negotiations” mentioned in paragraph 3, which by the express terms of that paragraph, do not have a maximum timeframe. There is no other mechanism by which 2(b) automatically triggers. You seem to make the argument that the negotiations are limited in scope but the actual point of contention when this deal was proposed was whether either party, after six weeks, would breach the agreement by unilaterally ending negotiations and resuming hostilities. We have Israel on the record multiple times saying yes, Israel could go right back to bombing Gaza into the ground after six weeks if it loses faith in the negotiations. We have the United States promising the UN that it will work with Israel, and Egypt and Qatar promising the UN to work with Hamas, to prevent this from happening. We can infer from reports I cited that Hamas paid attention to Israel’s interpretation, because Hamas proposed amendments committing Israel to a timeline for a permanent ceasefire.
We can infer, from Israel and Hamas’s responses to the proposal, from the speeches made at the UN, from the transcript of President Biden’s announcement, and from the text of the UN resolution, that the proposal did not guarantee a permanent end to hostilities. If you are reading the resolution and thinking the proposal guarantees a permanent end to hostilities, you are wrong.
Either they are the wrong words or I don’t understand what you mean by them. Whatever point you are trying to convey, is lost on me.
For Israel, paragraph 2(a) is not conditional on removing Hamas from power.
Addressed above.
If you want to take Israel’s side on the question of “administrative detention”, be my guest. Why are you arguing with me on this.
I meant irrelevant to the point you responded to, which was that Israel promised to exchange Palestinian POWs in phase 1. The precise language used is “Palestinian prisoners”. Who are being released during a “ceasefire”. I suspect nobody reading this exchange thought I was referring to designated prisoners of war rather than Palestinians in “administrative detention”, and I don’t see how the legal status of Palestinian prisoners bears on interpreting the proposal or the question of whether Israel endorsed it.
The United States promised, on the record, multiple times to hold Israel to the agreement if Hamas accepted. Not that the United States has always kept its word, but… You describe to me a better way for Israel to back up a promise, within reason, without changing history.
And remember Egypt and Qatar provided the same promises with respect to Hamas.
And you think holding out for that pipe dream is better than a six week truce now and questions about permanent peace later?
Irrelevant.
My government doesn’t listen to demands.
I’m not defending war crimes.
But they won’t.
Irrelevant.
I’m arguing that Israel officially, and on the record, endorsed the proposal announced by President Biden in May and welcomed by the United Nations Security Council in June. I am doing so because you denied the veracity of that specific claim when DrDeth made it.
~Max
Right.
Look, Hamas is waffling on this because it has no desire for a ceasefire. Hamas doesnt give a fig for the people of Gaza, and as long as the war continues, Hamas can steal aid and sell it to their own people, and the leaders of Hamas can get rich, and leave.
Mind you, that crook Netanyahu is making things worse with his rabble rousing & saber rattling, etc.
Meanwhile the people of gaza suffer. Netanyahu doesnt care, and neither does Hamas.
Netanyahu is skillfully manipulating the US to further his goals in Gaza. Peace talks are just window dressing. The destruction of Hamas is a meaningless slogan like Israels’ right to defend itself. Netanyahus’ goal is a prolonged conflict that keeps him in power, allowing Israel to reoccupy, and populate, Gaza and profitably develop its’ resources.
The Gaza crisis for Netanyahu is growing as we approach the US elections. Trump has no middle east policy and Harris may be smart enough to withdraw.
I guess it is too much to hope for that this war might be concluded before Nov 2024? So a year and a month after the initial Hamas attack, Israel will still be bouncing the rubble in Gaza because there’s terrorists in there I tell you what. I think Israel has made the point quite clearly that they can bring an overwhelming amount of military force to bear on Gaza at any moment. We seem to be long past the point where blunt force trauma is actually accomplishing anything.
Gaza or anyone else who gets in there way. But, that leaves the Israeli homeland vulnerable to attack. There are lot’s of bad guys working on how to take advantage of it.
If one is serious about negotiating to release hostages one does not kill the other side’s chief negotiator. That alone speaks volumes about Netanyahu’s priorities. It also shows that Israel has zero intention of negotiating anything.
Killing the man’s family? That just shows this is a genocide.
Netanyahu doesn’t give a f*** about the hostages, he has zero concern for them and doesn’t care if they ever come home, whether whole and alive or dead and in pieces. They’re just pawns to him. All Netanyahu cares about is staying in power.
The people negotiating for Hamas don’t give a f*** about the people of Gaza or what’s left of their homes. The Hamas guys calling the shots aren’t even in Gaza and never have been, they’ve been sitting comfortably in Qatar the whole time. All they care about it staying in power. The Gazans are just pawns to them.
Well, yes. I would have to research the exact original quotes, but the government vowed that its goal was to “crush and destroy Hamas” and that “every Hamas member is a dead man”. What the real Israeli plans/goals, discussed behind closed doors, are, and whom they plan to negotiate with (would be embarrassing if it turned out to be Hamas), is a good question many people are interested in.
Hey, would you look at that! “Senior US officials” are making the same point I made last week about how the IDF has accomplished about all they are going to accomplish in Gaza. New York Times article via Yahoo! News:
But one of Israel’s biggest remaining goals — the return of the roughly 115 living and dead hostages still held in Gaza after being seized in the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks — cannot be achieved militarily, according to current and former U.S. and Israeli officials.
Hamas wants to stay in power.
Responding here per mod instructions, and this being the most recent active thread on this topic not in the Pit
It’s not that simple. That is what I find frustrating about the protests. Snarky one liners are not a way to make policy.
The US can’t just blow up its alliance with Israel. Israel is a strategic partner in the Middle East, and basically why the US has influence in that area. If we want to have any influence to prevent World War III from happening, we have to keep a foothold there.
You can’t take you ball and go home and then still have influence over the game.
What the US can and is doing is bending the rules of the treaty. They can slow walk things, or happen to not have enough of things. And, yes, you heard me right: the US is doing that. See this article, for instance about the US slow walking. Or this article from a pro-Israel source complaining Biden is doing this. And thos are just from the top of Google.
The concept of slowwalking means you can’t admit you’re doing it, because then you’re violating the treaty.
And, if the stuff about preventing WWIII doesn’t appeal to you, I’ll point out it also means the US loses any influence in what Israel is doing.
This Trump-style break everything diplomacy is not a good thing. There are always these super simple solutions. They don’t work. The situation is complicated.
Definitely more complicated than a snarky comment.
Given Trump’s history, I don’t understand why Israel would trust him at all. We have already seen him sell out an allied country out to an invading neighbor because the ally wouldn’t make up dirt on his political opponent. We’ve already seen him abandon NATO because Trump thinks it is a US-run protection racket that wasn’t paying their bills. And we’ve already seen many, many examples of Trump being openly anti-Semitic including a fresh example from today (attacks on Josh Shapiro). Trump would happily stab Israel in the back and does not need a reason to do it. Like every other problem Trump faces, he has no actual solutions here beyond blustering that he fixed it and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
The US has actual bases and other arrangements with lot of other countries in the Middle East. Israel is not the the only US ally there.
Man… why do you assume my comment is meant to be “snarky”? If I sound passionate, it’s because of the dead babies, ya know? I’m willing to hear people out on the subject.
I obviously haven’t the capacity to be aware of all the existing variables, given the limited knowledge I have. I Haven’t read the article, yet but will. I find what you’re telling me to be interesting and worth investigation. It’s absolutely HEART WRENCHING, though. I don’t see any ‘type’ of human as being inferior or superior, or ‘different’ on any level (due to their ‘race’ or region, aside from, perhaps, aesthetically), but other people seem to see an individual commit an act, and associate it with the tribe he runs with… the Israeli government doesn’t seem to be considering (and probably doesn’t care) the whole of the people of their tribe, as far as I can see… this is so sad.
It’s hate. And, respectfulIy, don’t think I should have to be walking on glass when calling it out, even if I’m unknowngly uninformed on certain angles and information. You can’t blame people for feeling guilt and helplessness. I honestly don’t know the absolute best way to try to have an impact… but, ya know, innocent kids blowing up tends to get certain people super passionate.
But, honestly, I’d still like to learn what your opinion of what I’ve said, is, ya know?
I’m learning that humans, in general, can be extremely resilient to new information, and being able to put themselves in other people shoes, and I sincerely try my best to work against that.
One could argue that they the instigators, no?
My apologies for the triple post, but I forgot to address this:
Doesn’t the mere appearance of decent help other’s realize that, not all of us are on board with such brutality?
No, and it seems that was part of the plan. Peace plan after peace plan has been sent to Hamas- all rejected.
I cant argue with that,
Nor this.
Both sides have assholes for leaders.
No.
I’ll agree that I wasn’t correct in saying that (I was only considering the short-term and It’s much more nuanced than that).
According to Haaretz the Gaza situation is unfolding much as anticipated by posters upthread:
Israel will populate and develop the northern half of Gaza with Israeli citizens leading to annexation.
Return of the hostages is not a priority of the Israeli government and those remaining will be abandoned.
Israel will remove the native population of northern Gaza by forcing them into the south.
Hamas will remain in control of southern Gaza perpetuating Bibis’ needed enemy as his crutch to stay in power.
The IDF will keep up token military action in Gaza through the US elections then begin the occupation. I assume Harris will avoid any discussion of Gaza until after the inauguration, then we will see where she stands.