5 ms·

Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages even in the face of double-standard

Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages even in the face of double-standard world efforts to legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic Hamas regime.

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages [...] This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you think about it. Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are unique to this conflict.
  - afavour 3y ago
    > That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. If that’s true (and I agree that it may well be) then surely Israel’s army’s efforts can’t be in aid of hostage release, because it’s an entirely unattainable goal? I think that’s what the OP is getting at. The tactics we see don’t seem like they’d be effective ways to rescue hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade Hamas to release the hostages. So what are the current tactics in aid of?
    - bawolff 3y ago
      There are two ways it could in theory be in aid of that goal: - putting pressure - even if there is nothing now to negotiate with, military action could reduce hamas's negotiating position and in principle cause them to sue for peace. I'm a bit doubtful in this conflict, but traditionally this how war works. If your enemy refuses to surrender, you take their land until either they surrender or they have no more land. For example in world war 1, there was still a lot of deaths right up until the armistice even though people knew fighting was going to stop soon, because the sides thought the more land we have now, the better our position will be during the peace negotiations. - second, Israeli army could find where the hostages are and take them back by force. Also pretty hard, but if negotiations are unattainable its not surprising they would go here as the only other option. Most wars happen to obtain goals that are unattainable by peaceful negotiation. I don't think this conflict is any different in that regard than any other.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Because there are two war aims: hostage release and the removal of Hamas. > Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point? No, for the same reason countries don't kill all their prisoners of war right before surrendering. You still need to negotiate the terms of the peace.
  - loceng 3y ago
    Why do you think that not creating more Hamas isn't also an aim?
    - tptacek 3y ago
      There's a distinction to draw between creating more militant opposition to Israel's occupation and creating more Hamas. A category error I think a lot of people make when discussing this is to presume Hamas is a normal representation of armed resistance. At least since 2017, and arguably before, it has been a deeply abnormal armed resistance movement. You might have reasons to believe that Israel's persecution of Hamas is going to generate a new generation of Hamas, but reasonable people might disagree and say that to the extent Israel is creating new militants, they're likely to look more like Fatah's armed wing than Hamas.
afavour 3y ago
> in the face of double-standard world efforts to legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic Hamas regime. I ask this question very genuinely: what world efforts are seeking to legitimize Hamas? I have seen a great many pro-Palestinian perspectives but have not seen anything pro-Hamas beyond fringe kooks. As for double standard… I think the reason you see the double standard is precisely because the comparison is racist, homophonic, misogynistic, etc. Israel is held to a higher standard than neighbouring countries because it’s a liberal democracy as opposed to a theocratic dictatorship. I (as an outsider of course) would think it a great loss for the world if Israel starts to consider Iran to be the bar they have to clear rather than anything higher.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > what world efforts are seeking to legitimize Hamas? No real efforts. But a surprising number of young people don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
  - stefantalpalaru 3y ago
    [dead]
  - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
    In my experience, most invocations of Israel's right to exist are not functionally asking people to extend some generally accepted principle to Israel, but rather demanding that they accept Israel's existence as axiomatic. My response is usually something along the lines of "I'm not sure any state has a right to exist, or that it's even a meaningful concept to apply to political entities rather than people". That's often not productive in terms of continuing the conversation, but I'm not trying to be clever or evasive; I genuinely don't understand why I should accept the premise of the question.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > response is usually something along the lines of "I'm not sure any state has a right to exist, or that it's even a meaningful concept to apply to political entities rather than people" It generally means do they have the rights of a nation-state. That said, I agree it’s a new way of framing the one-state solution.
adhamsalama 3y ago
[flagged]
shkkmo 3y ago
[flagged]
loceng 3y ago
Can you also go on the record to say what do you think the % odds are that the IDF killed Hamas' hostages (your own fellow citizens) when bombarding Gaza - which they continue to do - which arguably further increases the odds of killing more hostages? Logically the odds of the hostages being alive would be higher if this wasn't the tactic the IDF decided to use, right? If I was in command of a military then the hostages would come first, and I would send in soldiers who signed up to potentially give their lives - to exchange soldiers lives for civilians, if need be.

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago

> Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages [...] This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you think about it. Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?

bawolff 3y ago
> Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are unique to this conflict.
- afavour 3y ago
  > That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. If that’s true (and I agree that it may well be) then surely Israel’s army’s efforts can’t be in aid of hostage release, because it’s an entirely unattainable goal? I think that’s what the OP is getting at. The tactics we see don’t seem like they’d be effective ways to rescue hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade Hamas to release the hostages. So what are the current tactics in aid of?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    There are two ways it could in theory be in aid of that goal: - putting pressure - even if there is nothing now to negotiate with, military action could reduce hamas's negotiating position and in principle cause them to sue for peace. I'm a bit doubtful in this conflict, but traditionally this how war works. If your enemy refuses to surrender, you take their land until either they surrender or they have no more land. For example in world war 1, there was still a lot of deaths right up until the armistice even though people knew fighting was going to stop soon, because the sides thought the more land we have now, the better our position will be during the peace negotiations. - second, Israeli army could find where the hostages are and take them back by force. Also pretty hard, but if negotiations are unattainable its not surprising they would go here as the only other option. Most wars happen to obtain goals that are unattainable by peaceful negotiation. I don't think this conflict is any different in that regard than any other.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Because there are two war aims: hostage release and the removal of Hamas. > Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point? No, for the same reason countries don't kill all their prisoners of war right before surrendering. You still need to negotiate the terms of the peace.
- loceng 3y ago
  Why do you think that not creating more Hamas isn't also an aim?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    There's a distinction to draw between creating more militant opposition to Israel's occupation and creating more Hamas. A category error I think a lot of people make when discussing this is to presume Hamas is a normal representation of armed resistance. At least since 2017, and arguably before, it has been a deeply abnormal armed resistance movement. You might have reasons to believe that Israel's persecution of Hamas is going to generate a new generation of Hamas, but reasonable people might disagree and say that to the extent Israel is creating new militants, they're likely to look more like Fatah's armed wing than Hamas.

afavour 3y ago

> in the face of double-standard world efforts to legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic Hamas regime. I ask this question very genuinely: what world efforts are seeking to legitimize Hamas? I have seen a great many pro-Palestinian perspectives but have not seen anything pro-Hamas beyond fringe kooks. As for double standard… I think the reason you see the double standard is precisely because the comparison is racist, homophonic, misogynistic, etc. Israel is held to a higher standard than neighbouring countries because it’s a liberal democracy as opposed to a theocratic dictatorship. I (as an outsider of course) would think it a great loss for the world if Israel starts to consider Iran to be the bar they have to clear rather than anything higher.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> what world efforts are seeking to legitimize Hamas? No real efforts. But a surprising number of young people don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago
  [dead]
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  In my experience, most invocations of Israel's right to exist are not functionally asking people to extend some generally accepted principle to Israel, but rather demanding that they accept Israel's existence as axiomatic. My response is usually something along the lines of "I'm not sure any state has a right to exist, or that it's even a meaningful concept to apply to political entities rather than people". That's often not productive in terms of continuing the conversation, but I'm not trying to be clever or evasive; I genuinely don't understand why I should accept the premise of the question.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > response is usually something along the lines of "I'm not sure any state has a right to exist, or that it's even a meaningful concept to apply to political entities rather than people" It generally means do they have the rights of a nation-state. That said, I agree it’s a new way of framing the one-state solution.

adhamsalama 3y ago

[flagged]

shkkmo 3y ago

[flagged]

loceng 3y ago

Can you also go on the record to say what do you think the % odds are that the IDF killed Hamas' hostages (your own fellow citizens) when bombarding Gaza - which they continue to do - which arguably further increases the odds of killing more hostages? Logically the odds of the hostages being alive would be higher if this wasn't the tactic the IDF decided to use, right? If I was in command of a military then the hostages would come first, and I would send in soldiers who signed up to potentially give their lives - to exchange soldiers lives for civilians, if need be.