|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 11 2024 06:45 Suibne wrote:
The UN SC has just backed the thee phase permanent seize fire proposal that frees all hostages. That Israel drew up behind the scenes. It is the deal Biden says Israel is willing to accept. But that then Netanyahu publicly said Biden was lying about. And that Israel meant that this would be a deal they would accept AFTER Hamas is eliminated. The US didn't veto it for Netanyahu. Hamas says they are positive. Let's see Netanyahu either reject it, or let's watch Netanyahu blow up his own government to make this deal.
And then let's watch Mohdoo here explain it all to us.
I'm having a hard time finding the exact document so I can understand the specifics. As a whole, it appears to try to achieve what is important:
1: Israel leaves Gaza alone
2: Gaza leaves Israel alone
3: All hostages released
Here is why I don't think it will achieve its goal and the ceasefire will be over in less than a year and the whole process is pointless
1: Fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes violating the ceasefire. What if someone from Gaza launches a few rockets at Israel? Are they affiliated with Hamas? When Hamas isn't exactly known for dressing in uniform, and various other terrorist organizations like PIJ exist within Gaza, what if one of the others launches some kind of attack? I think even if Hamas did as much as they possibly can to prevent any attacks on Israel, it is likely someone will still succeed in launching rockets or shooting up a mall or whatever. I do not think it is possible for the combined efforts of both Israel and Hamas to prevent all attacks from Gaza. So that means it would be super unreasonable for Israel to declare the ceasefire has been broken after someone fires a few rockets.
2: Similarly, if its impossible to prevent all attacks, how many attacks are "reasonable" for Israel to accept? What if Hamas just decides to play dumb when various "non-affiliated" groups continue to launch attacks? Fundamentally, I don't think it is possible for Israel and Hamas to agree on what kind of event constitutes a violation of the ceasefire. If an Israeli guard sees a truck speeding towards the agreed upon border between Gaza and Israel, when is that guard within their right to assume the worst and shoot it? If Israel kills a "lone wolf" operating outside of Hamas, did Israel violate the ceasefire by killing the lone wolf?
3: The difference in power between Israel and Hamas is too gigantic for Hamas to ever truly disarm and not build back up. They would be fools to just hope Israel will leave them alone forever. So Hamas has a huge incentive to be paranoid and do anything they can to build themselves up. At what point is that a valid concern for Israel? Israel has the capability to kill every Palestinian in Gaza in less than 48 hours. Hamas is incentivized to build up as much as they can just in case they need to fight another war of attribution if the Israeli government ends up led by someone like Givr etc
4: Look at the situations that catalyzed previous ceasefires to be terminated. Some comparatively "small" events have led to an enormous amount of violence. Preventing those types of events simply isn't possible. Hamas originally rose to power because the previous government failed to convince Palestinians they needed to remain peaceful. Israel's government has a significant % of folks who are just waiting for an excuse to rain hell on Gaza. Add those together and it feels impossible to prevent the events big enough to spiral out of control.
Conclusion: Ideally, great ceasefire deal. In reality, history indicates the measures being taken to achieve peace are inadequate. There is no mechanism to prevent a "small" event spiraling into a complete dissolution of the ceasefire. Small things will happen.
|
You are trying to do this intricate personal analysis. But this is nonsense. Yes, there is no document of the proposal out on public. And there likely won't be. And that's not relevant. The US wants Israel to accept this.
All you had to do is 'I am ok with Israel rejecting the US and UN SC backed deal that Israel initially drew up themselves. Because I want Israel to eliminate Hamas first, both their military and political wing."
Or, if you don't believe that. Say you think Israel should agree to the deal.
This isn't rocket science.
Your conclusion seems to be a whole bunch of doublethink where you try to convince yourself that you'd support this cease fire-hostage release deal in theory, but in practice of course you are opposed to it.
Not sure why you are even sharing it with other people.
Long term analysis of this conflict and what happens to Gaza, Israel's security or the two state settlement don't even come into this. You don't wait with releasing the hostages until you solved all the problems with the two state settlement. You release them NOW. Same with stopping the bombing of civilians in Gaza, and withholding essential food and other aid to them.
I think this deal should be signed by both parties. But I am also 100% convinced that both Hamas will attack Israel again in the future. And that Israel will attack Gaza in the future. If you don't support the current deal because Hamas will probably attack in the future, it literally means you don't want to free the hostages. And I cannot imagine how my brain would ever oppose this deal because I am not convinced it won't completely solve the Israel-Gaza conflict. Of course it won't. And that completely doesn't matter at all.
|
On June 11 2024 10:09 Suibne wrote:
You are trying to do this intricate personal analysis. But this is nonsense. Yes, there is no document of the proposal out on public. And there likely won't be. And that's not relevant.
I assumed you were asking for my thoughts on it when you said this: On June 11 2024 06:45 Suibne wrote:
And then let's watch Mohdoo here explain it all to us.
So I did my best to provide my full thoughts.
On June 11 2024 10:09 Suibne wrote:
Your conclusion seems to be a whole bunch of doublethink where you try to convince yourself that you'd support this cease fire-hostage release deal in theory, but in practice of course you are opposed to it.
Not sure why you are even sharing it with other people.
Long term analysis of this conflict and what happens to Gaza, Israel's security or the two state settlement don't even come into this. You don't wait with releasing the hostages until you solved all the problems with the two state settlement. You release them NOW. Same with stopping the bombing of civilians in Gaza, and withholding essential food and other aid to them.
I think this deal should be signed by both parties. But I am also 100% convinced that both Hamas will attack Israel again in the future. And that Israel will attack Gaza in the future. If you don't support the current deal because Hamas will probably attack in the future, it literally means you don't want to free the hostages. And I cannot imagine how my brain would ever oppose this deal because I am not convinced it won't completely solve the Israel-Gaza conflict. Of course it won't. And that completely doesn't matter at all.
I hope everyone signs it and it goes into effect. It sounds like we both agree this conflict is essentially infinite. And so if it is infinite, may as well pause the fighting for a bit. If we approximate the conflict as killing x number of people per day, and it continues forever, it is strictly beneficial to have a ceasefire even if it only lasts a day. So yeah, that's why I see it as purely good. It does nothing to solve the conflict, but that's just not really the goal. I don't think anyone who is actively engaged with this process has any hope it will actually be "permanent".
|
You don't think Israel is nuanced enough to make the distinction (or the research) between an attack that comes from Hamas or comes from (a few) distinctly acting individuals? You could argue: what's the difference, or even Israel might make that claim, or one might even debate whether the two (Hamas and the distinct individuals) cannot actually be separated through whatever lens you're judging them, but it would be very impressive to me if Israel shows constraint in a situation like that and doesn't use that as an excuse to retaliate.
It would show the world they're serious about respecting Palestinians, but more importantly, it would also show Palestinians so.
Also, if I would be Israel, I would stop/diminish the apparatus that let's in aid ushers the help from the outside and I would start Palestine handle that. Puts the onus on Hamas to show they 'care' about their own people or givea an opportunity to let someone rise to the occasion. Or at the very least, involve Palestine in some of the organisation.
|
The question is, if Israel wants to be nuanced enough. If nothing major changes, I would highlydoubt that. Your asking for Israel to basically just be "Ok" (again) with rockets being launched at them.
|
Of course israel doesn’t want to end the action.
It’s barely costing them.
Huge amount of war supplies went to Israel, and they aren’t losing much fighting against Hamas.
The only area that is obviously a loss is their PR, but who cares when they only care about their voters, which essentially comes down to ultra Orthodox Jews/zionist within their nation.
So all the cost are being on the west, while Israel are just riding the wave.
Israel ministers have been making statements that’s are close to genocide for years and no one cared.
Netanyahu is pretty much a war monger and setting controversial laws, does anyone here think the “tough” words from the US and EU leaders are tough enough? Might as well be a slap on the wrist.
All the “you say he say” is just buying Israel even more time to extend their military action.
And the more they kill, the “safer” they are. Whoever support Israel is saying Israel should bomb and slaughter till they feel safe. That’s pretty much what the excuse Russia is using too.
Honestly I am reading papers about how EU is gonna be torn down by right wing, I would very much say a right wing would be very welcomed to get some radical change in policies.
Just as trump has plugged the non stop economy leak to china, pausing it before China steals even more key sectors like solar and batteries.
EU better do the same correction, given decades of no real globally successful tech companies, with automobile makers struggling and redoing the entire energy policy, and the crime rate from mass immigration.
|
On June 11 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:
The question is, if Israel wants to be nuanced enough. If nothing major changes, I would highlydoubt that. Your asking for Israel to basically just be "Ok" (again) with rockets being launched at them.
Who here argues that Israel should just be "ok" with missile attacks from Gaza? There's a big difference between a brutal, unending war and an annual 100-400 missiles of which most get stopped by the iron dome. The former leads to many thousands of dead people, the latter leads to a few destroyed houses and an occasional civilian death. The math isn't mathing if you support the war and not the ceasefire.
Unless, as Nebuchad keeps pointing out consistently and correctly, you don't think Palestinians are humans.
|
Being ok with rockets being launched from Gaza has been the cornerstone of Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza for the last 10 years. The idea was to completely ignore Hamas/Gaza, to slowly annex the West Bank. And to make peace deals with all other Arab states. And Hamas can do whatever the fuck they want. And if they launch too many rockets, then Israel will just go in and 'mow the grass'. Hamas won't be able to launch a comparable attack on Israel for quite a while. Stopping attacks from Gaza/Hamas means you have a peace deal with Gaza/Hamas. Which means implementing a two state solution. Which no recent Israeli government has backed. And currently the population of Israel also doesn't back.
The idea was always that Israel is 'safer' with two small Palestinian territories rules by violent terrorist organizations, than with a united official viable Palestinian state, with their own sovereign army.
The point where it failed was that Hamas did a large scale attack on Oct7th that Israel didn't think would be possible.
Also, the idea we need a right wing in the EU so we don't let Israel take advantage of the EU, just as Trump did with China, is ludicrous on all elements.
First off all, the right wing in the EU is very much proIsrael. Because Israel is also run by far right wingers who also are racist against Muslims&Arabs.
Second, Israel isn't really taking advantage of economic aid from the EU.
Third, Israel is a tiny nation and it cannot be compared to China in any way. The idea that the EU, or even the US, is going to do a trade war on Israel is absurd.
Fourth, Trump did jackshit on China. All he did is put tariffs on Chinese goods, so the US consumers pay more for Chinese goods. The idea that China pays these is also silly. No economist thought that they would help the US economy.
It is a really weird comparison.
Either way, Hamas has accepted the cease fire proposal. Now we get to see how much pressure is put on Israel to also accept. Or, if Biden pulls his hands off Israel and withholds military aid. Or, if they find some trick to blame Hamas.
|
On June 11 2024 19:03 Suibne wrote:
Being ok with rockets being launched from Gaza has been the cornerstone of Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza for the last 10 years. The idea was to completely ignore Hamas/Gaza, to slowly annex the West Bank. And to make peace deals with all other Arab states. And Hamas can do whatever the fuck they want. And if they launch too many rockets, then Israel will just go in and 'mow the grass'. Hamas won't be able to launch a comparable attack on Israel for quite a while. Stopping attacks from Gaza/Hamas means you have a peace deal with Gaza/Hamas. Which means implementing a two state solution. Which no recent Israeli government has backed. And currently the population of Israel also doesn't back.
The idea was always that Israel is 'safer' with two small Palestinian territories rules by violent terrorist organizations, than with a united official viable Palestinian state, with their own sovereign army.
The point where it failed was that Hamas did a large scale attack on Oct7th that Israel didn't think would be possible.
Also, the idea we need a right wing in the EU so we don't let Israel take advantage of the EU, just as Trump did with China, is ludicrous on all elements.
First off all, the right wing in the EU is very much proIsrael. Because Israel is also run by far right wingers who also are racist against Muslims&Arabs.
Second, Israel isn't really taking advantage of economic aid from the EU.
Third, Israel is a tiny nation and it cannot be compared to China in any way. The idea that the EU, or even the US, is going to do a trade war on Israel is absurd.
Fourth, Trump did jackshit on China. All he did is put tariffs on Chinese goods, so the US consumers pay more for Chinese goods. The idea that China pays these is also silly. No economist thought that they would help the US economy.
It is a really weird comparison.
It’s not about EU being right wing not to get taken advantage of by Israel, but a radical shift from the decades of failing politics that made EU what it is today. There are already plenty of articles on it, I don’t think it needs further explanation.
Trump kickstarted the entire anywhere but china policy, which is till this day continued by Biden, which now is extended to nvidia and AI.
(Good luck to EU again on the new tech race)
Trump literally got EU to stop 5G through Huawei and ZTE (and rip some nations still use them because it’s “cost effective “.
The fact that you still list higher price as a loss, is completely not getting global politics and I say this not as an insult.
It is the same logic that the EU politicians follow when they went to nordstream 2. There’s 0 concern over what the actual cost is, sovereignty, know-how in the tech.
I don’t get why you still haven’t learned the lesson, we had multiple cases of supply shortages, Russia getting cut off from SWIFT, and “consumer price” is still the top concern?
Chinas growth has been subsidised by the US and EU greenwashing their own by exporting manufacturing, and then further subsidised when they demand green policies locally.
Well look at just how EU automobiles industries are doing and it certainly wasn’t the only industry hit by it.
All manufacturing are energy intensive and polluting.
Why do you think china is at a decline now, despite so much growth until covid?
It wasn’t the economy slowdown, it wasn’t the debt issue, it’s the fact that the high political tension exists that makes china not as compelling hub anymore. (Though still extremely powerful)
New investments are going to Vietnam and India.
Even the US is now making a manufacturing comeback.
|
On June 11 2024 18:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:
The question is, if Israel wants to be nuanced enough. If nothing major changes, I would highlydoubt that. Your asking for Israel to basically just be "Ok" (again) with rockets being launched at them.
Who here argues that Israel should just be "ok" with missile attacks from Gaza? There's a big difference between a brutal, unending war and an annual 100-400 missiles of which most get stopped by the iron dome. The former leads to many thousands of dead people, the latter leads to a few destroyed houses and an occasional civilian death. The math isn't mathing if you support the war and not the ceasefire. Unless, as Nebuchad keeps pointing out consistently and correctly, you don't think Palestinians are humans.
So, do you think Israel has the will to be nuanced if a third party fires rockets from Gaza at it? It was before Oct 7th, I doubt it will be (ever) again.
I don't know what anything else you wrote has to do with my post. But congrats for some more grandstanding and moralising.
|
On June 11 2024 19:57 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 18:48 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:
The question is, if Israel wants to be nuanced enough. If nothing major changes, I would highlydoubt that. Your asking for Israel to basically just be "Ok" (again) with rockets being launched at them.
Who here argues that Israel should just be "ok" with missile attacks from Gaza? There's a big difference between a brutal, unending war and an annual 100-400 missiles of which most get stopped by the iron dome. The former leads to many thousands of dead people, the latter leads to a few destroyed houses and an occasional civilian death. The math isn't mathing if you support the war and not the ceasefire. Unless, as Nebuchad keeps pointing out consistently and correctly, you don't think Palestinians are humans. So, do you think Israel has the will to be nuanced if a third party fires rockets from Gaza at it? It was before Oct 7th, I doubt it will be (ever) again. I don't know what anything else you wrote has to do with my post. But congrats for some more grandstanding and moralising.
"Grandstanding and moralizing"? Do you even listen to yourself?
What exactly is it that makes Israeli lives favorable over the lives of Palestinians? Have you ever questioned why you think Israelis deserve greater privileges than Palestinians do?
You're basically admitting that you don't care about what happens to Palestinians. If they have to die, so be it. As long as Israel is perfectly, completely, absolutely safe from literally any amount of terrorism, it's all fine. Just as long as Israel stands tall, Palestine can go to hell.
|
So, why don't you answer my question?
I'm interested in whats about to happen, in whats realistic, not what you think my view of Palestinians and/or Israelis is and how outraged you think one ought to be about what Israel does.
|
On June 11 2024 20:26 Velr wrote:
So, why don't you answer my question?
I'm interested in whats about to happen and whats realistic, not what you think my view of Palestinians and/or Israelis is.
I answered your question.
"So, do you think Israel has the will to be nuanced if a third party fires rockets from Gaza at it?"
On June 11 2024 18:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:
The question is, if Israel wants to be nuanced enough. If nothing major changes, I would highlydoubt that. Your asking for Israel to basically just be "Ok" (again) with rockets being launched at them.
Who here argues that Israel should just be "ok" with missile attacks from Gaza? There's a big difference between a brutal, unending war and an annual 100-400 missiles of which most get stopped by the iron dome. The former leads to many thousands of dead people, the latter leads to a few destroyed houses and an occasional civilian death. The math isn't mathing if you support the war and not the ceasefire. Unless, as Nebuchad keeps pointing out consistently and correctly, you don't think Palestinians are humans.
I literally said Israel doesn't have to be "ok" with it. They can not be ok with it while still understanding the reality that they have an iron dome that protects them from mass death and destruction, and that it's more desirable than killing tens of thousands of Palestinians. The safety of a few Israelis does not warrant the mass slaughter of Palestinians, and if you think otherwise then I ask you: is your position that Palestinians are not humans? If they are humans, how do you justify Israel's actions?
|
interesting question on what's realistic.
I would never though Israel's ambition to depopulation and large transfer of population in gaza to ever be realistic, and to have that publicly said out loud by a minister and face no consequences is pretty unrealistic to me.
But here we are.
How's that for a realistic solution to end the potential bomb threat. Even NK wouldn't be using these excuses to nuke countries.
|
Ok, so your stance is that Israel just has to swallow the rockets. Thanks.
As said before, I personally support a 2 state solution which would most likely require a decades long UN-Mission and total occupation of Gaza. Israel needs to abandon it's settlements in the west bank and obviously let goods pass into Gaza (well, the UN-Mission would be in charge of that)... I just don't see this as particulary realistic.
I have not much sympathy for Israel and especially it's right wingers, I just have even less sympathy for Hamas and whoever supports it. Hamas is hiding itself, weapons, ammunitation and even hostages behind it's own citizens and isn't even trying to avoid civilian deads. It's also not a surprise how Israel responded after Oct 7th, Hamas willingly took the "risk" of Israel going out, knowing full well that it's was more of a certainity than a "risk".
|
On June 11 2024 00:34 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 17:37 Acrofales wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place). Prisoner of war camps that are open to neutral observers as required by the Geneva convention.
That's a great solution in a symmetrical conflict (allowing for the benefit of the doubt that hostages can be considered PoW, and not illegal hostages), but this is fairly clearly not a war in the sense WW2, Ukraine, or even Vietnam were wars. This is more a war in the sense that the French resistance was at war with the Vichy government. If they took German prisoners, would it make sense to expect them to be kept in a PoW camp? Or would that be the same as just handing them back?
Now don't get me wrong, I fully believe Hamas should just return the hostages to freedom. But given that this all started with the premise that there might be a reasonable, sane, place for Hamas to hold their hostages without the outrage machine going wild, I'd like to know where that would be. Within the context of the Gaza war, not some fictional war where Hamas can run PoW camps in a location Israel cannot just instantly free them.
Because I can't think of anywhere. Keep them with civilians and we get "but that makes civilians targets". Keep them in a military location and they get bombed when Israeli intelligence figures out where said military location is. So if the outrage machine is gonna outrage regardless of where Hamas keeps the hostages, well, that's just background noise then, isn't it?
The message should clearly be "Hamas should return all hostages immediately", not "It's shocking Hamas is mixing the hostages in with the civilian population".
|
On June 11 2024 15:37 Uldridge wrote:
You don't think Israel is nuanced enough to make the distinction (or the research) between an attack that comes from Hamas or comes from (a few) distinctly acting individuals? You could argue: what's the difference, or even Israel might make that claim, or one might even debate whether the two (Hamas and the distinct individuals) cannot actually be separated through whatever lens you're judging them, but it would be very impressive to me if Israel shows constraint in a situation like that and doesn't use that as an excuse to retaliate.
It would show the world they're serious about respecting Palestinians, but more importantly, it would also show Palestinians so.
Also, if I would be Israel, I would stop/diminish the apparatus that let's in aid ushers the help from the outside and I would start Palestine handle that. Puts the onus on Hamas to show they 'care' about their own people or givea an opportunity to let someone rise to the occasion. Or at the very least, involve Palestine in some of the organisation.
Well, right now Israel has to administer the aid because they happen to have blasted all Palestinian logistics into the stone age, but UNRWA was administering the aid before October 7, which was so Palestinian that Israel tried to fool the world into thinking it's a terrorist organization.
|
On June 11 2024 20:57 Velr wrote:
Ok, so your stance is that Israel just has to swallow the rockets. Thanks.
As said before, I personally support a 2 state solution which would most likely require a decades long UN-Mission and total occupation of Gaza. Israel needs to abandon it's settlements in the west bank and obviously let goods pass into Gaza (well, the UN-Mission would be in charge of that)... I just don't see this as particulary realistic.
I have not much sympathy for Israel and especially it's right wingers, I just have even less sympathy for Hamas and whoever supports it. Hamas is hiding itself, weapons, ammunitation and even hostages behind it's own citizens and isn't even trying to avoid civilian deads. It's also not a surprise how Israel responded after Oct 7th, Hamas willingly took the "risk" of Israel going out, knowing full well that it's was more of a certainity than a "risk".
Ok, so your stance is that Palestinians just have to swallow getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Thanks.
Don't play this game, you can't win it. Not in this thread, people here see right through it. It might work on Twitter, but definitely not here.
|
WTF don't you understand or do you want from me?
The reality right now is that yes, the palestinians have to swallow it. They swallow it since Oct 7th and, to a lesser extent, before since decades. Where do you actually disagree?
|
On June 11 2024 21:29 Velr wrote:
WTF don't you understand or do you want from me?
The reality right now is that yes, the palestinians have to swallow it. They swallow it since Oct 7th and, to a lesser extent, before since decades. Where do you actually disagree?
What took you so long to say that? Why did you have to misrepresent my position over and over again? If we're not in disagreement, what was your problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
