[flagged]
Do you think that what they are doing in the west-bank have anything to do with the hostages or Hamas?
To a significant degree, yes. If Hamas turned over the hostages today, Israel's position would significantly weaken. Palestinians' would strength. But so would Hamas', which is why they haven't.
in what way? what new negotiating or military power would the palestinians gain?
Okay. Are you certain enough about your imagination that it's not worth attempting? Two, it may not end the war. But it reduces Israel's leverage. If you think any of the international pressure and opinions have any effect, then returning the hostages is a winning move.
Which offer did Israel reject that was put forward by Hamas and endorsed by the U.S.?
> They have shown no indication that they are willing to agree to a peace deal in exchange for the hostages
Maybe you're right. The Palestinians' hand is significantly strengthened if this is shown to be true. If Hamas unilaterally turned over the hostages and sued for peace, I really don't think Israel could continue the war. If they did, they'd lose a massive amount of of international indifference.
Israel's actions so far have shown it doesn't want Gaza controlled by Hamas. Some elements want to annex it. But it seems they've been quelled given Netanyahu's agreement to Trump's 20-point plan, which does not grant Israel control.
You are shockingly uninformed. All major human rights organizations are saying the exact same thing: Israel is actively committing a genocide.
Your argument loses credibility when you overstep like this.
Human rights organisations (and credible third parties) agree that Gaza is in famine. The term genocide is not universally applied, though it is increasingly and increasingly credibly, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the term.
UN commission uses word genocide [0].
ICJ used word "plausible" [1].
HRW has used the word genocide [2]
...actually the list of explicit accusation of genocide is quite big [3].
Is there some single, powerful organisation left that does not agree that there is genocide? All the big mentioned also [4].
[0]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
[2]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanitarian_and_human...
Yes, that's the credible third party I referred to.
> ICJ used word "plausible"
Correct.
> HRW has used the word genocide
In the phrase "may amount to the crime of genocide" [1].
> the list of explicit accusation of genocide is quite big
Yet not amounting to "all big humanitarian organizations." Like, the two you chose to highlight stepped back from making that claim prematurely because they don't want to cry wolf with a word that should have a lot of meaning, but which activists have effectively neutered in American political culture.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...
They wrote “In doing so, Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide” [1].
Thank you for clearing up what the Israeli state officials are responsible for. We are saying the same thing, but you want to dance around it.
Let's be honest, betting on civilian shields when attacking any country, including a democracy, has never been a winning move.