Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

The PLA in the West Bank were very supportive of a two state solution. The West Bank, where Hamas enjoyed 11% support until Israel began targeting Palestinians in Gaza. Now Hamas could probably get elected in the West Bank. But please refrain from lumping in Palestinians with Hamas. They are not the same. Also, Netanyahu is not interested in a two state solution, which is a big reason Hamas was allowed to exist in the first place.

 

Nenatyahu is nearing the end of his political stranglehold. That process has already started. He is finished as soon as the War is over, if not before.

 

- There's a one state solution where the Israelis abandon Zionism, expands it borders to incorporate the occupied territories and Gaza, everyone is an equal citizen. We'll call this the least likely, since a sort of semi-fascist nationalism / Jewish supremacy is the norm in Israel now. I would say the majority of Israelis view Arabs as a lower form of life, particularly those of backgrounds native to the Mid East. Israel is a pretty racist country!
- There's a two state solution where Israel has their Zionist state, and they cede land they control/occupy to a Palestinian state (Israel has succeeded in destroying supporters to this in Israel and Gaza, and the American government has more or less not pressed them) Could it be revived? Well, we could actually apply pressure to Israel and find out!
- Israel simply negotiates the release of the hostages without war, probably exchanging Palestinian prisoners. Return to status quo, Iron Dome policy and better intel (made impossible because Bibi was exposed as incompetent with their security failure and complacency - he needed war/revenge to make him look strong)

There are plenty of variations of these things, but if you want to argue Israeli politics makes these things almost impossible, fair enough, but at what point are we bound to support them to pursue their designs? I cant tell Israel what to do, I can only tell our government not to give them the weapons and cover to pursue a campaign of mass murder.

 

Implicit here is that Netanyahu will do anything and everything to extend the war indefinitely

 

I understand what is implicit, and my best guess is that nevertheless, Netanyahu is nearing his political end. Watch what is happening internally over there. When the focus turns turns to post-War, he serves purpose. And Israel is looking post-War. Here’s an interesting little piece of info that shows Israel talking with its neighbors for mutual cooperation.

 

As would Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/midd...r-hamas-ceasefire-talks-intl-latam/index.html
Hamas leader believes civilian deaths are ‘necessary sacrifices’ in Israeli war, leaked letters show

 

Indeed. So why are we giving support to a guy with the policies as Hamas?

 

The number of times people have said this and the number of times he's bounced back should give anyone pause about writing his epitaph.

 

Although Biden hasn't been successful he has been trying to pressure Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire and by the way the current roadblock to the recently proposed ceasefire isn't Israel it's Hamas.
Israel says Hamas rejects key elements of US ceasefire plan for Gaza

 

Tagging on to this:

 

Of course they are going to blame them. Are they going to say they are rejecting it or slow walking it? If Biden isnt going to use a stick, then Israel can play this game where they say the other side is the obstacle for not agreeing on their terms.

 

Most other conflicts are fought against a government and nation-state, not a terrorist organization. That has to impact the way it is fought, and influence expectations of what constitutes "winning." Which clearly will influence tolerance for civilian collateral damage.

And yes, it certainly seems excessive at this point. Simply the civilian deaths. That leaves unmentioned so far the nearly 2 million people displaced and the over 1 million expected to be impact by hunger or famine.

No need to rehash the back and forth on Gazan population as "innocent bystander" or not, when obviously the last election was almost 20 years ago.

One of the questions is how many more Israeli soldiers would die to be more "surgical" in their fighting. That's assuming a specific tactic.

The bottom line is it's pretty reasonable to think that 10s of thousands of civilian deaths thus far and climbing, in order to achieve, well, a non-existant or counterproductive goal is simply too many.

 

LOL. Weird that you hold the posters on this board to a higher standard than the government of Israel.

What you should have said was this ; "I’ve yet to read any realistic argument or plan."

 

Blinken is making statements that Hamas is moving the goal posts now on an agreement.

 

They are deemed a terrorist organization but they are the governing body, elected by Gazans 15 years ago. As they say elections have consequences.

excessive compared to what? From my perspective yes they could manage the impacts more humanely but if I’m in there perspective - priority #1 is wiping out Hamas and if anybody that supports them gets in their way? Sorry.

If 6 million people of my tribe were exterminated within the last 80 years, and I had neighbors who were hellbent on destroying me, my perspective would be a bit different.

There is little doubt the attacks enjoyed wide support among Gazans. To the extent Hamas wasn’t widely popular it was because they were shifty at governance not because they wanted to destroy Israel. The most popular political figure in Gaza, prior to the attacks is in an Israeli jail for terrorism.

Yes there are 10s of thousands of deaths. Probably about 10000 Hamas fighters killed, perhaps more. As to counterproductive goal? That’s your opinion. We pretty much wiped out Al Queda and ISIS - they still exist but are a shell of themselves.

 

Tail waging the dog, as usual with US/Israel

 

Hmmm.. you would think if the IDF was doing a good job of hitting Hamas targets, they'd be begging for a ceasefire.

 

The concern though is that this leads to an issue of moral hazard. Let's say that there is an optimal time to end the war, in theory. Netanyahu has three alternatives: end the war earlier than necessary to achieve the optimal outcome, end the war at exactly the time to achieve optimal outcomes, and end the war later than necessary to achieve the optimal outcomes. The best solution for Israel would, by definition, be to end the war at the exact time to achieve the optimal outcomes. However, for Netanyahu, who gets to stay leader while the war goes on (or at least raises the possibility of such), the individually-optimal outcome might be to let the war drag on for longer so that he can stay President and not go to trial for corruption.

The goal of eradicating Hamas is not achievable via non-war methods in the short- or even medium-term. It is also not achievable via war methods. The leadership of Hamas is shielded and has their own version of a moral hazard situation (where they directly profit from the existence of the war even if it harms Gaza).

Here are the goals that are achievable: removing Hamas as the government of Gaza (essentially already done), returning the hostages (this has not really been achieved efficiently via war and is likely more of an intelligence and diplomatic mission with the threat of violence in its most optimal form), and destroying the infrastructure on which Hamas relied (essentially already done). So the question remains: what is the goal of the next few months? Is it really being done in Israel's interests or Netanyahu's? Do we simply have two sides, both with substantial moral hazard issues in regards to their leadership, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary violent deaths?

I'd suggest that the reluctance to provide anything concrete about how this actually ends by either side gives us our answer to that question.

 

Considering that the goal of Hamas is make martyrs of Palestinian civilians why would they be begging for a ceasefire since they have been rather successful insofar of that objective is concerned and although they have lost a significant number of fighters there are still plenty holed up in the network of tunnels beneath the Gaza strip.

 

And with the last election 18 years ago, half the population in Gaza under 18, and estimates of two thirds of the populace women and children, it's pretty safe to infer that probably half or more of the people killed did NOT vote for Hamas.

There's no more point to this conversation, and that is not intended to be rude though it will certainly seem like it is. We just won't see eye to eye.

In summary, you're OK with the amount of civilian death and suffering in Gaza. I am not. It's subjective as to whether it is productive - another area where we won't agree. History will inform us.