World News

22058 readers

28 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

166

Israel Rejected a Cease-Fire. The Media Isn’t Telling Us. (jacobin.com)

submitted 6 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/news@beehaw.org

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (23 children)

Yeah, pretty much. This story goes into some details. If that's accurate, then the objections the Israelis have to the current plan boil down to:

They want the deal to allow them to keep fighting the war and keep troops in Gaza (after its terms are fully implemented, which generally isn't how a cease fire works)
They want to be able to keep Palestinians they have ("Iraeli veto over prisoners") while demanding the fast release of all Israelis that Hamas has ("Hamas has suggested a framework that would stretch out the hostage release")

This little section I think gets to the heart of it:

Israel has consistently opposed any deal that explicitly calls for a permanent cease-fire or an end to the war, and has said it would not agree to either until it felt its military offensive had achieved its goals. Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Hamas timetable would commit Israel to ending the war while Hamas still holds hostages, leaving Israel without any leverage.

It's a very cunning little construction. The deal involves the release of all hostages, of course, in exchange for the end of the war. He's placing "commit Israel to ending the war" (after the deal) next to "Hamas still holds hostages" (before the deal) and getting all upset that they can't have the benefits of the deal before agreeing to their side of it, and also they want to avoid having to uphold substantive parts after agreeing to it.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (22 children)

Hamas must be deposed for meaningful safety, they've said they want to do October 7th over and over again. This is a last minute deal for them to try and weasel their way out of ultimate consequences for what they have done.

Occupying Gaza is probably also a good call considering their unilateral withdrawal arguably led directly to October 7th. I expect they will stay, try to implement a puppet government, do a little nation building, and only leave once Gaza is pacified. If this is not possible, expect more annexations and settlements.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

Hamas must be deposed for meaningful safety

Likud materially supports Hamas, in my opinion specifically because of their propensity for violence that was useful to Likud's goals of sabotaging the peace process.

Increasing the violence and repression as a solution to terrorism hasn't been working for decades in Israel; it's unlikely that doing more of it would suddenly start working now
Your whole premise that Netanyahu is aiming to increase the safety of the Israelis is totally at odds with his actual behavior

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, they tried to divide and conquer but it backfired, I don't think they're doing that anymore.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not divide and conquer, that implies keeping multiple groups at parity and fighting each other. Israel intentionally kept the crazies in charge to undermine the viability of a Palestinian state.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They did exactly that, the two groups kept at parity and fighting each other were Fatah and Hamas.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That ended over 15 years ago.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The rivalry continues to today, as detailed in the link it seems like you didn't read.

In March 2024, Hamas and its allied groups in the Gaza Strip criticized Abbas' appointment of Mohamed Mustafa as the Palestinian Authority's new prime minister following Mohammed Shtayyeh's resignation. They issued a statement referring to the changes as "formal steps that are devoid of substance" and questioned the Palestinian Authority's ability to properly represent the Palestinian people. In response, Fatah condemned Hamas as being itself disconnected from the Palestinian people and accused them of "having caused the return of the Israeli occupation of Gaza" by "undertaking the October 7 adventure".
Later that month, Hamas accused Fatah of sending security officers into northern Gaza in collaboration with Israel, saying it had arrested six individuals and were "in pursuit" of the others. The Palestinian Authority issued a statement refuting the claims by Hamas.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago

But Hamas won, they completely control the 'unity' government and Fatah have vastly less power. If divide and conquer was the goal Netanyahu would have been funneling resources to Fatah and not Hamas. But he has consistently empowered Hamas because the international community can't accept a Hamas-led state.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)