5 ms·

> way past where it made sense. If they don't destroy Hamas now, then a war will happen again in another 10 years. At which point 10s of thousands of palestin

by stale2002 1y ago

> way past where it made sense. If they don't destroy Hamas now, then a war will happen again in another 10 years. At which point 10s of thousands of palestinians will needlessly die, again. The only resolution to all of this, will happen when Hamas is completely disarmed and out of power. You can criticize how Israel goes about achieving that goal. But that goal is the only one that gets to a real, permanent peace.

ath3nd 1y ago
You are basically saying that regardless of criticisms and international condemnation, Israel has no choice but commit war crimes and genocide? This is like "look what you made me do" defence in court, not sure it will save genocider Netanyahu from rotting in the Hague jail. Nor would it stop us from boycotting Israel and calling out their genocide.
- stale2002 1y ago
  > Israel has no choice Yeah thats basically how thing will end up. Because if they dont get rid of Hamas now, they will end up in another war and end up killing 10s of thousands of more Palestinians later. Thats just what would happen. I mean, people are saying Israel is doing a genocide now right? If thats the case, why wouldn't they just do a genicide again if another October 7th happened? Obviously thats what they would do. > Nor would it stop us You don't have to stop doing anything. Just realize that they have a modern military that they are going to continue to use to kill their enemy until that enemy has surrendered or been destroyed. Thats the only way this ends. The only question is how many people have to die and how much of gaza has to be flattened in order to achieve that outcome. Boycotts aren't going to stop anything. Nor will condemnation. The only thing that would come close is serious military action, but well would you look at that, every major of enemy of Israel is now destroyed, from Syria to Hezbollah to Iran. Military action seems rather unlikely now, given how successful Israel was in obliterating every enemy it has in the area. So, the people of palestine are left with choice. Accept peace, or watch as Israel keeps killing people until Hamas is gone for good. > rotting in the Hague jail. Even if this fantasy land future did come to past, trials don't bring back the dead. If Israel has to kill another 50 thousand people to get rid of Hamas (because a peace deal with rejected), well those 50k genocide victims are still dead. The world's not turning on a dime here. Nobody is coming to save palestine. Boycotts don't stop bombs.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > only question is how many people have to die and how much of gaza has to be flattened in order to achieve that outcome. Boycotts aren't going to stop anything. Nor will condemnation I agree with the last part of this sentiment: boycotts and weapons-sale bans won't stop Israel. But they will decrease its wealth and power in the long term. That should be something Tel Aviv seeks to avoid. Eliminating Hamas should not require inducing a famine.
  - brazukadev 1y ago
    > they are going to continue to use to kill their enemy until that enemy has surrendered or been destroyed. Thats the only way this ends If I may ask something about a similar event, how do you think the Rússia vs Ukraine war will end?
    - stale2002 1y ago
      Russia vs Ukraine is much more of a stalemate than Israel vs Palestine (although Russia is still winning.. ish). It is being fought with modern armies on both sides, and the lines of battle have barely changed in months. And it is fought over a huge area. Thats much different from a conflict over a tiny area, where one side can quite literally bomb every single building in a matter of weeks. As for how Ukraine vs Russia ends, well probably there will be a continued grinding down of both sides, continued increasing costs, while the borders don't change at all. And then when Russia wants to stop throwing money and lives into a metaphorical pit, there will be some sort of ceasefire/peace deal where Russia gets to keep all the land it took but the fighting stops. Ukraine isn't going to kick out Russia back to its original borders, and Russia isn't going to have some sudden breakthrough where it takes over Kiev. Its sad that Russia will get to keep its gains, but in war there are few good endings and most bad compromises. But fortunately, Russia simply doesn't have the capability to flatten its enemy on a timeline measured in weeks, and is just stuck in a slog thats going nowhere. If things had gone differently at the start of the war with Russia's blizkrieg having succeeded well we'd be having a different conversation now about much worse compromises that would have to be made, but fortunately that didn't end up happening.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> If they don't destroy Hamas now, then a war will happen again in another 10 years Sure. Destroying Hamas doesn't require starving children. Let food in. Keep targeting Hamas.
s5300 1y ago
[dead]
HDThoreaun 1y ago
It is not possible to destroy an idea with violence. The more palestinians you shoot or starve the stronger Hamas will be when it returns. The only way for Israel to get real, permanent peace is probably removing all the palestinians which is why they are currently engaged in a genocide.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It is not possible to destroy an idea with violence. The more palestinians you shoot or starve the stronger Hamas will be when it returns One, lots of ideas have been destroyed by violence across history. When a nation with an oral tradition of history is exterminated, their ideas quite literally die with them. Two, it's not a given that Palestinians will be terrorists. Eliminating Hamas gives room for other, better ideas around resistance to rise.
  - yibg 1y ago
    > better ideas around resistance to rise. What might those be? What other types of resistance hasn't already been tried and failed there?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > What other types of resistance hasn't already been tried and failed there? Literally everything other than terrorism! You can fight a resistance without killing kids at a concert. Remember the videos of Ukraine treating its POWs well? Imagine if Hamas had restricted its targets to military assets, released all non-active duty hostages, and then released videos of them being served tea and hummus while Israeli planes pounded above. How different would the narrative be?
      - yibg 1y ago
        To be honest, I don't think things would be much different. If Hamas took only military personnel hostage, the IDF would still be bombing Gaza and demanding they be returned. When Gilad Shalit was taken hostage Operation Summer Rains followed. That was one soldier. You really think if Hamas took hundreds of soldiers hostage, they wouldn't go bomb Gaza?
yibg 1y ago
A lot of problems with this. 1) As long as Israel treats Palestinians the way they current do, there will always be another Hamas. That or completely remove Palestinians from the area, which seems to be the current goal. So no, completely destroying hamas is not the only way to get to a real permanent peace. 2) How Israel is going about things is the exact issue at hand. You can't just hand wave it away. 3) Let's say for the sake of argument destroying Hamas IS the only way to achieve long lasting peace, how much death and destruction does it justify? 10% of the population? 20%? 50%?. So again just because it's an armed conflict, doesn't mean anything goes.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > As long as Israel treats Palestinians the way they current do, there will always be another Hamas Eh, Trump's peace deal isn't great for Palestinians. But it gives them peace and a path to more peace in the future, and paths where considering options for resistance other than terrorism may flourish. > Let's say for the sake of argument destroying Hamas IS the only way to achieve long lasting peace, how much death and destruction does it justify? 10% of the population? Yikes. Based on precedent, I don't think countries have typically put an upper bound on this figure. I think a better question might be what's the upper bound on civilian deaths that should not be required to be exceeded if Hamas has to be routed out by force.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC, then reread your comment.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC Black South Africans weren't de facto surrendering in a militarised conflict. The ANC resorted to small-scale terrorism [1]. (It didn't work.) If the ANC had launched an October 7th scale attack, not only would it have derailed the international pressure that ended Apartheid, but in the likely ensuing civil war, yes, one side would have probably been forced to unconditionally surrender. The practical options on the table are war and peace. If you're losing this badly, you take peace. Then you litigate over war crimes, et cetera. Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. (I'd be shocked if Gazans, in a plebescite, rejected this deal. The only people who win by continuing this are Hamas and Likud.) [1] https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html
Cyph0n 1y ago
They are not going to be able eliminate or disarm Hamas by force. Heck, they only were able to “rescue” the vast majority of hostages via negotiation. The only way forward is negotiation.
anigbrowl 1y ago
Maybe they can set up another extremist party to undermine Hamas, lke how Netanyahu used Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority and draw off momentum from the prospect of a Palestinian state getting established.

ath3nd 1y ago

You are basically saying that regardless of criticisms and international condemnation, Israel has no choice but commit war crimes and genocide? This is like "look what you made me do" defence in court, not sure it will save genocider Netanyahu from rotting in the Hague jail. Nor would it stop us from boycotting Israel and calling out their genocide.

stale2002 1y ago
> Israel has no choice Yeah thats basically how thing will end up. Because if they dont get rid of Hamas now, they will end up in another war and end up killing 10s of thousands of more Palestinians later. Thats just what would happen. I mean, people are saying Israel is doing a genocide now right? If thats the case, why wouldn't they just do a genicide again if another October 7th happened? Obviously thats what they would do. > Nor would it stop us You don't have to stop doing anything. Just realize that they have a modern military that they are going to continue to use to kill their enemy until that enemy has surrendered or been destroyed. Thats the only way this ends. The only question is how many people have to die and how much of gaza has to be flattened in order to achieve that outcome. Boycotts aren't going to stop anything. Nor will condemnation. The only thing that would come close is serious military action, but well would you look at that, every major of enemy of Israel is now destroyed, from Syria to Hezbollah to Iran. Military action seems rather unlikely now, given how successful Israel was in obliterating every enemy it has in the area. So, the people of palestine are left with choice. Accept peace, or watch as Israel keeps killing people until Hamas is gone for good. > rotting in the Hague jail. Even if this fantasy land future did come to past, trials don't bring back the dead. If Israel has to kill another 50 thousand people to get rid of Hamas (because a peace deal with rejected), well those 50k genocide victims are still dead. The world's not turning on a dime here. Nobody is coming to save palestine. Boycotts don't stop bombs.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > only question is how many people have to die and how much of gaza has to be flattened in order to achieve that outcome. Boycotts aren't going to stop anything. Nor will condemnation I agree with the last part of this sentiment: boycotts and weapons-sale bans won't stop Israel. But they will decrease its wealth and power in the long term. That should be something Tel Aviv seeks to avoid. Eliminating Hamas should not require inducing a famine.
- brazukadev 1y ago
  > they are going to continue to use to kill their enemy until that enemy has surrendered or been destroyed. Thats the only way this ends If I may ask something about a similar event, how do you think the Rússia vs Ukraine war will end?
  - stale2002 1y ago
    Russia vs Ukraine is much more of a stalemate than Israel vs Palestine (although Russia is still winning.. ish). It is being fought with modern armies on both sides, and the lines of battle have barely changed in months. And it is fought over a huge area. Thats much different from a conflict over a tiny area, where one side can quite literally bomb every single building in a matter of weeks. As for how Ukraine vs Russia ends, well probably there will be a continued grinding down of both sides, continued increasing costs, while the borders don't change at all. And then when Russia wants to stop throwing money and lives into a metaphorical pit, there will be some sort of ceasefire/peace deal where Russia gets to keep all the land it took but the fighting stops. Ukraine isn't going to kick out Russia back to its original borders, and Russia isn't going to have some sudden breakthrough where it takes over Kiev. Its sad that Russia will get to keep its gains, but in war there are few good endings and most bad compromises. But fortunately, Russia simply doesn't have the capability to flatten its enemy on a timeline measured in weeks, and is just stuck in a slog thats going nowhere. If things had gone differently at the start of the war with Russia's blizkrieg having succeeded well we'd be having a different conversation now about much worse compromises that would have to be made, but fortunately that didn't end up happening.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> If they don't destroy Hamas now, then a war will happen again in another 10 years Sure. Destroying Hamas doesn't require starving children. Let food in. Keep targeting Hamas.

s5300 1y ago

[dead]

HDThoreaun 1y ago

It is not possible to destroy an idea with violence. The more palestinians you shoot or starve the stronger Hamas will be when it returns. The only way for Israel to get real, permanent peace is probably removing all the palestinians which is why they are currently engaged in a genocide.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> It is not possible to destroy an idea with violence. The more palestinians you shoot or starve the stronger Hamas will be when it returns One, lots of ideas have been destroyed by violence across history. When a nation with an oral tradition of history is exterminated, their ideas quite literally die with them. Two, it's not a given that Palestinians will be terrorists. Eliminating Hamas gives room for other, better ideas around resistance to rise.
- yibg 1y ago
  > better ideas around resistance to rise. What might those be? What other types of resistance hasn't already been tried and failed there?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > What other types of resistance hasn't already been tried and failed there? Literally everything other than terrorism! You can fight a resistance without killing kids at a concert. Remember the videos of Ukraine treating its POWs well? Imagine if Hamas had restricted its targets to military assets, released all non-active duty hostages, and then released videos of them being served tea and hummus while Israeli planes pounded above. How different would the narrative be?
    - yibg 1y ago
      To be honest, I don't think things would be much different. If Hamas took only military personnel hostage, the IDF would still be bombing Gaza and demanding they be returned. When Gilad Shalit was taken hostage Operation Summer Rains followed. That was one soldier. You really think if Hamas took hundreds of soldiers hostage, they wouldn't go bomb Gaza?

yibg 1y ago

A lot of problems with this. 1) As long as Israel treats Palestinians the way they current do, there will always be another Hamas. That or completely remove Palestinians from the area, which seems to be the current goal. So no, completely destroying hamas is not the only way to get to a real permanent peace. 2) How Israel is going about things is the exact issue at hand. You can't just hand wave it away. 3) Let's say for the sake of argument destroying Hamas IS the only way to achieve long lasting peace, how much death and destruction does it justify? 10% of the population? 20%? 50%?. So again just because it's an armed conflict, doesn't mean anything goes.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> As long as Israel treats Palestinians the way they current do, there will always be another Hamas Eh, Trump's peace deal isn't great for Palestinians. But it gives them peace and a path to more peace in the future, and paths where considering options for resistance other than terrorism may flourish. > Let's say for the sake of argument destroying Hamas IS the only way to achieve long lasting peace, how much death and destruction does it justify? 10% of the population? Yikes. Based on precedent, I don't think countries have typically put an upper bound on this figure. I think a better question might be what's the upper bound on civilian deaths that should not be required to be exceeded if Hamas has to be routed out by force.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC, then reread your comment.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Replace Palestinians with Black South Africans, and imagine this offer was made in 1990 to the ANC Black South Africans weren't de facto surrendering in a militarised conflict. The ANC resorted to small-scale terrorism [1]. (It didn't work.) If the ANC had launched an October 7th scale attack, not only would it have derailed the international pressure that ended Apartheid, but in the likely ensuing civil war, yes, one side would have probably been forced to unconditionally surrender. The practical options on the table are war and peace. If you're losing this badly, you take peace. Then you litigate over war crimes, et cetera. Gaza has no seat at the table because there is currently nobody to take the seat, that's what peace gives them. (I'd be shocked if Gazans, in a plebescite, rejected this deal. The only people who win by continuing this are Hamas and Likud.) [1] https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html https://markhumphrys.com/anc.violence.html

Cyph0n 1y ago

They are not going to be able eliminate or disarm Hamas by force. Heck, they only were able to “rescue” the vast majority of hostages via negotiation. The only way forward is negotiation.

anigbrowl 1y ago

Maybe they can set up another extremist party to undermine Hamas, lke how Netanyahu used Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority and draw off momentum from the prospect of a Palestinian state getting established.