this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
166 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22059 readers
50 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:

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
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.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (11 children)

Our fundamentally inhuman treatment of the Palestinian people led to October 7.

There are only two ways to prevent it happening again. We could stop the unconscionable deprivations we inflict on the Palestinian people or we could speed up the genocide we've been engaged in.

No surprises that the government compromised of war criminals and people the Israeli courts have deemed to be terrorists are going for the later. The far right are in charge and they're pretty open that this is the goal.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Is there any chance for this to change course short of US withdrawing support?

Or are we just gonna have to see this shit real time and then pretend never again, again?

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I doubt it will change even if the US withdraws support, but I'm a cynical depressive type.

[–] livus@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If the US would withdraw protection the rest of the international community could probably make more meaningful interventions in the genocide.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. It doesn't take this army of super sophisticated technology to overcome Hamas's souped-up mortars and the occasional rock. Diplomatic support and UN vetoes is where the US really can make a difference, and does.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think they mean overcoming Hamas, given that it's not Hamas who are executing the war crimes right now.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 6 months ago

I phrased my point a little poorly maybe -- I meant that from Israel's POV, I think US weapons aren't critical (and definitely not to fight against Hamas, although that's not their only regional enemy), but US diplomatic aid is absolutely crucial.

The issue that Israel's POV is working on a project to wipe out a civilian population so they can take all their land and pretend they never existed, and so US aid shouldn't be looked at purely through the lens of what's needed by Israel at any given time, is a pretty relevant addition to that, yes. 100%.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They sure got the ability to ear Gaza and west bank by themselves but loss of US support would make their geopolitical situation untenable mid to long term. That's my thinking and common understanding in geopolitical circles.

Is Israel government and military deranged enough to think they can go forward on their own?

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

US support for Israel continuing the current conflict or US support for Israel in general? If really forced into it, maybe the Democrats can withdraw their blessing for the current conflict, but I don't see how they could end support for Israel. If Putin wins the US election who knows what could happen but short of that Israel is just too important to the US empire and they know it. I mostly believe the official line from Washington that they don't have that much leverage against Israel - in the sense that Bibi&co have enough counter levers to make acting against them more costly than it's worth for the Democrats.

Hence the bullshit antisemitism law, the brutalizing of campus protests, etc. Democrats are even willing to drive down turn out among their base in one of the most important elections in US history over this - I just don't see them doing that if they had a better card to play.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I am also a bit surprised by Democratic party willing to risk election over this but I am guessing their calculation is that losing support of Israel lobby is 100% loss?

But yeah at this rate Putin is gaining serious ground in the US presidential elections. Not sure how much face US got left to lose, but likely won't be anything left.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

I am guessing their calculation is that losing support of Israel lobby is 100% loss?

Yeah, I've been presuming that's a significant part of it. That and the importance of a dependent and dependable ally to help anchor US security architecture in a vital region. Israel needs US imperial presence in the region. Saudi just benefits from it.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 6 months ago

Is Israel government and military deranged enough to think they can go forward on their own?

Seems that way

I suspect that in usual fashion, when that approach blows up and they get shit all over them, it'll be everyone else's fault that it happened that way

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)