* * *
Not to mention the fact that Israel just killed a top Hamas negotiator in Doha, Qatar only a few weeks ago. [1] How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?
[0] https://apnews.com/live/latest-updates-israel-launches-new-w...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/qatar-explosion-doha-e319dd51b170...
Israel has been rather consistent that a permanent ceasefire will only happen when Hamas effectively surrenders and gives up power. Hamas had also refused to continue releasing hostages which effectively ended the ceasefire(as the terms of the second phase were never finalized).
> Not to mention the fact that Israel just killed a top Hamas negotiator in Doha, Qatar only a few weeks ago. [1] How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?
I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate. That seemed to work out with Hezbollah at least.
That's insane and not how you negotiate.
So how exactly do you negotiate with genocidal terrorists that refuse to surrender despite having clearly lost a war? There certainly isn't an easy solution here.
There is no credible evidence that there is famine or genocide occurring in Gaza. Obviously the situation in Gaza is bad but that's to be expected for a war.
It's not credible however[0]. There have been many claims without appropriate evidence for a while[1] and those involved tend to be antisemitic individuals interested only in pushing a specific narrative regardless of the facts on the ground.
[0] https://unwatch.org/hillel-neuer-on-sky-news-fabricated-u-n-...
[1] https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-un-food-rapporteur-mic...
From wiki "Neuer was selected as one of the "top 100 most influential Jewish people in the world" by Israeli newspaper Maariv,[9] and by the Algemeiner Journal in 2017. He is an outspoken defender of Israel[10][11] and critic of the UN's human rights councils' actions.[12]"
So he's not pushing a pro-Israel view? How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
I don't think I ever claimed his view was neutral. Groups on both sides putting out analysis papers will likely have some degree of bias.
> How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I mostly consider them unreliable because they have a history of putting out reports that push a narrative that simply isn't in line with reality and tend to have major methodological issues. They also have a history of putting out wildly inaccurate future projections.
> I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
There's two aspects, one is the history of methodologically problematic analysis put out by these organization like those involved in the IPC report along with other UN organizations.
The other is that individuals involved in the reports tend to hold extremist viewpoints that point to a clear motivation for pushing narratives regardless of the reality on the ground.
UN officials in particular have a rather common habit of straight up lying about facts(and even what their own UN reports say in regards to starvation risk) and when caught they simply try and justify their lies[0] because those lies supposedly help their cause.
The most detailed responses/rebuttals to these IPC reports would generally be reports that COGAT is involved in producing[1][2]. While COGAT is arguably biased they do put out sufficient data/references for one to validate their analysis, groups like UN Watch do likely source from these reports. Keep in mind there's not many organizations that have access to data on the ground, COGAT likely has the most complete view while humanitarian organizations likely only have data specific to their own operations. By cherry picking data(often non-public data), ignoring counterfactual data and largely excluding COGAT data the IPC report authors can paint a false narrative more easily.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-one-un-leaders-mistak...
[1] https://govextra.gov.il/media/orumgksl/politics-disguised-as...
[2] https://govextra.gov.il/media/sftjdsg2/cogat-humanitarian-ef...
What's your evidence of this?
The UNWatch article isn't that - you can easy verify their points yourself. I.e. by IPC's own definition and Hamas' own casualty data, we're about three orders of magnitude short of meeting one of the requirements of a famine. IPC is just ignoring their own definition and declaring a famine anyway.
For other evidence of lies from UN officials, this one from the head of OCHA was rather blatant: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/debunked-un-off...
Why would one UN official's reputation be affected by another? Especially if it's not common, which you haven't yet shown.
There's plenty of examples[0] of this issue when it comes to UN officials.
[0] https://unwatch.org/francesca-albaneses-made-up-math-and-fal...
The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.
> how exactly
By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.
And from a guerrila warfare point of view, I disagree that they "clearly lost the war".
It actually doesn't have to be negotiated, one side can simply make a demand for surrender with their terms and then apply military pressure until capitulation. This is largely what happened with Germany/Japan in WW2.
> By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.
If it's clear the current negotiators/leaders will never surrender then there is arguably no benefit in keeping those particular negotiators/leaders alive. Once an organizations leadership tree is wiped out a few levels deep there's a decent chance you will get negotiators/leaders that will eventually capitulate to the demands(i.e. like what happened with Hezbollah).
You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both
One reason would be to try and get back as many hostages as possible, regardless of whether or not the terrorists surrender.
> You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both
One can still attack an enemy while negotiating with them, I see no reason one would have to pick one option over the other.
It's not at all uncommon to negotiate with ones enemies while you attack them(including trying to kill them). If Israel explicitly gave the enemy representatives they were negotiating with diplomatic immunity then one might have a better argument against attacking those with immunity, but that was AFAIU not the case here.
The only other option seems to be that Israel is about to destroy the rest of Gaza City, and take out the last major location that Hamas controls. So their options are to either accept the peace plan, or die.
I don't think Israel cares that much which choice Hamas choses. But yeah accepting this peace deal sounds like it it quite obviously the mostly likely option to help prevent all the buildings that are about to be destroyed and people who will be killed.
You can't comment like this on HN. Several of your comments in this thread have broken the guidelines. We've asked you before to avoid using HN for ideological battle. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them, especially these ones:
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
The current "peace deal" is terrible for the Palestinians. No other country would sign it either.
This is pretty much one should expect when one starts and loses a war, same as with the surrender of Nazi Germany and the Japanese at the end of WW2.
> The current "peace deal" is terrible for the Palestinians. No other country would sign it either.
It's a surrender agreement effectively, it's certainly not a peace deal amongst equal parties.
You're being downvoted, but this is pretty much it. Gaza gets peace out of the deal. That's about all they have left to negotiate for.
Naturally the opposing Arab leaders were against a plan that saw a majority population receive less land, a plan that was being put forward by people openly stating it was a first step to total control of everything.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
It's a shame a better deal could not have been struck for the benefit of all the people with a millennium plus history in the Levant, of all faiths.
Keep in mind that there is a state with a Palestinian majority population that came out of the division of the territory under the British Mandate system, that country of course is Jordan.
> It's a shame a better deal could not have been struck for the benefit of all the people with a millennium plus history in the Levant, of all faiths.
I think it's pretty clear that the Arab leaders at the time would never have accepted an independent Jewish state regardless of how fair the land division was.
There were plenty of Jews living on the land by the time of Israeli independence, land which had largely been acquired by purchases from Arab landowners.
> Would you accept a country being founded in yours for, say, the Roma? I highly doubt it.
Palestine was never a country prior to Israeli independence so that's probably not a realistic comparison either.
These arguments are not particularly helpful because you can easily make the case for either side being the indigenous people depending on how far you want to go back in history.
> They did not choose to be colonized by Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe.
At this point the majority of Israelis were born in Israel and hold no other citizenship, so if you're suggesting the Jews all go back to Europe that isn't a realistic expectation, also many Jews were forced out of other middle east countries shortly after the founding of Israel. You can make these same arguments about many countries like the United States or Canada as well as being colonies that pushed out their indigenous people, but these arguments are not going to be particularly productive as nobody is expecting these countries to return all land to their indigenous populations either. By the way these Jews fleeing Eastern Europe prior to Israeli independence were largely purchasing the land from Arab landowners which is arguably better than them haven taken the land by force.
Germany was split in two for many years. Ultimately they were able to keep their countries because the occupation forces were successfully able to largely de-radicalize those countries.
> What guarantees do the Palestinians have that they'll get to keep Gaza and not have it be overrun by Israeli settlers (who are already wreaking havoc in the West Bank)?
I suppose that would depend on the surrender agreement and whatever agreements are subsequently put in place, but the settler issue differs significantly between Gaza and the West Bank for various reasons. For example the issue of religious sites is a much bigger issue in the West Bank, there has been little desire amongst Israelis to settle Gaza compared to the West Bank. The security issues in the West Bank tend to also be more problematic due to proximity to major Israeli cities.
Nothing justifies a genocide.
They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy with overwhelming advantages, for their cause for two years now. Why would you assume that being able to escape with their lives is suddenly more important to them?
From Hamas?
And then what? Look at the West Bank to see what happens when you don't resist the occupation and fully cooperate with the colonial state. You get slowly cleansed anyway.
> Also the idea of amnesty to all Hamas members looks pretty generous to me
Israel specializes in assassinations and has a history of relentlessly pursuing those it deems its enemies. If you were a Hamas fighter, your choice would be to either die fighting for a purpose, or be killed in exile without a purpose anymore.
Valid point for the safety of Hamas members though, would be hard to come up with an arrangement that convinces them that they are going to be safe
Hamas has. If you put this deal to a plebescite in Gaza, do you really think they'd vote for more war?
Yes?
Just so I understand the hypothetical, the Jewish resistance in Nazi Germany (not really a singular thing, but I'll read this as the French Resistance and ghetto leaders) are offered amnesty, i.e. an end to the Holocaust, in exchange for literally anything? Why wouldn't they take it? It's literally a choice between life and death.
And again, it gives time for regrouping, clear thinking, rallying support. Turning it down seems to scream that the offer, in this hypothetical an end to the Holocaust, in our timeline a ceasefire, isn't actually that important. At that point, both sides are choosing to fight. European Jews didn't choose the Holocaust. I don't think Palestinians are choosing this war, but if they turned down a peace deal, they by definition are.
Thats not true at all. Most people in palestine do not want to throw their lives away for nothing. Most of them want peace. Its only Hamas that would apparently prefer to get killed and have gaza be flattened instead of accepting peace.
First, there is no such thing as a Palestinian - that’s a made up identity to falsely claim the region as their own. Second, there have been five two-state solution offers in the past, that Israel was ready to accept. Leaders on the other side refused. Third, Hamas is not accepting the current deal that is on the table, and is incredibly fair (given the lopsided hostage/prisoner release that favors Hamas). Fourth, Israel had already withdrawn from Gaza - that was the status quo when Hamas got elected and began a decades long campaign of terrorism - remember the literal thousands of rocket attacks on Israel? Fifth, if Israel’s goal is the “annihilation of Palestinians”, why are the 20% of Israel’s population that would identify as such doing so well? Clearly this isn’t their goal, but just misinformation.
A quote from the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations, 1922:
Colonel Symes explained that the country was described as "Palestine" by Europeans and as "Falestin" by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the country was the designation "Land of Israel", and the Government, to meet Jewish wishes, had agreed that the word "Palestine" in Hebrew characters should be followed in all official documents by the initials which stood for that designation.
Hamas just underestimated how much it would actually cost. Or maybe they didn’t, who knows.
Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir do not want this peace deal either. There is 0 chance it would be honored.
Also, what value has Netanyahu’s word? I mean, after blowing up a truce unilaterally, after killing negotiators, after all the corruption reckoning that is coming to him if/when out of office...
They do some finances and politics but aren't involved in running Gaza or the military/militants.
Assume it is a hostage situation, 2,000,000 Hostages. Israel has killed 60,000+ hostages trying to rescue hostages. Starvation also counts as killings to me, but I supposed "Starved" is less direct than "Shot"
It's not a war anymore, wars are between armies, not civilians.
> While Netanyahu agreed to the plan on Monday, he already appears to be pushing back on several of its terms.
> In a video posted on X, he insisted that the IDF would would be able to remain in parts of the territory and that Israel would 'forcibly resist' the establishment of a Palestinian state.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15156091/Hamas-mili...
Edit: the post I was replying to was claiming Hamas/the Palestinians perpetrated a genocide in Israel. It has since been edited to be a completely different thing.
Genocide is legally a set of acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
So yes, what Hamas did on Oct 7 was not genocide, and similarly what Israel does on any given day in Gaza is not genocide. Rather they are both part of ongoing campaigns that arguably are genocide.
However, there's no such thing as "unsuccessful genocide". Wanting to commit genocide and even terrorist bombings which target the population you'd like to exterminate are not genocide. To be committing the crime of genocide, you have to actually be in a position where you are actively displacing or exterminating a population.
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza since October 7th, because they are actively working towards a goal of eliminating the Palestinian population from the Gaza territory, or at least from the majority of it. They have already achieved a part of the genocide. They're not going all scorched earth and killing by the millions for the same reason they're not launching one of their illegal nukes in Gaza: they fear international reaction if the move is too sudden and overwhelming.
Hamas, by contrast, is not committing genocide in Israel, because it's not actively killing or starving or displacing any part of the population of Israel. I'm sure Hamas would love to do that, but it's a simple obvious fact that they're not succeeding. This is like claiming that Al Qaeda has an ongoing campaign of genocide of the West, because of 9/11 and some other attacks on, say, British troops.
I think the evidence is quite overwhelming that Hamas had clear genocidal intent, even if they did not have the means to accomplish that intent.
One of these is better than the other.
Weirdly, many people disagree over which one that is.
Did you read the article this discussion is about?
How could one cause a famine accidentally, without intent to murder civilians?
There isn't credible evidence of a famine in Gaza. I'm not saying things are great(it is a war zone after all), but they certainly haven't gotten that bad. Look at pictures of Palestinians on the street in Gaza and compare them to pictures of people in countries where there is actual famine, they look nothing alike.
They're psychotic idiots.
> lets them escape with their lives
On the other hand: how idiotic would they have to be to believe the Israelis will let them escape with their lives, given all the evidence to the contrary?