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 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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card? It makes sense that any offer should show the practical steps that will be taken to stop the massacre. This is at a minimum full withdrawal from Gaza and a permanent end of hostilities. Aid and rebuilding are such obvious things that highlighting them as something to be given is absurd. There is no sense in taking a risk that, after the hostages have been released, Israel will just continue. Even 31% of secular Jewish Israelis believe that all residents of a conquered enemy city should be killed. Around 60% for other groups. Thus, it is hard to see how support for continuation would just disappear after hostages have been released. + Show Spoiler +
Hamas is evil, but it is clear that the Palestinian Authority is not capable of protecting Palestinians. Thus, it is hard to see any replacement that would not just be a complicit warden of Palestinians. The replacement would need to be willing and capable of taking up arms if Israel attacks. Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements. More on the problem of having replacement in my previous post.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card? It makes sense that any offer should show the practical steps that will be taken to stop the massacre. This is at a minimum full withdrawal from Gaza and a permanent end of hostilities. Aid and rebuilding are such obvious things that highlighting them as something to be given is absurd. There is no sense in taking a risk that, after the hostages have been released, Israel will just continue. Even 31% of secular Jewish Israelis believe that all residents of a conquered enemy city should be killed. Around 60% for other groups. Thus, it is hard to see how support for continuation would just disappear after hostages have been released. + Show Spoiler +
Hamas is evil, but it is clear that the Palestinian Authority is not capable of protecting Palestinians. Thus, it is hard to see any replacement that would not just be a complicit warden of Palestinians. The replacement would need to be willing and capable of taking up arms if Israel attacks. Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements. More on the problem of having replacement in my previous post.
If you believe that Israel is showing no restraint and simply trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible than holding the hostages is pointless. They provide no strategic value and they provide justification or cover for their actions.
Your second paragraph I do not really understand. Israel never attacked until they were attacked. And Hamas is in no way doing anything to protect the Palestinians they actively trying to get them killed to farm outrage. Hamas is not stronger than the PA and has done WAY worse protecting Palestinians. For the settlements time will tell but I would not be at all shocked if Israel knocks them all down again. Right now the thought is why would we worry when they are actively committing blatant war crimes.
If Hamas was to give up the hostages and leave Gaza the fighting would stop. And if it did not all the sanctions and everything you want would happen super quickly. Does it move them closer to sovereignty, likely not. But does it stop them from being bombed almost certainly. And living under Hamas rule in many ways is worse for the populous than Israel. The Arabs in Israel might be doing the best of all the non royalty or ruling Arabs in the middle east. Israel is not making bad for all of those, there is no shortage of people worse.
On June 02 2025 08:01 Billyboy wrote: If Hamas was to give up the hostages and leave Gaza the fighting would stop. And if it did not all the sanctions and everything you want would happen super quickly.
Israel has made it very clear they would not stop and are currently engaged in an open campaign of ethnic cleansing and received no more then a strongly worded letter.
Your being incredibly naïve if you think Netanyahu would stop this for anything less then the complete destruction of Gaza.
On June 02 2025 08:01 Billyboy wrote: If Hamas was to give up the hostages and leave Gaza the fighting would stop. And if it did not all the sanctions and everything you want would happen super quickly.
Israel has made it very clear they would not stop and are currently engaged in an open campaign of ethnic cleansing and received no more then a strongly worded letter.
Your being incredibly naïve if you think Netanyahu would stop this for anything less then the complete destruction of Gaza.
Should be super easy for you to produce the quote to back up your claim. I am in the understanding that Israel has stated that they will not stop until every hostage is home and Hamas is gone.
On June 02 2025 08:01 Billyboy wrote: If Hamas was to give up the hostages and leave Gaza the fighting would stop. And if it did not all the sanctions and everything you want would happen super quickly.
Israel has made it very clear they would not stop and are currently engaged in an open campaign of ethnic cleansing and received no more then a strongly worded letter.
Your being incredibly naïve if you think Netanyahu would stop this for anything less then the complete destruction of Gaza.
Should be super easy for you to produce the quote to back up your claim. I am in the understanding that Israel has stated that they will not stop until every hostage is home and Hamas is gone.
Unfortunately for all of us, Netenyahu's definition of a member of Hamas is any Palestinian civilian who it would be convenient for Israel to call a member of Hamas, so 'when Hamas is gone' is quite an elastic phrase. It basically means 'When there are no Palestinians left in Gaza.'
On June 02 2025 08:01 Billyboy wrote: If Hamas was to give up the hostages and leave Gaza the fighting would stop. And if it did not all the sanctions and everything you want would happen super quickly.
Israel has made it very clear they would not stop and are currently engaged in an open campaign of ethnic cleansing and received no more then a strongly worded letter.
Your being incredibly naïve if you think Netanyahu would stop this for anything less then the complete destruction of Gaza.
Should be super easy for you to produce the quote to back up your claim. I am in the understanding that Israel has stated that they will not stop until every hostage is home and Hamas is gone.
Unfortunately for all of us, Netenyahu's definition of a member of Hamas is any Palestinian civilian who it would be convenient for Israel to call a member of Hamas, so 'when Hamas is gone' is quite an elastic phrase. It basically means 'When there are no Palestinians left in Gaza.'
I get that, but it does not make it fact. He also might actually mean Hamas members. At this point it is impossible to know what is true. If all the sudden there was not hostages and Hamas actually left it would be very clear what was true.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card?
Because it doesn't actually help them. Israel clearly uses the existence of hostages as an excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more land. Once the hostages are back, Israel will have a harder time playing the optics game with international diplomacy.
As much as I realize the situation was quite grim for Palestinians before October 7, it is easy to see a massive uptick in violence and suffering for Palestinians.
Have they inched out any wins since taking hostages? Did they retake any land? Has a single thing been positive for them?
It feels like lunacy to say there is a single positive to Hamas continuing to hold hostages.
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."
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements.
Doesn't this mean Hamas has even more reason to just try to surrender?
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.
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card?
Because it doesn't actually help them. Israel clearly uses the existence of hostages as an excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more land. Once the hostages are back, Israel will have a harder time playing the optics game with international diplomacy.
As much as I realize the situation was quite grim for Palestinians before October 7, it is easy to see a massive uptick in violence and suffering for Palestinians.
Have they inched out any wins since taking hostages? Did they retake any land? Has a single thing been positive for them?
It feels like lunacy to say there is a single positive to Hamas continuing to hold hostages.
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.
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements.
Doesn't this mean Hamas has even more reason to just try to surrender?
The one positive I can think of is that Israel is losing international support more and more over time. Its completely insane to sacrifice thousands of civilians on those grounds though.
On June 02 2025 01:00 KwarK wrote: [quote] 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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card?
Because it doesn't actually help them. Israel clearly uses the existence of hostages as an excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more land. Once the hostages are back, Israel will have a harder time playing the optics game with international diplomacy.
As much as I realize the situation was quite grim for Palestinians before October 7, it is easy to see a massive uptick in violence and suffering for Palestinians.
Have they inched out any wins since taking hostages? Did they retake any land? Has a single thing been positive for them?
It feels like lunacy to say there is a single positive to Hamas continuing to hold hostages.
On June 02 2025 06:13 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 05:04 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 04:17 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:59 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:34 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:12 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 01:57 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 01:00 KwarK wrote: [quote] 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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements.
Doesn't this mean Hamas has even more reason to just try to surrender?
The one positive I can think of is that Israel is losing international support more and more over time. Its completely insane to sacrifice thousands of civilians on those grounds though.
I would say this is entirely non-real. So far, Israel has not suffered in the slightest. Look at the number of Palestinian deaths before October 7 and the number of deaths after October 7. Ireland and Spain saying this or that here and there is nothing.
More to the point: Just like I've said there is a reason no one has lifted a finger to help Palestinians other than Iran, the same is true of punishing Israel. If it was gonna happen, it would have by now. Politicians have an incentive to make their voters think they are outraged or on their way to punish Israel or whatever, but they have no incentive to actually do anything. Look at all the cheering people did when the ICJ was making this or that declaration. To what end? What happened with all that?
This is nothing but optics management by government figures to soothe their masses of voters. There is no world where Israel is harmed for killing Palestinians.
Well there was the red line at full starvation but I guess that's the only case. Even that likely came from a handful of US senators afraid that images of skeletal children will impact them at midterms.
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
If Israel only cares about hostages and does not have qualms about massacring civilians, why would anyone give their only good card?
Because it doesn't actually help them. Israel clearly uses the existence of hostages as an excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more land. Once the hostages are back, Israel will have a harder time playing the optics game with international diplomacy.
As much as I realize the situation was quite grim for Palestinians before October 7, it is easy to see a massive uptick in violence and suffering for Palestinians.
Have they inched out any wins since taking hostages? Did they retake any land? Has a single thing been positive for them?
It feels like lunacy to say there is a single positive to Hamas continuing to hold hostages.
On June 02 2025 06:13 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 05:04 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 04:17 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:59 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:34 Legan wrote:
On June 02 2025 02:12 Billyboy wrote:
On June 02 2025 01:57 Legan wrote: [quote]
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.
Does Israel not have a history of taking down settlements in exchange for peace and security guarantees.
Giving up on illegal settlements seems quite a minimal concession when their existence should cause sanctions, and if you look at the West Bank, it seems like you can't get rid of settlements with peaceful means. Most of the offers are bat shit insane. Like, you must cease to exist, and we can eliminate you later. I doubt that many would agree to being killed by their oppressor.
I am unsure of the offers, can you quote them. GH keeps flat out making stuff up so it is hard to know what is true. But historically what Israel has taken is not what your mentioning.
Demands of disarmament and continued military presence without direct guarantees of leniency practically mean that resistance would have to stop, while the military force can still be used. It would be easy to excuse individual raids and arrests afterwards. Israeli forces staying in the area means that operations may continue, and making them leave will be much harder after all hostages have been freed. These proposal and their drafts aren't usually made public. Only some anonymous comments get published. Thus, total deal breakers like disarmament do not make it to the paper even if the demand is made frequently. Giving up on a demand you do not expect to be agreed on can still benefit the negotiations.
If we look at the latest offer made by the US, we can see that there is very little in it. Troops are only being redeployed, not withdrawn. Aerial operations are limited to 14 hours per day. Humanitarian aid is promised, which is weird as preventing it is a war crime. No mention of allowing Gazans to move around in Gaza or exit to Egypt, like in the previous deal. It mainly covers exchanging hostages and prisoners. The parts about future negotiations seem hollow, considering that Israel was not ready to negotiate the 2nd stage during the last ceasefire. Overall, there is no hint that Israel would actually end the war properly and exit Gaza.
The previous deal was much more direct in what would happen. It only briefly mentions preparations for the second stage and then directly goes to the withdrawal of the troops.
What would be reasonable for Israel to ask for in exchange for the hostages. Do you think it is good for the Palestinians to have Hamas remain in power.
Things could be different if Israel had been pressured over their apartheid state, but there is no reason to believe that Israel will be sanctioned over such minor things like illegal settlements.
Doesn't this mean Hamas has even more reason to just try to surrender?
The one positive I can think of is that Israel is losing international support more and more over time. Its completely insane to sacrifice thousands of civilians on those grounds though.
I would say this is entirely non-real. So far, Israel has not suffered in the slightest. Look at the number of Palestinian deaths before October 7 and the number of deaths after October 7. Ireland and Spain saying this or that here and there is nothing.
More to the point: Just like I've said there is a reason no one has lifted a finger to help Palestinians other than Iran, the same is true of punishing Israel. If it was gonna happen, it would have by now. Politicians have an incentive to make their voters think they are outraged or on their way to punish Israel or whatever, but they have no incentive to actually do anything. Look at all the cheering people did when the ICJ was making this or that declaration. To what end? What happened with all that?
This is nothing but optics management by government figures to soothe their masses of voters. There is no world where Israel is harmed for killing Palestinians.
China is not getting punished for erasing cultures, Russia was not punished for Chechnya or Georgia. But Russia was punished for Ukraine, China would be punished for Taiwan. What this tells us that those in charge care about big strategic sites over economy and economy over people.
Long way of agreeing, there would need to be somewhere else in the middle east more strategical that could be at least a comparable ally to Israel in the Middle East. And even by the measure of human rights Israel is as good as it gets in the area.
On June 03 2025 06:25 pmp10 wrote: Well there was the red line at full starvation but I guess that's the only case. Even that likely came from a handful of US senators afraid that images of skeletal children will impact them at midterms.
Was that a red line though? Do we know what would have happened if Israel didn't let in those trucks? Or was the whole starvation pressure thing just an optics play to give people the illusion of pressure being effective?
Israel feeding a bunch of people doesn't hurt their objectives. They are continuing to seize land and kill people. Israel doesn't need people to starve today in order to have full control of all Palestinian land later. I truly think even this whole food truck incident is intended to give people the impression you are describing.
On June 03 2025 06:25 pmp10 wrote: Well there was the red line at full starvation but I guess that's the only case. Even that likely came from a handful of US senators afraid that images of skeletal children will impact them at midterms.
Was that a red line though? Do we know what would have happened if Israel didn't let in those trucks?
Most likely we would soon see one of these bipartisan bills in Senate reminding Trump about all the US laws that Israel is breaking or ignoring. It might not result in any immediate action, but the open message that Israel is screwing their political allies is a very clear warning about prospects of future lobbying.
A question I never really asked myself. Why does the refugees remain in place when Israel wants them gone and most people would leave to avoid starvation (if possible).
Random youtube recommendation, so not sure about all the facts but seems reasonable.
Summary. Integration failed badly the last time and nobody wants to repeat it.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dcb719xx3psadl.archive.is/nNzq4/82196812339234294bef01ef3fc2c3b599188b41.webp)
