4 ms·

Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/124827681

Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
- NewJazz 3y ago
  I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
    - arp242 3y ago
      "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
        runarberg 3y ago
        I think it is much easier to understand the situation if we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a ceasefire. The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way. No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful. In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
        edanm 3y ago
        I agree with most of your comment, but I'll push back on a couple of things: > No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. All the things you wrote before that are things that Israel explicitly says, that it won't agree to a permanent ceasefire. But this statement is your personal opinion, and I don't think it's necessarily justified. > In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians. I think your phrasing on this is misleading, since it implies that Netanyahu's words are that he wants to "continue a genocide" and "ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians". That is incorrect. Are words are that he will invade Rafah, the "continue the genocide/ethnic cleansing" thing are your words, not his. (I highly disagree with using those words, but either way, my point stands.)
        runarberg 3y ago
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        It's impossible to disagree with -- we have to eliminate the terrorist military leadership that perpetrated a massacre. Why would they get a permanent cease fire? To your point, in my varied Israeli media diet, it's well-understood in the entire Israeli press that Bibi went out of his way to torpedo it by saying this simple idea over and over. The only question is whether this show he has a spine (willing to lose an eventual vote just to defeat the terrorists), or that he's weak (willing to lose the hostages to retain his political position) A majority is weary of it because the implementation of the specifics is "we will work our way through the refugee camp and then ???" and they feel they've seen that plan before. We can confirm this is from an unbiased perspective by noting that the protests kicked up a notch, and the TV presenter outed the anonymous diplomatic source as him, and then perusing original sourcing as to why. (to share something I learned re: sourcing, Haaretz will be seen as some interlocutors as a left-wing rag doing performances for overseas audiences, Times of Israel is better)
      - AdamN 3y ago
        That seems very good faith and transparent. Bad faith would be saying, 'yeah we are happy with a permanent cease fire', getting all the hostages, and then continuing the assault. Agree that the logic kind of pushes Hamas into keeping the hostages so not sure what Israel is expecting and most likely Israel has just marked the hostages as dead and will do anything to permanently destroy Hamas and show other potential beligerents that the deterrent strategy is concrete - even though that means a death sentence for most of those hostages still alive.
    - megous 3y ago
      Of course it was, that's what Hamas always told it wanted. Unless by negotiation table you mean "whatever Israel wants and nothing else".
  - wslh 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - NewJazz 3y ago
      What does that have to do with my comment? BTW October 7th is decidedly not the root of this war, just a dark event in a series of atrocities that have occurred during the last 70+ years.
      - wslh 3y ago
        You can put the root of the problem whenever you want in the last thousand years.
    - Comma2976 3y ago
      Do you remember what the word "root" means?
- wazoox 3y ago
  "transparently" or "allegedly and repeatedly" ? People have been protesting precisely because absolutely no progress have been made towards freeing the hostages, on the contrary. So obviously "return of the hostage" is a simple mantra to which Israeli government pay some lip service. What they actually plan to do with Hamas or Gaza people in general remains to be known, we have all reasons to question every single word coming from them.
- racional 3y ago
  Its stated war aims, at the outset. By this point these aims appear to have evolved, and it now seems primarily concerned with encouraging what it refers to as "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip. And as a secondary aim, to incrementally expand the settlements in the West Bank (in the hopes of securing their eventual annexation).

Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.

NewJazz 3y ago
I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
  - arp242 3y ago
    "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        I think it is much easier to understand the situation if we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a ceasefire. The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way. No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful. In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
        edanm 3y ago
        I agree with most of your comment, but I'll push back on a couple of things: > No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. All the things you wrote before that are things that Israel explicitly says, that it won't agree to a permanent ceasefire. But this statement is your personal opinion, and I don't think it's necessarily justified. > In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians. I think your phrasing on this is misleading, since it implies that Netanyahu's words are that he wants to "continue a genocide" and "ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians". That is incorrect. Are words are that he will invade Rafah, the "continue the genocide/ethnic cleansing" thing are your words, not his. (I highly disagree with using those words, but either way, my point stands.)
        runarberg 3y ago
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      It's impossible to disagree with -- we have to eliminate the terrorist military leadership that perpetrated a massacre. Why would they get a permanent cease fire? To your point, in my varied Israeli media diet, it's well-understood in the entire Israeli press that Bibi went out of his way to torpedo it by saying this simple idea over and over. The only question is whether this show he has a spine (willing to lose an eventual vote just to defeat the terrorists), or that he's weak (willing to lose the hostages to retain his political position) A majority is weary of it because the implementation of the specifics is "we will work our way through the refugee camp and then ???" and they feel they've seen that plan before. We can confirm this is from an unbiased perspective by noting that the protests kicked up a notch, and the TV presenter outed the anonymous diplomatic source as him, and then perusing original sourcing as to why. (to share something I learned re: sourcing, Haaretz will be seen as some interlocutors as a left-wing rag doing performances for overseas audiences, Times of Israel is better)
    - AdamN 3y ago
      That seems very good faith and transparent. Bad faith would be saying, 'yeah we are happy with a permanent cease fire', getting all the hostages, and then continuing the assault. Agree that the logic kind of pushes Hamas into keeping the hostages so not sure what Israel is expecting and most likely Israel has just marked the hostages as dead and will do anything to permanently destroy Hamas and show other potential beligerents that the deterrent strategy is concrete - even though that means a death sentence for most of those hostages still alive.
  - megous 3y ago
    Of course it was, that's what Hamas always told it wanted. Unless by negotiation table you mean "whatever Israel wants and nothing else".
- wslh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    What does that have to do with my comment? BTW October 7th is decidedly not the root of this war, just a dark event in a series of atrocities that have occurred during the last 70+ years.
    - wslh 3y ago
      You can put the root of the problem whenever you want in the last thousand years.
  - Comma2976 3y ago
    Do you remember what the word "root" means?
wazoox 3y ago
"transparently" or "allegedly and repeatedly" ? People have been protesting precisely because absolutely no progress have been made towards freeing the hostages, on the contrary. So obviously "return of the hostage" is a simple mantra to which Israeli government pay some lip service. What they actually plan to do with Hamas or Gaza people in general remains to be known, we have all reasons to question every single word coming from them.
racional 3y ago
Its stated war aims, at the outset. By this point these aims appear to have evolved, and it now seems primarily concerned with encouraging what it refers to as "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip. And as a secondary aim, to incrementally expand the settlements in the West Bank (in the hopes of securing their eventual annexation).