Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line

  • mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ceasefire would have happened in return for some of the hostages. Why would they give them more?

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ceasefires end, otherwise it’s called a truce. Hamas probably didn’t want to give up their strongest negotiating chip. In saying that, keeping hostages in this way is a war crime too.

      Negotiating is the only path forward. Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.

      If Israel don’t negotiate in good faith, why would Hamas stop terrorist attacks? Your rhetoric goes both ways.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.

        Just the short term really. The least deaths in the long term from a game theory perspective is to make the value of the hostages zero or even negative.

        Israel’s biggest mistake in the hostage back and forth was in the past giving up like 1000 fighters for some hostages.

        Instead Israel should occupy like an additional acre of Palestine everytime a hostage/day is taken. Domestically the loss of territory seems to be the only thing that matters to Palestinians, in terms of political support. So they need to take that away.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your game theory is only considering the lives of hostages in the short and long term. Thousands are dying in the meanwhile.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thousands more would die in the next war for hoatages if they’re allowed to be viable. Long term, peace on the '67 borders is the only way to minimize total casualties.

            Hamas has proven over the last 20 years that it will continue to attack Israel no matter what. It’s proven that it doesn’t care about the lives of Palestinians.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I took agree that peace leads to less death. The question is how to get there.

              Hamas are a terrorist organisation who committed a horrible act. Hamas are not in power in the west bank, yet the Palestinians there have suffered apartheid and lose land to Israeli settlers in breach of international law. This is happening for years.

              If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it’s the same.

              Hamas commits horrible acts. Israel commits horrible acts.

              Keeping civilian hostages as human shields is a war crime. Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.

                Israel clearly isn’t indiscriminately bombing Gaza.

                If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it’s the same.

                That should be expected since only one side spends money on defensive technology. Hamas has been complaining about Israeli air strikes since it came to power. It’s spent billions on unguided rockets and ripping up infrastructure. But it’s built zero bomb shelters for it’s people, even admonishing civilians trying to use the built tunnels for shelter. It’s installed zero radar systems. It’s purchased zero anti-aircraft guns. It’s done absolutely nothing to protect it’s citizens and continues to start new wars.

                Why would we expect the death tolls to be equal? That’s like me, an American complaining that healthcare in America isn’t available for everyone like it is for Canadians and demanding that Canada fix that problem.

                • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing. Some people are given warnings. Some are not. So perhaps I should clarify that not all of their bombing is indiscriminate. Much is.

                  Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions. This is not happening.

                  Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.

                  I am not saying Hamas is a good government. Both sides can be terrible. However, Hamas not building bomb shelters does not make it ok for Israel to bomb citizens indiscriminately.

                  I don’t expect the tolls to be equal. I do however take note that when Israel uses aggressive actions by Hamas for justification, that they are in fact the aggressors in the majority of cases with injury or death.

                  War is horrible. Civilians die. However, Israel’s policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.

                  • mwguy@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing

                    That seems to be more because you don’t know what the word “indiscriminate” means rather than that adjective being an accurate description of Israeli’s bombing campaign.

                    Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions.

                    Actually only the second is required. And the second is happening. “Proportional response” is something that can be required by private party treaty as a peacetime control, but it’s not part of the rules of war.

                    Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.

                    Actually it shows the opposite. Israel could have done what it’s doing at any point since the last major conflict and ceasefire in 2018. Their lack of aggression and desire for peace kept them from doing so and they only did so once provoked by a frankly disgusting series of acts that forced them to reconsider the viability of peace with Hamas.

                    That’s the opposite of aggression.

                    However, Israel’s policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.

                    To believe this you must believe the IDF is one of the most incompetent military forces on the face of the planet.

            • filister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh and Israel cares so much about civilians lost. Perhaps you should check the numbers of killed and injured people on both sides even before 7.10, to get a bit of perspective.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean they clearly do. A cheap and WW2 era artillery bombardment of the region could have killed an easy 200k in a week.

                The UN believes a modern conflict will kill about 9 civilians for every militant. Hamas’ government last I checked reported about 11k casualties, 100% civilians. If that’s the IDF would need to have killed 1,200 Hamas fighters to meet that ratio. Given that there’s an estimated 20-40k fighters in Gaza we should expect 180k-360k casualties if the IDF nominally completes their goal of eliminating Hamas military.

    • Overzeetop@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way I read it was a ceasefire in return for some of the hostages. Nobody floats their final offer with the first contact.

      • Some of the hostages for humanitarian lanes
      • Most of the hostages for a 7 day ceasefire with monitored evacuations
      • All of the hostages for a 14 day ceasefire
      • All of the hostages and known leaders of HAMAS for an indefinite ceasefire, contingent on zero future incursions or military operations (you have to offer at least one impossible option past what you want)
      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Israel needs to reset the value of hostages in the long run. They can’t afford for hostage taking to be viable in the long run. And as long as they are successful militarily; there’s no real reason for them to budge from their position.