the weird thing is that Israel’s government is being confusing - the ceasefire is meant to be lasting but they have vowed to invade Rafah anyway until Hamas is toppled.
Sounds to me like Netanyahus government wants to trade hostages to appease protesters and voters, and then continue flattening Rafah anyway.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
Okay, but leverage is typically supposed to be against the one you’re negotiating or dealing with, and Hamas is quite clearly up against the Israeli government at this point in time.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
I don’t see how that follows. The Israeli government is quite clear in its goals - it has killed hostages on its own initiative. It cares only insofar as it would look bad to not negotiate for hostage a release.
A ceasefire is far more important to Hamas than Israel. Israel wants to keep hammering Gaza. If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
They’re offering a 40-day ceasefire, which would be more beneficial to Hamas than to Israel. It’s not inherently ridiculous for Hamas to accept in exchange for the hostages. The issue is that Israel isn’t serious, and will dance around with terms so they can claim Hamas rejected it again.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
But it’s not everything. The hostages are minor at most, and leverage unutilized is as worthless as not having leverage at all. Furthermore, all negotiations are done by the relative positions of the negotiators - if Hamas wants to hold out for a better deal, that’s certainly a valid strategic decision. But it must also be recognized that it is quite probably long odds since Israel is overwhelmingly in the better position at this point in time.
Once Rafah is taken, this whole miserable affair is going to wind up. And almost certainly not in a good way.
Speaking PURELY from a strategic perspective, what do you think the hostages CAN be traded for? What is something that is realistic for the Israeli government to offer other than a temporary ceasefire? Knowing the Israeli government’s current position and goals? Not “What would be MORAL for them to offer”, what, realistically, can Hamas get out of the Israeli government with these hostages that would be more useful than a 40-day ceasefire and the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners?
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
But neither the article nor the headline have the tone you’re talking about.
They’re offering a 40-day ceasefire, which would be more beneficial to Hamas than to Israel.
What are you basing that assumption on?
Edit: come to think of it, the opposite is very much the case: a 40 day pause will take the international pressure off Israel long enough that the media moves onto other things. Meanwhile, Palestinians are just as dead 40 days later but with a fraction of people still paying attention.
It’s not inherently ridiculous for Hamas to accept in exchange for the hostages
Yeah it is. It’s basically the equivalent of being broke and jobless and selling your house for $5000. Sure, you can pay rent for a while with the $5000, but it’s much less than the house is worth and when the money’s spent, you’re homeless AND just as penniless as you started out.
Only instead of a house, it’s tens if not hundreds of thousands in civilian lives.
The issue is that Israel isn’t serious, and will dance around with terms so they can claim Hamas rejected it again
It’s both: if they were serious, they wouldn’t make such a ridiculously bad offer.
Israel is overwhelmingly in the better position at this point in time.
I wouldn’t on that persisting, though, as public opinion both domestically and internationally is increasingly worsening for the Israeli government as sympathy for their victims grow and outrage at the many atrocities spreads.
Once Rafah is taken, this whole miserable affair is going to wind up
Nope. The Israeli government won’t stop at that.
But neither the article nor the headline have the tone you’re talking about.
Because the article and headline are muddling the waters after Israel has already (almost immediately) rejected the deal. Gaslighting isn’t always about tone.
Too many factors to count. If you really want to get into a discussion about why Hamas benefits from a ceasefire more than Israel, we can - but I would prefer to keep this conversation on the issue of the negotiations as a whole.
If nothing else - the fact that Hamas has been trying to get a ceasefire deal out of the hostages and signalled a conditional willingness to accept a temporary ceasefire (though not on terms Israel finds acceptable) suggests very strongly that Hamas sees a ceasefire as beneficial to them.
Yeah it is. It’s basically the equivalent of being broke and jobless and selling your house for $5000. Sure, you can pay rent for a while with the $5000, but it’s much less than the house is worth and when the money’s spent, you’re homeless AND just as penniless as you started out.
Only instead of a house, it’s tens if not hundreds of thousands in civilian lives.
Okay. So you don’t sell the house. The house is foreclosed on. You get nothing.
What is the benefit?
I wouldn’t on that persisting, though, as public opinion both domestically and internationally is increasingly worsening for the Israeli government as sympathy for their victims grow and outrage at the many atrocities spreads.
Take a look at the Israeli government. Not the concept of Israel as a rational (if amoral) world actor. Take a look at who is making the decisions right now, and how their grip on power is still firm both by legal means (the Knesset, short of snap elections, will not be replaced anytime soon) and by manipulation of Israeli popular opinion (the majority of Israelis still overwhelmingly get their news from Israeli sources, which have engaged in a monstrous amount of self-censorship regarding the genocide in Gaza after Oct 7).
With that in mind, what, in the next few months, do you expect public opinion in foreign countries to do to shift those decision-makers? Realistically speaking?
Nope. The Israeli government won’t stop at that.
You misunderstand. When I say “Wind up”, I don’t mean “The genocide stops”. I mean “The genocide rapidly reaches completion.” Once Rafah is taken, Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip is total once more, and they’ve already got massive ‘humanitarian’ camps to use as an excuse to starve and deport Palestinians.
Because the article and headline are muddling the waters after Israel has already (almost immediately) rejected the deal. Gaslighting isn’t always about tone.
Israel hasn’t formally rejected the terms yet. It could very well just be posturing, especially since Israel sent negotiators back to Egypt after the announcement of Hamas’s acceptance of the new deal. I think more likely it’s stalling for time, but it’s far from certain.
I mean yes and no. Have you seen the protests in Israel? Yeah those aren't because the Israeli public suddenly cares about human rights; they're equal parts because Netanyahu wants to get rid of democracy in Israel and because of his disregard for the hostages' lives in his assault on Gaza, so they are doing their job. And let's remember that their real role hasn't come yet; these hostages are there for after the "war" ends because without any hostages Israel will be turning Gaza into beachfront real estate.
And let’s remember that their real role hasn’t come yet; these hostages are there for after the “war” ends because without any hostages Israel will be turning Gaza into beachfront real estate.
How many hostages have the IDF killed already? Do you really think that if turning Gaza into beachfront real estate and the handful of hostages that are left will be enough to stay the Israeli far-right? Hamas already released 150 hostages once just to acquire a four-day ceasefire. You really think that the hostages are being held for when the “war” ends? Do you really think they’re that valuable? If you were in Israel’s position, with Israel’s goals and morality, would you stop for the hostages? When the “war” ends, the IDF will either have taken them or buried them under the rubble like every other civilian in the strip.
The hostages are not the trump card people here seem to think they are, and considering Hamas’s negotiating attitude towards them, they are far more aware of that than people here, who seem to want to think that the hostages are the major thing ‘keeping’ Israel from completing their genocide, when the fact is that they’re well on their way, as though the hostages were not an issue at all. The only concession that was realistic was the release of prisoners and a temporary ceasefire; the idea that Israel, which has yearned for this genocide for decades, will suddenly stop for hostages they’ve already shot and bombed to death, and an unknown amount of whom are already dead, is insane.
Hostages do not have the value people here are telling themselves they do. Certainly not less-than-half the hostages they had a few short months ago, God knows how many have died for lack of medical treatment or getting an Israeli bomb stoving their head in. These hundred-and-something (if that) hostages do not have that value in the context of a war that has already claimed thousands of Israeli lives and tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, in a conflict that has been at fever-pitch, at minimum, for 20 years, more realistically 30, and arguably the last 70 (though I would argue that the phases of the genocide are different enough to be counted as separate attempts at genocide over the full period of Israel’s existence).
I just don’t understand how people on here are coming to this conclusion. I can’t even say it’s wishful thinking, unless imaginations on here regarding what they wish for are severely limited. It reminds me of when my grandfather would read a news article, immediately come to an impulsive conclusion, and then refuse to change it for any reason. “Hostages are invaluable” is a gut reaction from people who live largely in the West, in lands at peace, by actors who make much more limited demands, and by governments which give more of a damn about PR than the fucking Israelis. And fuck, man, even then - after 9/11, how long did the US go with “No negotiations with terrorists”? Do you think Israeli resolve to finish up their genocide is less than the post-9/11 paranoia and rage in the US?
I really don’t know how the people on Lemmy are approaching this the way they are. It is utterly detached from reality. It’s like showing that you have two-of-a-kind and then going all-in. The hostages are a two-of-a-kind. If the hostages are the key point, Hamas is fucked; and, as much as I despise Hamas, at this moment in time that also means Palestine is fucked.
Okay attitudes towards the hostages can be unrealistic, but I think you're missing a few key points.
First of all, the hostages aren't meant to prevent Israel from completing its genocide. That's just not the reality on the ground. They're meant to pull the negotiations in Hamas's favor. What I meant by "to prevent Israel from turning Gaza into beachfront property" was "so the eventual ceasefire agreement doesn't have Gaza becoming beachfront property as part of it". Again, "as part of the ceasefire agreement". The only thing the hostages are doing now is losing Netanyahu face at home; I'm 100% aware that they're not holding back the IDF (Hannibal directive anyone?). That said, they have been a central part of negotiation between Hamas and Israel. They're not the end all be all of genocide enders, but they're very much valuable because the Israeli government can't sacrifice Israeli civilians' lives for a war half the population agrees doesn't have a clearly defined goal. Or, well, they can, but the protests a few days ago show why that's a bad idea.
Hamas already released 150 hostages once just to acquire a four-day ceasefire.
Correction: So technically it was a week but that aside, the idea was for a pause that would become "something more enduring" in Biden's words. It didn't work and that's why Hamas is now not accepting anything less than a permanent ceasefire. I doubt they went into the deal expecting that it'd end in a week with no progress.
Do you think Israeli resolve to finish up their genocide is less than the post-9/11 paranoia and rage in the US?
In a way, yes. Again, remember the protests from a few days ago. The Israeli public is pissed that the hostages aren't coming back home. This is half the reason they're opposing the war over there. Meanwhile the genocide, while definitely having their blessing, is a more top-down affair. Could be me misreading the situation, but it seems to me like Israelis are more invested in the hostages' safe return than in this particular genocide. At least enough of them are that people are calling on Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire deal.
The hostages alone won't save Gaza, but their existence or lack thereof will and has had a large effect on negotiations, and it's natural to think it will have more when Israel is more serious about trying to end the fighting (which will happen eventually; they can't go on like this forever (hopefully)).
They’re not the end all be all of genocide enders, but they’re very much valuable because the Israeli government can’t sacrifice Israeli civilians’ lives for a war half the population agrees doesn’t have a clearly defined goal. Or, well, they can, but the protests a few days ago show why that’s a bad idea.
The protests are out of frustration with the government not doing more to return the hostages - but negotiation isn’t the only way to return the hostages. Force is also an option - and judging both by Israel’s previous actions and the invasion of Rafah, seems to be the Israeli government’s chosen route. And, purely strategically, it would be hard to say it’s the wrong decision.
Correction: So technically it was a week but that aside, the idea was for a pause that would become “something more enduring” in Biden’s words. It didn’t work and that’s why Hamas is now not accepting anything less than a permanent ceasefire. I doubt they went into the deal expecting that it’d end in a week with no progress.
The idea that the pause would become more enduring was wishful thinking after it was agreed to, and by Biden, not the parties involved, who needed to seem like he was trying.
and it’s natural to think it will have more when Israel is more serious about trying to end the fighting (which will happen eventually; they can’t go on like this forever (hopefully)).
That’s the thing - they don’t need to go on forever. Gaza is almost entirely occupied now. Once Rafah is under Israeli control, where more in Gaza can offer serious resistance? Fuck, man, they’re already building massive camps to ‘move’ the population to. Where is Hamas going to operate, to keep these hostages when that happens? And if Israel kills half of the hostages in the process of rescuing them, do you think that will lose Netanyahu any supporters who aren’t already against him? On the contrary, they’ll spin it as “Look at what the terrorists made us do!”, and if the Israeli left doesn’t swallow it, the centre almot certainly will.
They’re not nearly valuable enough to call for a permanant ceasefire. Honestly, I’d say I’m surprised that a 40 day ceasefire is on the table for them - not now, with so little left to occupy - except that I don’t believe the Israeli offer is in good faith. Their value was never extremely high - half of it was spent earlier - and their value is reduced with every Hamas-controlled location that is overrun. Realistically, they’re not worth a permanant ceasefire to Israel, protests or not.
So you're making good points generally, but the protests I'm referring to clearly demanded a ceasefire so the hostages can return. They explicitly said that they wanted Netanyahu to make a ceasefire agreement and return the hostages.
Israeli society, already working on some 30+ (or 70+ depending on how you count it) years of dehumanization of Palestinians, has been rocked into a frenzy by the fear created by October 7, and by the abhorrent self-censorship of their own media on the subject of the attacks on Gaza. A large proportion of them would still be upset if it was a ‘permanent’ ceasefire, and very few would be upset if their relatives were retrieved by force rather than by negotiation. Most of them are desperate for their families back, and to feel safe from the prospect being held captive. As I said - there are more ways than negotiation to achieve this.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Oftentimes I’m frustrated by running up a brick wall of principles. It’s not that they’re bad principles, but I’m generally interested in… well, as Bismarck described politics, “the art of the possible, the attainable, the second-best”.
Israeli society, already working on some 30+ (or 70+ depending on how you count it) years of dehumanization of Palestinians,
Yeah make that a hundred.
A large proportion of them would still be upset if it was a ‘permanent’ ceasefire,
The protesters are actually calling for a ceasefire and have been for a while so at least it's not as one-sided as you seem to think. No idea about the ratios though, so feel free to drop them if you've seen them.
As I said - there are more ways than negotiation to achieve this.
Yes, but none will actually work. How many hostages has Israel retrieved outside of negotiations? From a purely strategic point of view force is not working if your goal is to retrieve the hostages (which we know it's not). Israelis aren't upset because the IDF is attempting to retrieve the hostages using force; they're upset because force can't work without sacrificing a significant fraction of those hostages as both we and the Israeli public have learned in the past few months.
The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
Looks like the headline matches reality.
You keep spewing totalitarian cacophony, you crazy diamond.
The announcement by Hamas on Monday that it had accepted terms of a cease-fire added to the uncertainty that began over the weekend, when officials said that the armed group and Israel had reached an impasse after months of talks.
As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets from Rafah, their last stronghold in Gaza, killing four Israeli soldiers. The following morning, Israel announced a mass evacuation of areas in Rafah, escalating fears that the military would soon begin a long-anticipated invasion of the crowded city.
Hours later, Hamas suddenly announced that its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had accepted a cease-fire proposal based on a plan proffered by Egypt and Qatar, which have been mediating the negotiations with Israel. The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
While Israel and its main ally, the United States, said they were reviewing the proposal Hamas had agreed to, the public statements by the two sides in the war suggest that they remain far apart on key issues needed to reach a truce. Here is a look at those differences.
Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire. Israel wants a temporary truce. The two sides are stuck on a fundamental question: will this cease-fire be a temporary pause to allow an exchange of hostages for prisoners or a long-term end to the fighting that would leave Hamas in power?
Israel insists on a temporary cease-fire, saying it will keep fighting afterward with the eventual aim of toppling Hamas’s rule in Gaza. Hamas demands a permanent cease-fire and vows to remain in power there.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.
NYT: OMG who can even say what might be in this proposal. Like the flying dutchman, it is an elusive and mysterious beast, and we need to wait for the light of the full moon to even glimpse its outline. Plus you know, Hamas lies all the time.
Also NYT: the "armed group" (i.e. Hamas)
Also NYT: "As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets" (motherfucker the Israelis are "militants" and "fighting", too) ... "killing four Israeli soldiers" (oh, so they attacked the soldiers in Gaza attacking them? I see the problem -- they should have blown up an Israeli hospital or university; then apparently you'd be fine with it.)
I genuinely can't continue because I'm getting for real pissed off about it. But I think it's safe to assume the whole fucking article is written this way. I actually started paying again for a subscription to the NYT because I like journalism, but I think I may cancel it and send them a short note explaining why, like an angry middle-aged white woman storming out of a Starbucks.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that’s what this development has created for those of us observing.
(motherfucker the Israelis are “militants” and “fighting”, too)
“Militants” is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are ‘off the books’ of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it’s not unreasonable to call them militants.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that's what this development has created for those of us observing.
My point is that what Hamas agreed to isn't uncertain (at least at this point). IDK, maybe there's some timestamp issue where NYT published the OP article before it was clear... but as of last night (after the timestamp on the Al Jazeera article laying out everything in detail), the NYT wrote "Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages Includes Some Who Are Dead". I still haven't seen any NYT article that simply lays out what the basic agreement details are; they seem to have wanted, with the "dead hostages" article, to just seize on an I-guess-technically-accurate data point and present it to make Hamas sound duplicitous and deadly, and then call it a day, with their readers still uninformed on the broad factual details of what was happening with the cease-fire talks.
"Militants" is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are 'off the books' of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it's not unreasonable to call them militants.
Militant, in contemporary academic, activist, and journalistic interpretations, refers to an individual (as a noun) or to a party, a struggle or a state (as an adjective), engaged in aggressive forms of social and political resistance.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can't be "soldiers," but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
I get what you're saying -- it's not exactly a typical war. But I would argue that the IDF's conduct is also equally non-typical for a "normal" armed conflict between capable state actors. It's misleading to even call it a "war" -- it is, very literally, more of a terrorist operation by Israel, blowing up civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people to put pressure on the Gaza state apparatus (such as it even exists) to agree to political terms they otherwise would never accept, to stop the killing.
If we're calling Hamas "militants" out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors "terrorists"? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the "war"? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than "soldiers" and "war" for what's happening on the ground right now.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state's military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the "good guys" and a different set of words for the "bad guys," as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).
The category of 'state terrorism' is contentious, I wouldn't reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time
Yeah fully agreed. I don't think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what's really going on.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
A cease fire is when both sides stop firing. Then you need the word deal to get there. Which Hamas has accepted and israel has not.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
And Israel says the deal Hamas agreed to isn’t the deal they agreed to. Did you even read the article? Jesus Christ.
Hamas accepts the deal. Israel’s final response is uncertain - they commented that it was not the deal they agreed to, and it is not simply a matter of “Hamas has agreed, the ceasefire can go into effect”. But neither is it a rejection on the Israeli side. It ‘complicates things’.
Keep trying. You’ll show those big bad Lamestream Media types what for eventually, right?
The officials claimed CIA director Bill Burns and other Biden administration officials who are involved in the negotiations knew about the new proposal but didn’t tell Israel.
Between the lines: Two Israeli officials said Israel is deeply suspicious that the Biden administration gave guarantees to Hamas through the Egyptian and Qatari mediators about its key demand that a hostage deal will lead to the end of the war.
Libbing all over every place to denounce anything anti israel by pretending there is nuance in this situation that we must see from both sides at places where none is to be seen. Defending any and all propaganda as if it is justified where any person paying the slightest amount of attention can see the glaring double standards.
Libbing all over every place to denounce anything anti israel by pretending there is nuance in this situation that we must see from both sides at places where none is to be seen. Defending any and all propaganda as if it is justified where any person paying the slightest amount of attention can see the glaring double standards.
Keep making shit up about a longtime Israel critic who has been calling this a genocide since before Oct 7, maybe some of it will stick, lmao.
Check how many times this dude has been banned for misinformation. It’s not even funny. And now, he’s got his fan club reporting people to have comments removed for disagreeing with him.
A tireless israel and literal Genocide defender in the less nuanced sense showing up to defend libs is not a great look. I’m arguing with libs right now they don’t need a Nazionist on their side to make them look bad.
Yes thinking it’s weird that you’re so obsessed with getting trump elected means I looove Israel. Which is just a slight variation on “yoU lOvE gEnOcIdE”
A lot of people see what you’re doing. It’s not hard to understand
Strange I not once ever said “vote for Trump” nor have I ever endorsed Orange Man. Yet your mental gymnastics have a way to turn reality into fiction. Criticism of Genocide means people endorse Trump.
No surprise seeing this level of rhetoric from a Genocide defender that denies Genocide and supports israel.
That trademark “all my opponents are bloodthirsty psychopaths”. Fucking fascists gonna fascist.
By this logic since I never mentioned Israel it would be impossible for me to have an opinion on Israel. Not that you would give a shit because, since I oppose you, I eat Palestinian babies
So, your never once having said “vote for Trump” is to be taken as a clear indicator that you don’t support him- yet you spend all day on lemmy accusing people for supporting genocide even when none of them has ever said “I support genocide.”
You don’t get to have it both ways here. If you get to accuse them, they get to accuse you. Fair is fair.
I accept the deal in which you hand deliver me all of your money.
When should I be expecting you?
(For the record, I’m 100% in favour of Israel immediately stopping all offensive action and immediately withdrawing from Gaza and being forced to immediately let aid in)
But this particular sticking point is kinda nonsense. If both parties aren’t involved in the development of the terms, then it’s just a political stunt to announce you’ve accepted them.
Israel could JUST as easily draft their own terms, and announce they’ve agreed to them.
Linkerbaan thinks October 7th was legitimate resistance and the most precise irregular operation in modern military history. I guess all those civilians were Secret Zionist Spies. You’re not going to get through to them.
I wonder if those totally-bias-free media bias checker sites that folks like to use to discount leftwing news sources have reflected on any of NYT’s latest propaganda?
Nothing quite says highly factual democratic socialism (center-left) quite like churning out one sided propaganda for an appartiting, genocidal group of ethnofascists.
Nothing quite says highly factual democratic socialism (center-left) quite like churning out one sided propaganda for an appartiting, genocidal group of ethnofascists.
I mean you’re legitimately more right than you know
It’s crazy how suddenly you guys see Hamas as the good guys all of a sudden. I can tell you about all their atrocities and rapes, but I’ll just get hit back with whataboutisms. Even if you point out that there are no good guys in charge in this conflict, people downvote cause they see Hamas as heroes, which is insane.
I’ve been saying it for years. Zoomers are dumb. We have statistics to prove it. For years, people have been saying “oh gen z is so accepting, so progressive”. Yeah but that doesn’t matter because they’re stupid and stupid = easily manipulated.
Nah. No dumber than previous generations. Fuck, man, do you remember the internet in the 2000s and 2010s? Millennials and Gen X weren’t any brighter. And the Boomers had lead poisoning.
Pretty much. These are the same college kids who like to tell me what should be offensive to me as a Latino. They don’t realize that them jumping in to defend me against invisible discrimination, is their own form of white supremacy and colonialist attitude. “this brown person should be offended at that man wearing a sombrero, and only I a young educated white kid can defend him!”
Have you even heard of Yasser Arafat or the history of the region? It’s like you kids just tuned in to the latest episode and made your decisions about who the bad and good are. All, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of Hamas resources go to rockets to shoot at schools and towards their own goals of ethnic cleansing. But you weren’t being told to be outraged for the last 6 decades, so you didn’t give a fuck till Instagram told you to.
Even if I say there are no good guys in charge in this conflict, I get dowvoted. Because you can’t accept that Hamas is bad, you just can’t.
Have you even heard of Yasser Arafat or the history of the region?
We did, but let's hear your explanation.
All, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of Hamas resources go to rockets to shoot at schools and towards their own goals of ethnic cleansing
Correction: Every single dollar of Hamas's resources goes to rockets that force Israel to spend ridiculous amounts of money to stop them. They can also be used in saturation to deal more serious damage to Israel's economy, as they are right now by forcing evacuations for some one hundred thousand people. Now it's not pretty, but you won't be taken seriously if you don't acknowledge the reason they're launching these rockets.
I don’t use Instagram. I don’t use tiktok. Lemmy and mastodon are all I really use and I’m only on mastodon for the funny stuff. I know very little of the history of the area, and I’m not a history buff. Don’t care to learn. What I know is from the news (which can still impart biases of their own of course). Yes hamas is bad. The Israeli government is just as bad. They are using their military advantage to bomb families and starve children. They are committing genocide and we’re supposed to accept this because some of the people they kill are also bad? Fuck that. The atrocities committed by each side are on different scales. It doesn’t take much character to denounce genocide.
Can you seriously not understand that people have basic fucking empathy and don’t want children to starve? Families to be seperated by bombs?
Yeah, Hamas is awful. The Palestinian people would likely kill me for expressing my gender in a way that is barely safe in the US. I don’t fucking care, no culture deserves genocide. That should not be considered a controversial statement.
Hamas doesn’t give a single shit about starving children. Their leadership are old rich men living in comfort abroad.
Nobody is arguing against stopping this madness, but you’re white washing history by making Hamas out to be the victim here. Fuck Hamas, they don’t care about Palestinians. Neither do Arabs or Muslims. Nobody despises Palestinians more than other Arabs. You’re being used to Stoke outrage. You’re pushing their propaganda that Hamas was a peaceful organization just minding it’s business
Their leadership are old rich men living in comfort abroad.
Uh... No. Their leadership has two sides: Leaders in Gaza who actually manage the organization and command the fighting, and leaders abroad who get funding and negotiate with Israel and other countries. What do you expect? For their Gaza leadership to just ride an airplane from Gaza airport and attend diplomatic meetings? Because Israel blew that up 22 years ago. Point is: To function as a resistance organization Hamas needs some of its leadership to live abroad out of Israel's reach.
Nobody despises Palestinians more than other Arabs.
I hear this a lot but nobody really justifies it. As an Egyptian at least according to my experiences it's very incorrect.
Did I ever say that Hamas was good or ethical? Did I even say that I liked the Palestinian people? You are making the argument that an entire ethnic group should be murdered, abused, humiliated, and then dumped into mass graves because of the actions of a few assholes. That is what you are supporting. Look in the fucking mirror and realize that there is never, ever, under any circumstances, any excuse that you can use to justify what Israel is doing right now. The victims are the Palestinian people who are being fucking massacred.
I literally said otherwise. At this point you're just looking for an argument or want to believe everyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist supporter.
I mean you’re upset about genocide but you never cared that Hamas wrote it into their Charter from the beginning that their goal was the genocide of the Jewish descendants and their extermination from the middle east.
Uh... I do not, in fact, like Hamas or the general state of anti-Semitism in the middle east. I just recognize that it'll only go away after, not before, Israeli Apartheid. Also Hamas updated their charter in 2017 to accept a two-state solution so... Yeah.
While I want this to end as much as most people, a ceasefire is not the same as a peace agreement. North and South Korea have had a ceasefire since before I was born, but they constantly try to scare the world into thinking it could end at any moment, WW2 ended with a peace treaty, and the Nazi regime was officially removed from power as part of the treaty.
Israel seems like a pretty antisemetic country to me:
Any Jew who immigrates to Israel as an oleh (Jewish immigrant) under the Law of Return automatically becomes an Israeli citizen. In this context, a Jew means a person born to a Jewish mother, or someone who has converted to Judaism and does not adhere to another religion. This right to citizenship extends to any children or grandchildren of a Jew, as well as the spouse of a Jew, or the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew. A Jew who voluntarily converts to another religion forfeits their right to claim citizenship under this provision.
Foreigners may naturalize as Israeli citizens after residing in Israel for at least three of the previous five years while holding permanent residency. Candidates must be physically present in the country at the time of application, be able to demonstrate knowledge of the Hebrew language, have the intention of permanently settling in Israel, and renounce any foreign nationalities. Although Arabic was previously an official language and has a special recognized status, there is no similar knowledge stipulation for it as part of the naturalization process. All of these requirements may be partially or completely waived for a candidate if they: served in the Israel Defense Forces or suffered the loss of a child during their military service period, are a minor child of a naturalized parent or Israeli resident, or made extraordinary contributions to Israel. Successful applicants are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel.
Dual/multiple citizenship is explicitly allowed for an oleh who becomes Israeli by right of return. This is to encourage the overseas Jewish diaspora to migrate to Israel without forcing them to lose their previous national statuses. By contrast, naturalization candidates are required to renounce their original nationalities to obtain citizenship. Persons opting to naturalize are typically individuals who migrate to Israel for employment or family reasons, or are permanent residents of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Male spouses under 35 and female spouses under 25 ordinarily resident in the Judea and Samaria Area (administrative division for the West Bank under Israeli law) outside of Israeli settlements are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency until reaching the relevant age. The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law effectively discouraged further marriages between Israeli citizens and Palestinians by adding cumbersome administrative barriers that made legal cohabitation prohibitively difficult for affected couples. About 12,700 Palestinians married to Israeli citizens are prevented from obtaining citizenship under these restrictions. Affected persons are only allowed to remain in Israel on temporary permits, which would lapse on the death of their spouses or if they were to fail to receive regular reapproval by the Israeli government.
nobody thinks israel is going to break the ceasefire because they’re jewish. they think that because of israel’s well-documented history of repeatedly breaking ceasefires.
If South Africa has been a corrupt shithole for 10 years, it doesn’t somehow magically become not-a-shithole because the president changes.
The potential for it to become not-a-shithole is there. It is not somehow magically fixed because one person is changed.
I can’t fucking believe I have to explain this shit, Jesus christ you people are the reason no one understands why Biden isn’t responsible for inflation.
And i can’t fucking believe that you know how a government works.
If you swap the people responsible for things with other people responsible for things, these new people will act differently
Is that that hard to understand?!
Btw, Biden and Inflation can’t be compared here, since inflation is a complex problem that is largely out of the hands of politicians. Just look at china. It has absolute political power, fighting Inflation is a priority target, yet they still can’t do it. Why? Because inflation is a Economic Problem, not a Political one. To quote you:
I can’t fucking believe I have to explain this shit
Ben dude doesn’t want to give Palestinians a chance to regroup while he faces his own political discord at home in Israel. I am only looking at this from an outside perspective, I could be wrong. It’s not a bad strategy, Russia be doing it for years now.
Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire. Israel wants a temporary truce.
I suppose having your victims very publically calling out for peace, and actively trying to push for negotiations alongside other countries would "confuse" the narrative that they're supposed to be bloodthirsty animals.
I literally saw an article in the Israeli press talking about: Agreeing to a temporary truce would be a good idea because then we can use the pause to rearm, resupply, and rest, and then resume the killing having netted ourselves some goodwill on the world stage.
The reality is that both Hamas and Israel would do the same in a “permanent cease fire”. Hamas famously won’t sign a peace treaty with Israel - that’s how they became famous internationally in the 90s, by refusing the peace process. For the same reason Netanyahu - and most Israeli leaders - won’t sign a proper peace treaty with Hamas. Both want to eradicate the other.
Where exactly has it decided that? And I dont mean in some Interview by one Hamas leader. This is a decision that the actual commanding structure of Hamas (most likely, both the Politburo and the military leadership) has to take.
It is, of course, possible that this has all been a PR operation by Hamas, and that it has been making the same calculation as the Zionist movement originally did — i.e., that it could accept a partition of Palestine and then later expand to take the whole thing.
Hamas has never participated in peace negotiations, has always refused the PLO positions raised during these negotiations and has multiple times stated in public that they want a truce (be it 10 or 30 years) as a temporary measure in the continued fight against the Zionist state.
I can search for the sources on this when I wake up tomorrow, heading to bed rn
In the latest iteration of its stance, senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday the group would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip along the pre-1967-borders.
Hamas has done these kind of statements for years, they explicitly never accept the Oslo Accords or a recognition of Israel. They dont offer peace, they offer truces. And again: that’s an interview with one single person within Hamas. I can guarantee you that there are multiple senior people within Hamas who will disagree with this proposal - because that always happens. Hamas doesnt work like a top-down organization where the lower personnel silently accepts what the leadership decides.
“No they said they want peace but they really don’t wanna! Also ignore israel refusing every peace deal and committing Genocide! And ignore when the Oslo Accords were about to be accepted and then an underling from Netanyahu assassinated the president of israel that was about to accept it! That was actuallly Hamas!”
Take a look over at the West Bank and it beecomes apparent without a single doubt which of the parties is the constant aggressor that refuses any peace.
You’re pretty good at ignoring my arguments and making up pseudo-arguments that I never made, I’ll give you that.
People who think of this whole conflict as strictly two sides and nothing more will never understand why it has not been solved. You even allude to that yourself by pointing out the right-wing, Netanyahu-aligned murderer of Rabin. But don’t follow through with that logic.
Lol, calling it the “politburo” really reveals the particular type of brain rot you’ve got. Hamas are not a communist party, and they are not part of the Soviet union.
“But ‘politburo’ scary, even if I don’t really have an idea of what it means. Some talking head on TV said it, and it sounded cool, so I’ll repeat it online in order to sound knowledgeable”.
How are you this dense and don’t already have your own moon orbiting around you?
Yes, political and bureau are two English words, and if you had used them, they’d correspond to your quote from a wikipedia article. However, you used “politburo”, which is the abbreviation used to denote the political bureaus of the communist parties within the Soviet sphere. You know, like compromising material being an English phrase, while the abbreviation “kompromat” is a Russian intelligence abbreviation from the Stalin era.
It’s odd for someone getting their worldview through Wikipedia to not at least look for the wiki article for politburo. But in any case, I’d suggest not limiting yourself to the non existent nuance in Wikipedia and try to dig a little bit deeper in order to understand the words you’re using to sound smart online.
Again: english is my second language, “Politbüro” is literally the German term for “political bureau”. See random german newspaper article to confirm the use of the term “Hamas-Politbüro” in german: n-tv.de/…/Hamas-Politbuero-spricht-sich-fuer-Ende…
Sorry for the confusion, it was simply a translation error I made. Because when formulating posts in english I might sometimes miss some proper English terms and use german ones by accident. Now please stop with the insinuations, I did not use that word to compare Hamas to communist parties or to “sound smart”.
Ok. To be fair, it is actually the first time you’re mentioning the German angle and English being your second language, so I had no way of knowing. Also, there are a lot of people online using these terms (politburo, kompromat and the like) in order to cast a subliminally negative light on the subjects being discussed, so I wasn’t trying to be malicious, if perhaps a bit too defensive 😄 My apologies for insinuating that you have a hidden agenda.
Rumors are that Hamas accepted a temporary ceasefire deal this time with American verbal guarantees that they would not let Israel continue after the 40 days passed.
Bro this sort of thing is actually racist. Jewish people I know aren’t for genocide. It’s like the US - the government sucks, yes, but most people are just living their life trying to be happy, and don’t want to harm others.
Low quality bait. The IDF does not represent the Jews. The same way the state of Israel doesn’t represent the Jews. To say otherwise is a false equivalency.
Add comment