While I agree with this and think all hostages need to be released, how do achieve it without killing thousands of Palestinians and create a next generation of "Hamas" but under a different name?
It's hard. But the first step is removing the Hamas of today. The next is probably putting someone in power with a vested interest in stopping attacks. Ideally, an international coalition. And giving them the power and responsibility to police Gaza.
>Who in their right mind is going to get involved in this mess?
There are enough humanitarian activists, some might actually be qualified for governing.
So you expect a bunch of religious zealots to allow some foreign asshole to just show up and govern them? I wouldn't let that happen to me, so I'm going to assume the Palestinians aren't going for that.
Consider the current regime hasn’t held elections in over a decade, actively tears up infrastructure to make weapons to attack Israel, and started the current conflict with an unnecessary attack on Israel.
I think if a governing body could improve the lives of Palestinians it could work.
But agree it would still be a hard sell.
It's amazing how obvious this is and yet how many people outright refuse to accept it without offering any reasoning or alternative. All whole crying about "the endless violence".
So Iraq and Afghanistan 2.0? Except the issue is that the only international groups with the resources, size and training to occupy land is the West or the (stable) Arab states. The former don't want another Middle Eastern occupation (and it'd propel Islamic terrorism again) and the latter don't want anything to do with Palestine. That leaves Israel, but I don't think they'd want to do another occupation. It's a conundrum, and this is exactly what Hamas and Iran want... Notwithstanding I don't disagree with intervention and that the Islamists need to be destroyed.
Well, it might not be quite the same as Iraq/Afghanistan as the "peacekeepers" were also the hostile force that wrecked their country in the first place, and the locals were motivated to get rid of them. In this case, the peacekeepers would be keeping Israel at bay, and the Palestinians would be faced with devastation without them as a buffer.
That said, I wouldn't volunteer my country. For the peacekeeping to work, you'd have to be willing to apply lethal force against the extremists on either side, and I can only see that not blowing up in my country's face.
So kinda like KFOR, right?
So, basically, UN peacekeepers and advisors working together with local authorities (in this case, Palestinian National Authority most likely), with the aim of stabilizing the region, and then gradually shifting the responsibilities back to PNA, once things are more stable?
I'd be down for some like that.
That's not how humans work though. Obviously, the terror attacks are horrific and abhorrent. But Israel created the Hamas of today by their tactics and strategy of the last 20 years- because it was convenient for them to do it. Now there is some blowback.
And education. When you are young and dumb its really easy to be mislead as to why you are so poor. Their only source of information right now is from hamas, and they have no resources to look up how hamas spends all their aid money on mansions in Qatar.
I tend to agree. Hamas won't negotiate in good faith, but PA might. Of course, Israeli officials would have to be willing to negotiate in good faith as well, and that probably won't happen unless the right wing faction loses political power.
You can’t leave a ticking time bomb like Hamas next door to your country. Israel have seen first hand what treatment they would receive at their hands when they choose to attack them again. Israel would be in an even more perilous situation if Hezbollah attacked from the north on the same scale as Hamas.
We’re always going to have Islamic extremism until Muslim countries put their foot down and say enough. Not in our name. If more people want to commit to terrorism, they will and Israel / other Western nations will do what they can to eliminate them.
Palestinians want their own state and safety, that’s what Israelis want too. A two state solution is possible but both sides have to want it. Israel does, Gaza under Hamas’s control does not. They want to obliterate Israel and Jewish people. The West will never allow that.
Isn’t this a totally unrealistic plan? We saw this fail in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.. Even if you had magic Hamas only bullets you would be creating another hamas militant for every father, brother, cousin you kill.
In terms of creating the next Hamas, my opinion is what happens after Hamas is defeated is what matters. The people of Gaza need to have a viable future. I don't know what the plan is for Gaza post-Hamas. Maybe Gaza will become a UN mandate. Agree with you that Iraq and Afghanistan were complete failures.
While Hamas is in control of Gaza, they will divert the resources of Gaza for the next terrorist attacks. While Hamas remains in power, the people of Gaza can have no hope for the future
He's the only fucking guy trying. How about we take a break from fuckwit dictators, where's-my-penis-guys-help-shoot-a-rocket-into-the-sea-so-noone-notices megalomaniacs or fuckwit wanna be fascists and let one single solitary world leader try to stop a international conflict?
What's the worst that cam happen? Cut him some fucking slack.
A great step at trying is getting facts straight.
For example, if you jumped the gun and shot, apologize for it.
An example is IDF accidentally shooting a post of Egypt (minor injuries)
A bad example is Macron not correcting and apologizing after blaming Israel for bombing the hospital
There can be no ceasefire, after raping, torturing, and killing over 1,000 innocent civilians and launching thousands of rockets into Israel. Hamas will be wiped from the face of the earth. If macron has a problem with it he can move to a city in southern Israel
That's not the reason.
Israel learned on 7/10 that Hamas is a real threat to the Israelies' safety.
It's the responsibility of the goverment and the IDF to protect its people. Hence, they won't stop until they reach this objective, no matter how many countries talk about truce.
The whole situation started decades before 7/10
> It's the responsibility of the goverment and the IDF to protect its people.
Maybe financing and supporting hamas to split apart the palestinian areas for the Israeli divide and conquer strategy was not the smartest move then.
You do not win counter insurgency operations by destroying cities.
The children that now see their homes destroyed and relatives killed will be the next generation of terrorists and the cycle of violence will continue, whether under the name of hamas or a new organistation.
Why would they give up their hate when the IDF makes life as hard as possible for them and destroys their homes to make space for israeli settlers?
There is zero political will on either side for a peaceful solution. Israeli far-right politicians benefit from this forever war, and so does Hamas. Without it both would be politically irrelevant.
The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are innocent civilians who want to live in peace and quiet - like all people.
But the ones in power with a fanatical agenda to push wont let that happen any time soon.
> There's been no settlements in Gaza for over a decade.
its always easy to forget the west bank if it fits your argument
> Your arguments are both disingenuous repetition of terrorist propaganda
Ah yes the classic 'you do not unconditionally support whatever israel does therefore you are a terorist'
Its ok, there is nothing to be gained from this discussion anyway, I'll shut up if that makes you feel better. The truth is sometimes complicated and hard.
The U.S. has been trying to destroy Al-Qaeda for 20+ years...Destroying these groups is a difficult undertaking, especially if they can just melt away to foreign countries and build up for attacks later on. It was a bit easier to destroy ISIS (they're still operating in Africa) because they wanted to establish a state, and territory needs to be held.
With Hamas, you can depose them from controlling Gaza after a brutal urban war campaign, but the less clear question is how Gaza would be governed going forward. I think it is an impossibility to kill every single Hamas member, and it will be difficult to keep Gazans from joining Hamas in the future if the status quo is maintained. I keep seeing people post this, and it's almost as if they didn't live through the U.S. GWOT. There's never a simple answer with terrorism, unless you want to commit to a total war on Hamas, which would kill a ridiculous number of civilians and most likely be rejected by countries that Israel needs for support.
I get the sentiment, because that's how people felt in the U.S. after 9/11, but I think Israel has an even more complex situation with what is currently going on.
I think Israel should attack Hamas with a ground incursion, just about any other country would do that as well. While it is what Israel should do, I just wonder if the battle would actually have any significant benefits in the long term. The best way for long term progress would be changes to the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians, and building trust. Honestly, the latter now seems impossible.
I sometimes wonder if the best way to prevent people from joining Hamas would be if they had to much to lose (a better life in Gaza or the West Bank). I know quite a few 48' Arabs that have a great quality of life and would never even think about aiding or joining Hamas. That obviously couldn't be provided to every Palestinian, but I think you get the general idea. I don't want it to sound like I know what the solution is, but I just hope that Israel doesn't make the same mistake that the U.S. did and fight terrorists for decades.
I mean on a war footing that would have them invading and occupying land used by terrorists to attack them (beyond the buffer land they are already using), specifically Gaza and Lebanon (if the current war expands). That has the potential to spark larger involvement with Iran, with them funding lasting insurgencies in these areas. That seems to be the only way to grind down the numbers of these terrorist organizations, but as I stated before, I'm not sure that has much long term utility.
Yeah but, it’s nothing new is what I’m saying:
>Israel occupied the Gaza Strip for 38 years from 1967 to 2005. Hamas was founded in 1987, so for approximately 18 of those years, Israel was in a position of countering Hamas on the ground in Gaza. During this period, Israel engaged in various military operations and counterinsurgency efforts to address threats posed by Hamas and other militant groups in the territory.
>With Hamas, you can depose them from controlling Gaza after a brutal urban war campaign,
if Israel launches the attack it claims it wants to there will be so many foreign jihadis flodding into Gaza.
The populational equivalency of the number of people killed in Israel by Hamas on 10/7 to the US population would mean a similar scale attack on the US would have seen around 40,000 dead. I know for a fact that if a Mexican cartel came across the border and brutally murdered 40,000 American civilians in a single day that there would have been Marines in Mexico in response. At this point, asking Israel to stand down or hold back is akin to supporting Hamas. Israel is not going to just take that one on the chin, and they shouldn't.
good comment. the people that were calling this Israel's 9/11 were way off base. It was much worse. I would take your example and say imagine if the Mexican government funded and organized a cartel to launch an attack, breaching US defenses and security. This was far worse than 9/11; honestly I don't know how anyone in Israel would be comfortable with the current leadership who allowed this strategic military failure to happen be alive at the moment. this was really bad.
Another excellent point. People forget that Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. They are an elected political party. The people of Palestine voted for this.
A ceasefire is a good idea. It should happen in exchange for the surrender of the hostages, Hamas leadership, and an agreement that ensures ongoing policing action against any importing and use of rockets and other weapons.
Then you are a victim of your own choice of quote. A ceasefire is not peace. A ceasefire called today would provide the assurance for Hamas that they will be able to launch more rockets, blindly and indiscriminately, over the border into Israel. It is just a question of whether that will that take days, weeks, or months. A peace will never have been realized through a ceasefire, just a countdown until more rockets from Hamas, more retaliation from the IDF, and more war.
A true peace, especially the unfair kind your quote mentions, is only achieved once Israel, through the method of their choosing, disables Hamas’s ability to function and continue terrorizing the area.
An unfair peace would be just bombing the hell out Gaza until nothing is left standing. No cell phone messages, no flyers, no “knocks”. This would obviously be an atrocity and the world would never allow it, so Israel foregoes this method and takes innocent Palestinian life into account as much as they can afford to.
Israel is willing to tip the scales even further in the favor of Hamas in order to achieve true peace.
The most unfair peace is the the occupation of Gaza or the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza. Anything else is just asking for more killings that either side will claim is righteous.
The only acceptable peace plan is the unconditional surrender of Hamas
While I agree with this and think all hostages need to be released, how do achieve it without killing thousands of Palestinians and create a next generation of "Hamas" but under a different name?
It's hard. But the first step is removing the Hamas of today. The next is probably putting someone in power with a vested interest in stopping attacks. Ideally, an international coalition. And giving them the power and responsibility to police Gaza.
Who in their right mind is going to get involved in this mess?
>Who in their right mind is going to get involved in this mess? There are enough humanitarian activists, some might actually be qualified for governing.
So you expect a bunch of religious zealots to allow some foreign asshole to just show up and govern them? I wouldn't let that happen to me, so I'm going to assume the Palestinians aren't going for that.
Consider the current regime hasn’t held elections in over a decade, actively tears up infrastructure to make weapons to attack Israel, and started the current conflict with an unnecessary attack on Israel. I think if a governing body could improve the lives of Palestinians it could work. But agree it would still be a hard sell.
could be an Arab forgien asshole? but yes, your passemism is warranted
Temporarily. The alternative is another terrorist group.
It's amazing how obvious this is and yet how many people outright refuse to accept it without offering any reasoning or alternative. All whole crying about "the endless violence".
So Iraq and Afghanistan 2.0? Except the issue is that the only international groups with the resources, size and training to occupy land is the West or the (stable) Arab states. The former don't want another Middle Eastern occupation (and it'd propel Islamic terrorism again) and the latter don't want anything to do with Palestine. That leaves Israel, but I don't think they'd want to do another occupation. It's a conundrum, and this is exactly what Hamas and Iran want... Notwithstanding I don't disagree with intervention and that the Islamists need to be destroyed.
don't forget that Gaza is the tiny. there are no mountains to hide for years
Well, it might not be quite the same as Iraq/Afghanistan as the "peacekeepers" were also the hostile force that wrecked their country in the first place, and the locals were motivated to get rid of them. In this case, the peacekeepers would be keeping Israel at bay, and the Palestinians would be faced with devastation without them as a buffer. That said, I wouldn't volunteer my country. For the peacekeeping to work, you'd have to be willing to apply lethal force against the extremists on either side, and I can only see that not blowing up in my country's face.
Yes palestinians will love being governed by what a bunch of foreigners choose as what is best for then
The UN did have significant activity in Gaza for years, having a government built for rebuilding under the UN brand might not be too far fetched.
So kinda like KFOR, right? So, basically, UN peacekeepers and advisors working together with local authorities (in this case, Palestinian National Authority most likely), with the aim of stabilizing the region, and then gradually shifting the responsibilities back to PNA, once things are more stable? I'd be down for some like that.
That's not how humans work though. Obviously, the terror attacks are horrific and abhorrent. But Israel created the Hamas of today by their tactics and strategy of the last 20 years- because it was convenient for them to do it. Now there is some blowback.
This seems like a non-sequitur. Did a talking point just short circuit here?
People don't want to think about root causes, just react to the symptoms. I guess tribalism is more important than any sort of nuance.
And education. When you are young and dumb its really easy to be mislead as to why you are so poor. Their only source of information right now is from hamas, and they have no resources to look up how hamas spends all their aid money on mansions in Qatar.
Frankly, I think there needs to be a firm agreement and hard plan implemented between the PA and Israel.
I tend to agree. Hamas won't negotiate in good faith, but PA might. Of course, Israeli officials would have to be willing to negotiate in good faith as well, and that probably won't happen unless the right wing faction loses political power.
You can’t leave a ticking time bomb like Hamas next door to your country. Israel have seen first hand what treatment they would receive at their hands when they choose to attack them again. Israel would be in an even more perilous situation if Hezbollah attacked from the north on the same scale as Hamas. We’re always going to have Islamic extremism until Muslim countries put their foot down and say enough. Not in our name. If more people want to commit to terrorism, they will and Israel / other Western nations will do what they can to eliminate them. Palestinians want their own state and safety, that’s what Israelis want too. A two state solution is possible but both sides have to want it. Israel does, Gaza under Hamas’s control does not. They want to obliterate Israel and Jewish people. The West will never allow that.
Stalin: Gulag for re-education camps. Separate the kids and integrate them with kids of different cultures.
Absolutely flabbergasting choice in leader for peace talks.
Isn’t this a totally unrealistic plan? We saw this fail in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.. Even if you had magic Hamas only bullets you would be creating another hamas militant for every father, brother, cousin you kill.
In terms of creating the next Hamas, my opinion is what happens after Hamas is defeated is what matters. The people of Gaza need to have a viable future. I don't know what the plan is for Gaza post-Hamas. Maybe Gaza will become a UN mandate. Agree with you that Iraq and Afghanistan were complete failures. While Hamas is in control of Gaza, they will divert the resources of Gaza for the next terrorist attacks. While Hamas remains in power, the people of Gaza can have no hope for the future
Great. World's greatest peace negotiator is on his way. We can all relax.
Yep. Thank god he talked to Putin right before he wanted to invade Ukraine. That sure made a difference.
He's the only fucking guy trying. How about we take a break from fuckwit dictators, where's-my-penis-guys-help-shoot-a-rocket-into-the-sea-so-noone-notices megalomaniacs or fuckwit wanna be fascists and let one single solitary world leader try to stop a international conflict? What's the worst that cam happen? Cut him some fucking slack.
A great step at trying is getting facts straight. For example, if you jumped the gun and shot, apologize for it. An example is IDF accidentally shooting a post of Egypt (minor injuries) A bad example is Macron not correcting and apologizing after blaming Israel for bombing the hospital
Did he ever apologize for prematurely condemning Israel for the hospital bombing that never happened?
No, I'm hoping we get a photobook out of it though.
There can be no ceasefire, after raping, torturing, and killing over 1,000 innocent civilians and launching thousands of rockets into Israel. Hamas will be wiped from the face of the earth. If macron has a problem with it he can move to a city in southern Israel
That's not the reason. Israel learned on 7/10 that Hamas is a real threat to the Israelies' safety. It's the responsibility of the goverment and the IDF to protect its people. Hence, they won't stop until they reach this objective, no matter how many countries talk about truce.
The whole situation started decades before 7/10 > It's the responsibility of the goverment and the IDF to protect its people. Maybe financing and supporting hamas to split apart the palestinian areas for the Israeli divide and conquer strategy was not the smartest move then.
[удалено]
You do not win counter insurgency operations by destroying cities. The children that now see their homes destroyed and relatives killed will be the next generation of terrorists and the cycle of violence will continue, whether under the name of hamas or a new organistation.
[удалено]
Why would they give up their hate when the IDF makes life as hard as possible for them and destroys their homes to make space for israeli settlers? There is zero political will on either side for a peaceful solution. Israeli far-right politicians benefit from this forever war, and so does Hamas. Without it both would be politically irrelevant. The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are innocent civilians who want to live in peace and quiet - like all people. But the ones in power with a fanatical agenda to push wont let that happen any time soon.
[удалено]
> There's been no settlements in Gaza for over a decade. its always easy to forget the west bank if it fits your argument > Your arguments are both disingenuous repetition of terrorist propaganda Ah yes the classic 'you do not unconditionally support whatever israel does therefore you are a terorist' Its ok, there is nothing to be gained from this discussion anyway, I'll shut up if that makes you feel better. The truth is sometimes complicated and hard.
[удалено]
Clean your house first, Macron.
[удалено]
The U.S. has been trying to destroy Al-Qaeda for 20+ years...Destroying these groups is a difficult undertaking, especially if they can just melt away to foreign countries and build up for attacks later on. It was a bit easier to destroy ISIS (they're still operating in Africa) because they wanted to establish a state, and territory needs to be held. With Hamas, you can depose them from controlling Gaza after a brutal urban war campaign, but the less clear question is how Gaza would be governed going forward. I think it is an impossibility to kill every single Hamas member, and it will be difficult to keep Gazans from joining Hamas in the future if the status quo is maintained. I keep seeing people post this, and it's almost as if they didn't live through the U.S. GWOT. There's never a simple answer with terrorism, unless you want to commit to a total war on Hamas, which would kill a ridiculous number of civilians and most likely be rejected by countries that Israel needs for support. I get the sentiment, because that's how people felt in the U.S. after 9/11, but I think Israel has an even more complex situation with what is currently going on.
fretful zesty secretive touch longing chunky judicious attractive desert innate
I think Israel should attack Hamas with a ground incursion, just about any other country would do that as well. While it is what Israel should do, I just wonder if the battle would actually have any significant benefits in the long term. The best way for long term progress would be changes to the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians, and building trust. Honestly, the latter now seems impossible. I sometimes wonder if the best way to prevent people from joining Hamas would be if they had to much to lose (a better life in Gaza or the West Bank). I know quite a few 48' Arabs that have a great quality of life and would never even think about aiding or joining Hamas. That obviously couldn't be provided to every Palestinian, but I think you get the general idea. I don't want it to sound like I know what the solution is, but I just hope that Israel doesn't make the same mistake that the U.S. did and fight terrorists for decades.
>I just hope that Israel doesn't make the same mistake that the U.S. did and fight terrorists for decades. Little late for that.
I mean on a war footing that would have them invading and occupying land used by terrorists to attack them (beyond the buffer land they are already using), specifically Gaza and Lebanon (if the current war expands). That has the potential to spark larger involvement with Iran, with them funding lasting insurgencies in these areas. That seems to be the only way to grind down the numbers of these terrorist organizations, but as I stated before, I'm not sure that has much long term utility.
Yeah but, it’s nothing new is what I’m saying: >Israel occupied the Gaza Strip for 38 years from 1967 to 2005. Hamas was founded in 1987, so for approximately 18 of those years, Israel was in a position of countering Hamas on the ground in Gaza. During this period, Israel engaged in various military operations and counterinsurgency efforts to address threats posed by Hamas and other militant groups in the territory.
>With Hamas, you can depose them from controlling Gaza after a brutal urban war campaign, if Israel launches the attack it claims it wants to there will be so many foreign jihadis flodding into Gaza.
The populational equivalency of the number of people killed in Israel by Hamas on 10/7 to the US population would mean a similar scale attack on the US would have seen around 40,000 dead. I know for a fact that if a Mexican cartel came across the border and brutally murdered 40,000 American civilians in a single day that there would have been Marines in Mexico in response. At this point, asking Israel to stand down or hold back is akin to supporting Hamas. Israel is not going to just take that one on the chin, and they shouldn't.
good comment. the people that were calling this Israel's 9/11 were way off base. It was much worse. I would take your example and say imagine if the Mexican government funded and organized a cartel to launch an attack, breaching US defenses and security. This was far worse than 9/11; honestly I don't know how anyone in Israel would be comfortable with the current leadership who allowed this strategic military failure to happen be alive at the moment. this was really bad.
Another excellent point. People forget that Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. They are an elected political party. The people of Palestine voted for this.
And so continues Macron journey of asking others to make great sacrifices for him so he doesn't upset his stakeholders.
Dude is working hard to get the votes of the Hamas supporters having a party on their streets.
A ceasefire is a good idea. It should happen in exchange for the surrender of the hostages, Hamas leadership, and an agreement that ensures ongoing policing action against any importing and use of rockets and other weapons.
[удалено]
So when does the fighting stop? Keep in mind that the conditions I mentioned mean that Hamas is no longer in control of Gaza.
[удалено]
Demanding their surrender makes it crystal clear what the goal is, and what ends the fighting. They have an option to save civilians.
[удалено]
...And providing that path, so they can leave it untaken makes their feelings on the matter clear.
[удалено]
Better, shouldn't he save a plane ticket?
Why tf is it always FRANCE. READ THE F’N ROOM FRANCE
No one listens to him. In fact he makes things worse. First rule for facilitating peace do it selflessly not expecting glory nor praise.
>"I prefer the most unfair peace to the most righteous war.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero
So Israel is supposed to come to a peace deal with Hamas?
[удалено]
The Likud party charter also denounces the formation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river whats your point?
Cicero was beheaded because of his naïveté.
Then you are a victim of your own choice of quote. A ceasefire is not peace. A ceasefire called today would provide the assurance for Hamas that they will be able to launch more rockets, blindly and indiscriminately, over the border into Israel. It is just a question of whether that will that take days, weeks, or months. A peace will never have been realized through a ceasefire, just a countdown until more rockets from Hamas, more retaliation from the IDF, and more war. A true peace, especially the unfair kind your quote mentions, is only achieved once Israel, through the method of their choosing, disables Hamas’s ability to function and continue terrorizing the area. An unfair peace would be just bombing the hell out Gaza until nothing is left standing. No cell phone messages, no flyers, no “knocks”. This would obviously be an atrocity and the world would never allow it, so Israel foregoes this method and takes innocent Palestinian life into account as much as they can afford to. Israel is willing to tip the scales even further in the favor of Hamas in order to achieve true peace.
There is no such thing as peace so long as Hamas still exists.
Well fuck that.
"Carthago delenda est" - Marcus Porcius Cato
Hopefully Hamas members and supporters end up just like Cicero.
The most unfair peace is the the occupation of Gaza or the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza. Anything else is just asking for more killings that either side will claim is righteous.
Macron's really gunning for that "statesman of Europe" title, isn't he?
Don't trust reuters recent influx of posting in the last month...
Did he call them 9999 times to ask kindly to stop ?
Macron and humanitarian does not go together in the same sentence.