| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
pmp10
3399 Posts
Simple - the number of hostages is slowly dropping. The latest talks discussed freeing another 10 out of likely 20 alive. The current tactics will continue until all hostages will be either free or dead, leaving Hamas with absolutely no leverage. When we get there we will see what unrestrained Israel is capable of. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22638 Posts
Israel is not restrained by Hamas hostage leverage, their only restraint is how much they think they can get away with towards the greater international community, and with Trump in the WH that restrain is basically already entirely off. you can't say the goal of freeing hostages is close when you have managed to get almost all remaining hostages killed. That is the opposite of freeing hostages. | ||
|
Billyboy
2470 Posts
On June 01 2025 03:26 pmp10 wrote: Simple - the number of hostages is slowly dropping. The latest talks discussed freeing another 10 out of likely 20 alive. The current tactics will continue until all hostages will be either free or dead, leaving Hamas with absolutely no leverage. When we get there we will see what unrestrained Israel is capable of. Most of the people that I read believe the fighting will go way down when all the hostages are returned. It is the major justification. Many Netanyahu detractors have been stating for a long time that he is slow rolling the hostage releases to make this last longer and allow him to keep fighting. | ||
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus237
South Africa288 Posts
Israel announces major expansion of settlements in occupied West Bank Israeli ministers say 22 new Jewish settlements have been approved in the occupied West Bank - the biggest expansion in decades. Several already exist as outposts, built without government authorisation, but will now be made legal under Israeli law. Others are completely new, according to Defence Minister Israel Katz and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. ... Elisha Ben Kimon, an Israeli journalist with the popular Ynet news site who covers the West Bank and settlements, told the BBC's Newshour programme that 70% to 80% of ministers wanted to declare the formal annexation of the West Bank. "I think that Israel is a few steps from declaring this area as Israeli territory. They believe that this period will never be coming back, this is one opportunity that they don't want to slip from their hands - that's why they're doing this now," Mr Ben Kimon told the BBC's Newshour programme. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24373 Posts
On June 01 2025 06:49 Ciaus237 wrote: It's very odd to believe that either "destruction of Hamas" (whatever that means in practice) or return of the hostages, or both, would end the war. Israel is actively expanding into the West Bank, at greater speed than ever before. Further conflict from that alone is inevitable. It's a move that's very likely to encourage Palestinians in the West Bank to militarize. Even if its not Hamas, whoever is governing the region after another few years of aggressive encroachment is going to be more like Hamas than the current PA. Israel announces major expansion of settlements in occupied West Bank As far as I can tell, there is already no distinction made by most people between the worst/long dead members of Hamas and any Palestinian that decides on armed resistance to being genocided/ethnically cleansed by Israelis. It's not like the West would approve of a secular Palestinian defence force righteously defending Palestinians against the current genocidal Israeli occupiers. | ||
|
Legan
Finland597 Posts
On June 01 2025 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote: As far as I can tell, there is already no distinction made by most people between the worst/long dead members of Hamas and any Palestinian that decides on armed resistance to being genocided/ethnically cleansed by Israelis. It's not like the West would approve of a secular Palestinian defence force righteously defending Palestinians against the current genocidal Israeli occupiers. At the same time, the years and even decades of inaction have made Western countries untrustworthy as a negotiation party or guarantor. The fact that the settlements have been ruled to be against international law, without leading to any adequate pressure on Israel, shows how little hope there is for long-term support to fix how Palestinians are treated. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On June 01 2025 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote: As far as I can tell, there is already no distinction made by most people between the worst/long dead members of Hamas and any Palestinian that decides on armed resistance to being genocided/ethnically cleansed by Israelis. It's not like the West would approve of a secular Palestinian defence force righteously defending Palestinians against the current genocidal Israeli occupiers. Would those righteous defenders still have committed the October 7 atrocities, use rape as a weapon of war, and take hostages? I feel like you're completely wrong here, October 7 had a huge impact on the situation. The immorality of Hamas makes their cause very difficult to support and there is no alternative government in Gaza. | ||
|
PremoBeats
650 Posts
On June 01 2025 00:37 Jankisa wrote: How is "free hostages" goal close? I mean Hamas has been pretty consistent in killing them before Israel can free them. IIRC only one successful rescue was done and it got 8 hostages free, what are the chances that there will be another one where Hamas doesn't kill the hostages before IDF gets to them? Hamas is not just a bunch of guys, how is this still a thing? Even if IDF kills every single member there will be more coming after them, that's how radicalization works, those guys become martyrs and more people flock to the cause. Israel has stated, matter of factly that they don't really want any furhter negotiations for hostages and that the war will go on even after they are all free, that doesn't really seem to jive with "free the hostages" goal. Hundreds of military experts, historians, politicians etc. have noted that the "End Hamas" goal is not possible, it seems evident to everyone except people like you who tow the IDF line closely that the war is ongoing because Nethyanahu doesn't want to face the music. It is close, as nearly all hostages, that are stil alive have been freed and a similar number of dead ones are still in Hamas' hands. IIRC around 20 dead and 20 alive at the moment. I think that Netanyahu will lose immense inner-political support once the hostages are retrieved. Of course, he wants to continue the war, he said so publicly, even when all hostages are back in Israel. But the desire of the population to carry on is going down massively. I am not the biggest fan of predictions, so I guess, we will see once it happens. | ||
|
Legan
Finland597 Posts
On June 01 2025 08:01 KwarK wrote: Would those righteous defenders still have committed the October 7 atrocities, use rape as a weapon of war, and take hostages? I feel like you're completely wrong here, October 7 had a huge impact on the situation. The immorality of Hamas makes their cause very difficult to support and there is no alternative government in Gaza. What would the standards for acceptable armed resistance look like? How would one check that they are being followed, considering all propaganda and disinformation being spread about any conflict? Would the limited tactics and strategies still be effective, or would they make resistance too easy a target or waste their forces on futile operations? How easy would it be to make these proper ways of resistance impossible to do? Would these proper ways actually get the international community to pressure Israel, considering that it needed over 54,000 Palestinians to die before responding? At the same time, the deaths are not even the main reason for the response. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
| ||
|
Byo
Canada212 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 01 2025 06:49 Ciaus237 wrote: It's very odd to believe that either "destruction of Hamas" (whatever that means in practice) or return of the hostages, or both, would end the war. Israel is actively expanding into the West Bank, at greater speed than ever before. Further conflict from that alone is inevitable. It's a move that's very likely to encourage Palestinians in the West Bank to militarize. Even if its not Hamas, whoever is governing the region after another few years of aggressive encroachment is going to be more like Hamas than the current PA. Israel announces major expansion of settlements in occupied West Bank Lots of polls done after October 7 showed huge support for Hamas after October 7. The old dynamic of PA in West Bank and Hamas in Gaza isn’t true anymore, as evidenced by lots of Hamas officials being killed in West Bank. I think Israel pointed to Gaza for the sake of optics and capitalizing on October 7, but the goal is clearly for them to exclusively border friendly or neutral governments. With Syria and Lebanon flipped, all they have left are the Palestinian enclaves. Based on all the news segments about Israel delivering hundreds of food trucks to Gaza, I’d say we are getting close to Israel’s big move to displace and/or kill a gigantic number of Palestinians. “You’re gonna wanna put some weight on before your extremely long journey as refugees. Here are some trucks of food to help plump you up in advance” | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24373 Posts
On June 01 2025 08:01 KwarK wrote: Not clear what specifically you think was wrong in that post?Would those righteous defenders still have committed the October 7 atrocities, use rape as a weapon of war, and take hostages? I feel like you're completely wrong here, October 7 had a huge impact on the situation. The immorality of Hamas makes their cause very difficult to support and there is no alternative government in Gaza. Otherwise, "The Oct 7 atrocities" is a bit vague in that hundreds of those killed were legitimate military targets, Israel killed an untold number of their own civilians, as well as habitually lied about what happened on Oct 7. Rape isn't a legitimate weapon of war, so I'd say no. On the other hand, many Israelis do think rape is a legit weapon of war A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to "terrorists" in custody. Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate, "to insert a stick into a person's rectum?" "Yes!" he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. "If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!" www.cbsnews.com I think they'd basically be called "prisoners" rather than "hostages". | ||
|
Legan
Finland597 Posts
On June 01 2025 22:11 KwarK wrote: Are we just answering questions with questions now? How will that get us anywhere? There would be claims of atrocities anyway, and Israel would not spend much time saying otherwise. Any videos would need to be really clean, but that could require such training that is impossible to organise in Gaza. Any larger training area would be too obvious a target, and activity on it would be a massive indication of a future operation. There still would be instances where individual units would commit war crimes. We must remember that most fighters are young men joining because the situation is really bad, and there is no hope of a better future. Considering that Palestinians have very little to negotiate with and how important hostages have been, they would take hostages. Destroying military resources and infrastructure only matters if it can be repeated frequently. Destroying one tank or plane does not affect Israel at all, and there will not be a change in their policies. You would need to be able to destroy them in really high numbers, and we know Palestinians do not have the resources to do so. Limiting your attacks only to hardened military targets will make you waste your manpower. This is why the rockets are being used. Launching one takes only a little time, which allows you to evade counterattacks. Thus, they would still go after softer targets. The idea that Palestinians would get any practical support for being more proper in their ways is laughable when you look at how little support the much more peaceful West Bank receives. The demands will look like snobbery when people won't analyse the Palestinian position at all. "If the slaves were just more civilised, they could easily argue and prove why they need to be freed. Their barbarism is what is holding back their causes for better treatment." | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On June 02 2025 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Not clear what specifically you think was wrong in that post? Otherwise, "The Oct 7 atrocities" is a bit vague in that hundreds of those killed were legitimate military targets, Israel killed an untold number of their own civilians, as well as habitually lied about what happened on Oct 7. Rape isn't a legitimate weapon of war, so I'd say no. On the other hand, many Israelis do think rape is a legit weapon of war www.cbsnews.com I think they'd basically be called "prisoners" rather than "hostages". Not a supporter of when Israel does it either. What was wrong in your post was your speculation about the hypothetical that it posed. Let's say that Gaza had a legitimate democratic government and operated as a functional state with functioning state organs, that the government wasn't a bunch of genocidal death cultists, and that the army weren't indoctrinated suicide bombers. And let's say that this Gazan state was invaded, unprovoked, by Israel. In that world I believe that a lot of countries in the west treat it much the same way as we treat Ukraine. Neither of us can prove our hypothesis here but I disagree that the west would be equally paralyzed if Gaza had a legitimate government instead of Hamas. The problem with opposing Israel in Gaza isn't that nobody wants to oppose Israel, it's who the fuck do you actually support against them? A ceasefire is by definition keeping Hamas in power in Gaza. Arming Hamas is obviously a non starter. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44355 Posts
On June 02 2025 00:36 Legan wrote: There would be claims of atrocities anyway, and Israel would not spend much time saying otherwise. Any videos would need to be really clean, but that could require such training that is impossible to organise in Gaza. Any larger training area would be too obvious a target, and activity on it would be a massive indication of a future operation. There still would be instances where individual units would commit war crimes. We must remember that most fighters are young men joining because the situation is really bad, and there is no hope of a better future. Considering that Palestinians have very little to negotiate with and how important hostages have been, they would take hostages. Destroying military resources and infrastructure only matters if it can be repeated frequently. Destroying one tank or plane does not affect Israel at all, and there will not be a change in their policies. You would need to be able to destroy them in really high numbers, and we know Palestinians do not have the resources to do so. Limiting your attacks only to hardened military targets will make you waste your manpower. This is why the rockets are being used. Launching one takes only a little time, which allows you to evade counterattacks. Thus, they would still go after softer targets. The idea that Palestinians would get any practical support for being more proper in their ways is laughable when you look at how little support the much more peaceful West Bank receives. The demands will look like snobbery when people won't analyse the Palestinian position at all. "If the slaves were just more civilised, they could easily argue and prove why they need to be freed. Their barbarism is what is holding back their causes for better treatment." Let's imagine ourselves in the Hamas war planning room for a minute. We put on a brave face, wear our uniforms, destroy an Israeli tank or two as you say, and are defeated. We're faced with two options. We can either surrender ourselves unconditionally to Israel or we can take off our uniforms and start raping Israeli women at a music festival. I don't see any world in which the latter is the better strategy. The question of "what are they meant to do in the face of overwhelming military force?" is posed as if it's unknowable, unanswerable, and in the absence of any answer anything can be justified. It's not. You just surrender. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24373 Posts
On June 02 2025 00:57 KwarK wrote: I don't know about this "equally paralyzed" strawman, but it's pretty clear they wouldn't approve, let alone arm them against Israel (especially the US). Not a supporter of when Israel does it either. What was wrong in your post was your speculation about the hypothetical that it posed. Let's say that Gaza had a legitimate democratic government and operated as a functional state with functioning state organs, that the government wasn't a bunch of genocidal death cultists, and that the army weren't indoctrinated suicide bombers. And let's say that this Gazan state was invaded, unprovoked, by Israel. In that world I believe that a lot of countries in the west treat it much the same way as we treat Ukraine. Neither of us can prove our hypothesis here but I disagree that the west would be equally paralyzed if Gaza had a legitimate government instead of Hamas. The problem with opposing Israel in Gaza isn't that nobody wants to oppose Israel, it's who the fuck do you actually support against them? A ceasefire is by definition keeping Hamas in power in Gaza. Arming Hamas is obviously a non starter. As has been pointed out, they don't (and never really have) approve(d) of armed resistance in the West Bank where Israel's illegal occupation is/has been expanding, so I believe we can pretty confidently say I'm right about the West (especially the US) not approving of/arming Palestinian armed resistance to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine regardless of their government. I do appreciate you helping to demonstrate my point about there being no distinction made by most people between the worst/long dead members of Hamas and any Palestinian that decides on armed resistance to being genocided/ethnically cleansed by Israelis | ||
|
Billyboy
2470 Posts
@Greenhorizons can you post your sources on the hundreds of legitimate military targets Hamas got on Oct 7th. Also, the source on the countless Israelis killed by the IDF. | ||
|
Legan
Finland597 Posts
On June 02 2025 01:00 KwarK wrote: Let's imagine ourselves in the Hamas war planning room for a minute. We put on a brave face, wear our uniforms, destroy an Israeli tank or two as you say, and are defeated. We're faced with two options. We can either surrender ourselves unconditionally to Israel or we can take off our uniforms and start raping Israeli women at a music festival. I don't see any world in which the latter is the better strategy. The question of "what are they meant to do in the face of overwhelming military force?" is posed as if it's unknowable, unanswerable, and in the absence of any answer anything can be justified. It's not. You just surrender. Do you really think that the goal was to rape instead of capturing as many hostages as possible? On a larger scale, the goal would be to make the general populace have had enough of the war. Otherwise, you can only make concessions to superior power, and it is absolutely clear that Israel's long-term goal is to get rid of Palestinians. Thus, any agreement would be temporary at best and only delay the eventual catastrophe. The idea that you can only surrender means that superior military powers will be allowed to do whatever they want. This is especially dark if applied to Turkey, Iran, China, Russia, or the USA. Just imagine what happens to any protest when this logic is applied. You better hope things do not turn for the worse in the USA, or plenty of people will need to surrender. However, I highly doubt that you actually expect people to apply this in all cases. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Soulkey
INu's Battles
SHIN vs Cure
ByuN vs Zoun
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
