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 October 13 2025 22:47 Velr wrote: I'm personally stoked for the ceasefire, can't wait to watch the clusterfuck be in the same spot in 1/5/10/15 years again.
I would be astonished if 2025 ends before the ceasefire is broken.
Both sides have already accused each other of breaking the agreement, such as: "Hamas accused Israel of violating the ceasefire. The Israeli military said it had fired on people who crossed truce lines and approached its forces after ignoring calls to turn back."
It is no surprise that Hamas would try to deal with the gangs that Israel started supporting in the past months. This can be seen as a move to regain control of security in Gaza. It would, of course, be nice if they would put the people through proper due process and some kind of court of law, but considering the state of Gaza, it is hard to see how that kind of bureaucracy would be possible for some time. Those gangs also lack a proper status and pose a significant security risk. They could cause civil war in Gaza or attack Israel in an attempt to continue the war. Both would be disastrous for the future.
The missing bodies of hostages also make sense as Hamas most likely has not carried them around from one hideout to another, but buried them somewhere. The people responsible for the body may also have died at some point, so Hamas may only know that the body is near some location that they haven't had access to for months.
People are again way too eager to jump to conclusions about a very chaotic situation.
On October 14 2025 13:24 RvB wrote: Hamas is already breaking the terms of the ceasefire. [...]
Both sides have already breached various terms of the 'deal'. It was never clear on many points anyway, so it's predictable that now is the time to test it.
Fortunately for now return to full scale war seems unlikely.
They probably should have had a replacement force ready if they actually wanted to replace Hamas. Creating a force now will allow Hamas to retake some control. Of course, creating a coalition would have been hard, as many options would have required the Palestinians to be present, and others could mount opposition to Israel's actions. Now there will be a scramble to form a force. This is not too bad for Netanyahu and company, as it gives an easy out of the deal in future.
The manufactured crisis is leaving Hamas in charge.
Hamas is armed and now doing a "Trump". They claim their is turmoil and chaos that needs control, so people with AK-47s are posted at every corner in a show of force- clearly a move to cling on to power. There have been firefights with "clans" that could challenge Hamas domination over gaza and ther have been executions already.
Next phase, shoot an IDF squad, and get another 150,000 people killed for it.
It's cruel to the Palestinians to leave Hamas there, but what is the alternative? Hamas came into power killing Palestinians, and they are back at it now. Maybe someone can take power from them now that Hamas doesn't have as much Iranian support. But if they do, how likely is it that they will be noticeably better for the people if they are strong and violent enough to wrest control from Hamas? Hamas came into power killing Palestinians, and they are back at it now.
As I wrote 150 pages or so ago, IDF should have taken over Gaza and protect and International civil effort re-educate Gazanians and help them self organize around a secular democratic, not militant-islamistic self governance.
This "Peace" is just Israel getting their hostages back, for releasing 2000 hostages they held, and give back 40% of a completely destroyed gaza to a militant-islamist terror regime.
Of course that always leaves room to interpret Hamas as "too dangerous" and another military intervention necessary.
This "peace" is just Israel stopping the bombs for now, probably having a shadow deal with Hamas for letting the leaders they didn't kill rule what they left of Gaza for a bit.
On October 15 2025 18:15 KT_Elwood wrote: As I wrote 150 pages or so ago, IDF should have taken over Gaza and protect and International civil effort re-educate Gazanians and help them self organize around a secular democratic, not militant-islamistic self governance.
This "Peace" is just Israel getting their hostages back, for releasing 2000 hostages they held, and give back 40% of a completely destroyed gaza to a militant-islamist terror regime.
Of course that always leaves room to interpret Hamas as "too dangerous" and another military intervention necessary.
This "peace" is just Israel stopping the bombs for now, probably having a shadow deal with Hamas for letting the leaders they didn't kill rule what they left of Gaza for a bit.
The problem with the IDF taking over Gaza and protecting it is that the IDF is the main actor that Gaza needs protection from, so it doesn't make a ton of sense as a real world proposition.
Replace IDF with swiss troops then .. but using Hamas as "Policeforce" is just an invitation to not give back any more land now. And that's an invitation to further escalation.
On October 15 2025 18:15 KT_Elwood wrote: As I wrote 150 pages or so ago, IDF should have taken over Gaza and protect and International civil effort re-educate Gazanians and help them self organize around a secular democratic, not militant-islamistic self governance.
This "Peace" is just Israel getting their hostages back, for releasing 2000 hostages they held, and give back 40% of a completely destroyed gaza to a militant-islamist terror regime.
Of course that always leaves room to interpret Hamas as "too dangerous" and another military intervention necessary.
This "peace" is just Israel stopping the bombs for now, probably having a shadow deal with Hamas for letting the leaders they didn't kill rule what they left of Gaza for a bit.
The problem with the IDF taking over Gaza and protecting it is that the IDF is the main actor that Gaza needs protection from, so it doesn't make a ton of sense as a real world proposition.
Makes about as much sense as letting Hamas do it. Nah, actually it makes more sense for the IDF to do it.
On October 15 2025 18:51 KT_Elwood wrote: Replace IDF with swiss troops then .. but using Hamas as "Policeforce" is just an invitation to not give back any more land now. And that's an invitation to further escalation.
An international force to protect Palestinians would be great yeah. But if we're not doing that for Ukraine we probably aren't going to start for Palestine are we
On October 15 2025 21:22 KT_Elwood wrote: My prediction is, that the last part of a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza will be civil war with IDF standing by, doing nothing.
On October 15 2025 21:22 KT_Elwood wrote: My prediction is, that the last part of a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza will be civil war with IDF standing by, doing nothing.
and the silver lining ...?
Genocide Biden wasn't elected... Or something like that I assume.
On October 15 2025 21:22 KT_Elwood wrote: My prediction is, that the last part of a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza will be civil war with IDF standing by, doing nothing.
and the silver lining ...?
Genocide Biden wasn't elected... Or something like that I assume.
Why would he consider this a silver lining? Did you just really want to write this
well this part "a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza" was a bit off because at the very least there are arab jews there, and i don't see them getting annihilated ... or, it could mean that all non-arabs will be fine ... which might be a silver lining, somehow.
On October 15 2025 21:22 KT_Elwood wrote: My prediction is, that the last part of a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza will be civil war with IDF standing by, doing nothing.
How would a civil war end in complete annihilation?
On October 17 2025 01:13 xM(Z wrote: well this part "a complete anihilation of arab population in Gaza" was a bit off because at the very least there are arab jews there, and i don't see them getting annihilated ... or, it could mean that all non-arabs will be fine ... which might be a silver lining, somehow.
Ah yes, the flourishing Arab Jew and non-Arab population in Gaza... how could we forget them?
I wonder if, at any point, people will consider the agreement text to be actually bad and a source of any of the issues occurring. I have seen some academics point out issues like vagueness and lack of Palestinian involvement in future as issues. However, in general, it seems that people do not want to criticise it as it has achieved a ceasefire for now. Many admit that Netanyahu and Trump are not trustworthy and, in general, corrupt people, but somehow the deal they have agreed on is good.
EPT
