3 ms·

Just need one side to surrender to end a war.

by la64710 3y ago

jncfhnb 3y ago
A group like hamas cannot functionally surrender. Nor does it have any incentive to.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  I see a lot of similarities between Hamas and other violent insurgent groups. They are intransigent and will always chose violence over any other more reasonable option[1]. And take decades of concerted effort to stamp out. The Muslim Brotherhood still exists despite decades of efforts to suppress it. [1] The sad thing is the road of violence is where the Palestinians are weakest. And the road of using shaming is where they are strongest.
- exodust 3y ago
  Why can't hamas surrender? Why would you grant hamas exception to basic actions such as laying down arms? Of course hamas can surrender. It involves dropping weapons, raising hands, and submitting to the forces who have you out-gunned. That's how surrendering works. Surrendering and releasing hostages would go a long way towards the peace that so many want.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Hamas could stop fighting, or it could technically dissolve itself in some nonsense world. But it does not derive legitimacy from overt, visible structures. Polite surrender is antithetical to its existence. Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict. Let alone the fact that Iran sits there too in the mix
    - exodust 3y ago
      > 'Polite surrender' Shirtless men surrendered so others can. Gaza is crumbling so the more shirtless men the better to encourage an end to violence. Israel should make sure not to disrespect those who surrender if they want more to follow. Maybe incentivise surrender beyond "we will bomb you otherwise". Regarding the shirtless thing, I was surprised to learn Hamas imposed laws ban men in Gaza from swimming topless (wikipedia). Before even getting to military Hamas, the "civil Hamas" has a long list of horrendous attributes. > 'Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict.' Where's the benefit of dying or losing resources? The benefit of brutally targeting civilians? Unless we really are dealing with lesser humans? I've seen fictional zombies on TV behave with more restraint than jihad terrorists. Zombies would actually be easier to deal with when confined to an area, not yet spread over the world. IDF are undoubtedly fighting terror with terror, exactly like most of us would fighting against zombies.
      - mlrtime 3y ago
        > Where's the benefit of dying This is what happens when your religion rewards you for dying in war.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Without getting too into the weeds here, the more violent the conflict is, the more legitimacy Hamas has in Palestine
        exodust 3y ago
        > "the more violent the conflict is, the more legitimacy Hamas has in Palestine" Did you hear that somewhere? It's a troubling position to adopt as it empowers Hamas with a certain immunity and unlimited violence pass. Since when does legitimacy scale with violence? Since never. Now is not the time to avoid the weeds. Total violence doesn't mean one side is awarded the fruits of legitimacy. When the child cries: "our house fell on our heads", at some point the opinions why that happened, or opinions what should be done to stop it will be in conflict among Palestinians. In other words, deflation of Hamas legitimacy is an entirely reasonable outcome to expect as more of the world around ordinary civilians crumbles in response to the actions of Hamas.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        Your idealism is unrealistic. And frankly very damaging. It would be nice if it worked like you said, but that does not hold up to political science or empirical evidence. Pretending that the world works this way is a losing battle. Extremist factions whether violent like Hamas or more mundane and local like the far right American politicians benefit from making the status quo worse. Every time they prevent positive change they make extremism more appealing. They do not need to advance their stated goals. They just need to get people more into the mindset of viewing the idealist way of doing things as hopeless and making the extremist way the only path. This grants legitimacy. Point in case, even in war torn regions, support for Hamas is rising among Palestinians.
dang 3y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617257.

Just need one side to surrender to end a war.

jncfhnb 3y ago

A group like hamas cannot functionally surrender. Nor does it have any incentive to.

Gibbon1 3y ago
I see a lot of similarities between Hamas and other violent insurgent groups. They are intransigent and will always chose violence over any other more reasonable option[1]. And take decades of concerted effort to stamp out. The Muslim Brotherhood still exists despite decades of efforts to suppress it. [1] The sad thing is the road of violence is where the Palestinians are weakest. And the road of using shaming is where they are strongest.
exodust 3y ago
Why can't hamas surrender? Why would you grant hamas exception to basic actions such as laying down arms? Of course hamas can surrender. It involves dropping weapons, raising hands, and submitting to the forces who have you out-gunned. That's how surrendering works. Surrendering and releasing hostages would go a long way towards the peace that so many want.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Hamas could stop fighting, or it could technically dissolve itself in some nonsense world. But it does not derive legitimacy from overt, visible structures. Polite surrender is antithetical to its existence. Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict. Let alone the fact that Iran sits there too in the mix
  - exodust 3y ago
    > 'Polite surrender' Shirtless men surrendered so others can. Gaza is crumbling so the more shirtless men the better to encourage an end to violence. Israel should make sure not to disrespect those who surrender if they want more to follow. Maybe incentivise surrender beyond "we will bomb you otherwise". Regarding the shirtless thing, I was surprised to learn Hamas imposed laws ban men in Gaza from swimming topless (wikipedia). Before even getting to military Hamas, the "civil Hamas" has a long list of horrendous attributes. > 'Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict.' Where's the benefit of dying or losing resources? The benefit of brutally targeting civilians? Unless we really are dealing with lesser humans? I've seen fictional zombies on TV behave with more restraint than jihad terrorists. Zombies would actually be easier to deal with when confined to an area, not yet spread over the world. IDF are undoubtedly fighting terror with terror, exactly like most of us would fighting against zombies.
    - mlrtime 3y ago
      > Where's the benefit of dying This is what happens when your religion rewards you for dying in war.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Without getting too into the weeds here, the more violent the conflict is, the more legitimacy Hamas has in Palestine
      - exodust 3y ago
        > "the more violent the conflict is, the more legitimacy Hamas has in Palestine" Did you hear that somewhere? It's a troubling position to adopt as it empowers Hamas with a certain immunity and unlimited violence pass. Since when does legitimacy scale with violence? Since never. Now is not the time to avoid the weeds. Total violence doesn't mean one side is awarded the fruits of legitimacy. When the child cries: "our house fell on our heads", at some point the opinions why that happened, or opinions what should be done to stop it will be in conflict among Palestinians. In other words, deflation of Hamas legitimacy is an entirely reasonable outcome to expect as more of the world around ordinary civilians crumbles in response to the actions of Hamas.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        Your idealism is unrealistic. And frankly very damaging. It would be nice if it worked like you said, but that does not hold up to political science or empirical evidence. Pretending that the world works this way is a losing battle. Extremist factions whether violent like Hamas or more mundane and local like the far right American politicians benefit from making the status quo worse. Every time they prevent positive change they make extremism more appealing. They do not need to advance their stated goals. They just need to get people more into the mindset of viewing the idealist way of doing things as hopeless and making the extremist way the only path. This grants legitimacy. Point in case, even in war torn regions, support for Hamas is rising among Palestinians.

dang 3y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617257.