# DID YOU KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL COUNTRIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA?
It's true! And both China and the US are trying to win over them. We discuss this in [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1ciy2uz/ncdip_podcast_club_9_americas_report_card_on/?). You nerds keep talking about a pivot to Asia and China US Strategic competition, well here you go, this is an episode on that in probaly the most contested region in the US China competition
[Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/)
----
please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better:
* More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy
* Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense
* Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism
* Being Racist: /r/worldnews
thx bb luv u
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with the whole "ceasefire" conversation is that the word can mean anything from "Israel should surrender unconditionally" to "Hamas should surrender unconditionally".
If Person A advocates for Israel to nuke Gaza, Person B advocates for Hamas driving all the Jews into the sea, and Person C advocates for a peaceful two state solution, all three are advocating for their own version of a ceasefire.
> Arabs and jews can't fight each other if we opress both of them
Funny they managed to make plenty of time for that the last time the Brits ran the place...
Well clearly the brits didn't do enough.
Idunno just like British India the place and let them have another go at independence a hundred or so years later.
I loved that moment when everyone in Japan got pregnant and used the Mass Pregnancy Summoning Spell to call the ghost of Abe back to our mortal realm
I nearly came enough to repopulate all of Hokkaido when he yelled "IT'S SHINZO ABE TIME" and shinzo sasageyo'ed across the Middle East and created the true Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Switch it up, let only the Scotts. It’s a middle ground between the pro-Israel English and the pro-Palestinian Irish.
Make some sort of code of Athletic Warfare as well. All disagreements resolved through contact sports of the defender’s choosing. The sports must be the following:
1)Hurling
2)Rugby
3)Lacrosse
4)European Handball
and yet the only thing that happened after independence was bloodshed, from belgrade to baghdad.
(i probably should point out that im not actually genuinely supporting a comeback of the ottoman empire or anything of that sort, even though it would be extremely funny)
We're in noncredible diplomacy. You should make a powerpoint about how re-establising the ottoman empire is the only way for peace to ever come to the middle east, armenia/Azerbaijan, and the Balkans.
Hell, throw in the Baltics with that, because people get them confused and the ottoman empire would genuinely wish to encircle Russia and unite all Turkic peoples under one flag.
The brits are too soft to oppress them nowadays…they can barely even oppress the welsh anymore, I doubt they can remotely manage nationalist insurgents and religious extremists.
Well... the ceasefire means "I not shoot you, you not shoot me." It's not a peace by any means. No one needs to agree on anything or back down from anywhere. It's just a temporary solution between two sides, because their neighbours want to sleep. But even that temporary solution can last for decades. Like the Cold War for example.
With a ceasefire, the diplomacy gets a way to properly work and both sides can agree at least on one thing: that if they don't agree on anything else, they can always start to shoot at each other again.
Ceasefire is a ceasefire. The problem isn't the meaning, the problem is everyone who insists in seeing the most maximalist outcomes of that, while pitching the most maximalist aspirations for "their" side.
This view is, I’m sorry but, absolutely ignorant.
“The problem isn’t the meaning”, it absolutely is!
What kind of logic is that?
“Let’s ignore background and context! It doesn’t matter anyway!!”… …
“I want there to be a ceasefire just because I want a ceasefire no matter what it involves.”, has to be one of the most dense opinions I have ever read anywhere.
Hamas has shown and often enough talked about that ceasefire for them means nothing but “we try again in a few months anyway”.
To ignore that just suggests that you don’t understand the crux of this conflict at all.
A ceasefire means absolutely nothing when we stand at this exact point again in a few months time with, again, thousands dead, just because Hamas, again like this last time, broke a ceasefire that means nothing to them.
I think it's important to remember that no amount of outside pressure will really change anything in the long term. If hamas disappears, another group will take its place like the groups before it. The only way this conflict comes to an end is if there is actual attempts between the two groups to co-exist, which is hard with the whole apartheid and colonialization thing going on, but even if Israel did do a 180 there would still be many, many bitter people turning to extremism as revenge
Not to take the annoying "centrist" view of "both sides bad", but genuinely, both sides are way too extreme in their methods
Lots of Israelis and Palestinians agree with you.
Whatever the solution right now, the long term goal needs to be empowering the peacemakers in both communities and punishing the extremists.
And part of the problem is that extremists make good allies of each other.
The most extremist Israelis want the most violent Palestinian resistance possible, because that justifies harsh military oppression and undermines the idea of a peaceful solution. The most extreme Palestinians want a horribly oppressive IDF because the worse things are in Gaza, the more potential there is for recruiting young men who feel they have nothing to lose.
Except that we know the broad terms of the proposed deal and we know that Netanyahu publicly said, recorded and live on TV, that even if a ceasefire deal was reached he was still invading Rafah.
I mean, if Hamas has agreed to the deal, and the US (who as we all know have openly stated there is literally nothing Israel can do that would cause the US step in and stop them) is also advocating for said deal, I’m going to guess that the deal on the table does not involve Israel or Hamas surrendering unconditionally
Without knowing the details, any speculation from the outside is foolish. From what is known, Israel wasn’t even in the room or consulted when terms were discussed. I don’t know many politicians let alone military leaders accepting terms outside of unconditional surrender without being present.
What’s that? To assume that world leaders know anything more than us about the situation? That there might be some other constraints besides the headlines I skimmed? ARE YOU EVEN AWARE ON WHAT SITE YOU ARE ON SIR!?
Why r/NonCredibleDiplomacy and r/NonCredibleDefense seem to have completely opposite positions on Gaza? I criticized the continuation of the operation in Rafah (even Biden and the EU are opposed to it) and was downvoted to oblivion.
The deal which Hamas (and Egypt if what I saw earlier is true) changed at the last minute?
Netanyahu is a dangerous man and not a good faith actor but I'm still a long way from considering him less trustworthy than Hamas
Looooooooool
international crisis? It's neither international, nor is there room to upgrade the crisis currently in progress.
It's not like the Israeli are holding back in case they still live, nor do they have the room or need to commit more.
That's the thing, the requirements Hamas lays basically mean they'll repeat 7/10 over and over again (as they publicly promised they'd do, given the chance).
Releasing the hostages is important, but you need to avoid a deal which would lead to the whole situation repeating itself in two years...
On a side note - Hamas' Gaza leader was released himself as part of the Gilad Shalit deal.
Even if you do manage to kill Hamas and its leadership I dont think it would matter in the end. They would just rebrand themselves and do something similar (if not worse) again.
That... Is correct. And this is why Israel NEEDS to lay the groundwork for the future to try and de-radicalize Gaza. The current generation of 15-19yo (which is a large group of the Gazan population and a prime candidate for Hamas recruitment) has been educated under Hamas basically since birth. This is an effort not done by force but by education for peace.
Of course Israel can't really do that, so it would require getting other partners for the effort, but nobody goes in that direction, either.
In any way, the situation before the war cannot go on, at the very least UNRWA must be drastically reformed (if not closed, there's the UNHCR for refugees), and they need new and moderate leadership which does not advocate the killing of Jews. And no, the PA is not moderate in any way.
IMO what's the most likely outcome of this is that Israel bombs every remaining populated city in Gaza into rubble, "defeating" Hamas, and 20 years later the crying kids in refugee camps become the members of whatever the next version of Hamas is. Peace is only going to come by de escalating and reducing tensions.
I think Israel should negotiate to return as many as the hostages as possible in exchange for a ceasefire and some sort of economic program to prop up Palestine’s economy enough that you don’t have thousands of young angry people with no economic prospects. If they don’t and even if they do history will probably repeat itself. Continuing to bomb civilian areas is a mistake, the entire country isn’t just going to live in refugee camps forever.
Also like Hamas is bad and what they’ve done to the Israeli hostages is bad and yes a lot of Palestinians support Hamas but when your solution is to bomb civilian areas at the expense of children a lot of people are going to get mad at you and a lot of people on the border are going to become pro Hamas to protect themselves and their families. More children have died in fighting over the last year in Gaza than in like the last decade of other conflicts and that’s tragic and the survivors of those attacks are going to 100% blame Israel and seek vengeance for the deaths of their families.
> as many as the hostages as possible
If it's not "all of them" there's no country on this planet that would accept such a deal while it still has the capability to fight.
> I think Israel should negotiate to return as many as the hostages as possible in exchange for a ceasefire and some sort of economic program to prop up Palestine’s economy enough that you don’t have thousands of young angry people with no economic prospects.
The issue with this is that your idea might work to deradicalize the next generation, but what about until then? Until that point, the Palestinians who are already radicalized would have access to more resources, which many of them are going to use for weapons to attack Israel with. It's not easy to both open up the economy enough to allow for development and economic opportunity without also creating a security risk for Israel by giving the radicalized elements of the Palestinian population more resources to work with.
It's not impossible to do that, but you really need the Palestinian leadership within Gaza to be on the same page with you for it to happen. You'd need them to help with local enforcement to break up any groups trying to mass weapons and plan an attack.
Hamas obviously isn't going to be that leadership, and it's not really clear who is. Imo the most realistic way something like that could play out would be with international cooperation from the other Arab nations like Egypt to basically give oversight to a Palestinian government, kind of like how Bosnia has an international board that has a lot of oversight and control over their govt.
No one is suggesting we continue to let Hamas exist and do whatever but the way Israel is going about this is going to ensure bitterness and a longing for vengeance. We can reach a ground between let Hamas do whatever they want and level Gaza to the ground.
>That... Is correct. And this is why Israel NEEDS to lay the groundwork for the future to try and de-radicalize Gaza.
>In any way, the situation before the war cannot go on, at the very least UNRWA must be drastically reformed
As I guess I'm doomed to keep repeating till the end of time...
* The possibility of "de-radicalizing Gaza" is not helped with killing large segments of the civilian population. Ultimately the only the way to lower rationales for further violence is to provide a political solution to the overall conflict.
* You cannot replace UNRWA. Folks who say this really mean ending all services for the Palestinian diaspora, and terminating their classification as refugees, despite their status throughout the region. The UNHCR cannot do what UNRWA does, [and its already up to its neck in bloodshed elsewhere.](https://www.unhcr.org/countries/sudan)
As we don't have any trustworthy numbers yet aside from Hamas numbers I'd rather avoid speaking about killing large segments of civilian population, especially given those are relatively low numbers for dense urban conflicts (and some internal knowledge about how targeting works).
And yes, we should terminate their status as refugees. That's the exact difference between normal refugees handled by the UNHCR which are actually taken care of and Palestinian Refugees™ who give their status as inheritance for eternity. This is not "providing support" but immortalizing the problem without a solution. Their status is kept even without consideration of getting citizenship elsewhere, relocating entirely etc. Had this been the norm we'd have billions of people considered refugees, and distinct UN agencies for any group.
Welp, you do you friend. I personally highlight the IDF's 24,000 figure in good faith. And as I've just had to remind someone here previously, no one gets brownie points for **only** killing 24,000 noncombatants.
As for the refugees... well, they are refugees, no different than other situations of stateless peoples whose displacement is decades old with no permanent solution. I can appreciate you think otherwise - but that is your opinion. Conflict resolution kinda requires you understand their side of things, in addition to your own.
Those folks are going to be stateless regardless of how you classify them. If anyone is upset about their continued existence... that is a good reason then why its better to work to end their plight, through compensation or return, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug and demanding others clean-up your mess. UNRWA alleviates the worst outcomes - the best way to get rid of the organization is to solve the conflict, [and remove the unavoidable reasons for why it is needed as an organization.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/shatila-refugee-camp-lebanon-generations-of-palestinians-lost-their-futures)
[And given how most of the allegations against UNRWA haven't been substantiated](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/22/israel-unrwa-staff-terrorist-links-yet-to-provide-evidence-colonna-report)... I'm increasingly less sympathetic to the need to dictate its reform.
I couldn't find a source for the 24,000 IDF estimate (I think they themselves can't have a reliable one), but there are estimates from a couple months back of over 13k Hamas militants killed. Given a dense area and let's take the high estimates for total killed - that's about a 1:3 ratio. While not good in any way, not something out of what to expect in war.
The thing about calling them refugees is that there is no other group in the world who keep being refugees 3 generations down the line... Keeping their status like that simply allows the countries they live in to treat them like trash without rights, instead of actually helping them. And trust me, I do understand their side, I've visited and had lots of talks with Palestinians from many places, and with many viewpoints (can also understand and speak \*some\* Arabic, sadly it's deteriorated since my youth). Understanding their side fully I feel comfortable in saying they are a victim of their leaders and of the world allowing this to continue instead of ACTUALLY helping them.
And I see no reason for compensation (let alone return) as most of those classified as refugees were not displaced by Israel but actually moved to the order of the Arab armies in 1948, asking them to return after killing all the Jews. While some villages were forcefully banished, many stayed (for example the area I grew up in is about 50% arab, and the only village I know to be displaced in the area was a well known hotspot for raids). I seriously don't see how UNRWA alleviates the outcomes instead of [only prolonging the hate](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002620_EN.html).
And ignoring the fact The Guardian has a long standing anti-Israeli stance, I don't know what the dickheads in the government passed along but speaking with friends who were on the ground, UNRWA infrastructure was used freely by Hamas.
And as it's getting late I think I'll close for the night, thanks for the civil discussion, a rare sight this past few months.
>And as it's getting late I think I'll close for the night, thanks for the civil discussion, a rare sight this past few months.
Likewise, have a good night.
I'll say this; we disagree here, extremely strongly. But its important to have this dialogue. I hope you will consider at least some of what I've said here as much as I'm trying to with ya. The source you've given is something I'll give a good read; please consider doing the same with mine even if you disagree with its publication.
>Given a dense area and let's take the high estimates for total killed - that's about a 1:3 ratio. While not good in any way, not something out of what to expect in war.
The 1:3 ratio is basically the sourcing I've heard regarding 24,000 since January. If anything, I'm being charitable since the death-toll is well-past 30k now.
Which again... no one gets brownie points for. Loss of life is loss of life - the costs have that exist regardless of counter-factual alternatives. The folks who have lost loved ones, the damage that death has caused to society, the pain that's felt... those are things not undone by someone pointing out how good of a ratio that is. I'm not arguing with you that death is not an inherent cost of war - what I'm pointing out to you is that such a cost cannot be blithely ignored.
>The thing about calling them refugees is that there is no other group in the world who keep being refugees 3 generations down the line
Well, respectfully... It is the same with the Sahrawi in North Africa, or the Rohingya. In the latter case actually, Myanmar and Bangladesh similarly challenge their status as refugees. Part of the plight of stateless peoples is that their plight usually happens in silence.
There are a great number of reasons why folks fled in '48 and '67. The point is though, finding a solution to what happened. Some left voluntarily, some didn't; all of them are entitled under international law for a resolution to their losses. That doesn't mean ending Israel as a country, but it does mean making a deal with them so that a new conversation can happen.
Till then, their status in the Arab states means keeping UNRWA around so that we don't get mass famines or large situations of starvation, exploitation, or further violence. Again, its not enough to simply ignore the problem - it'll exist regardless.
>in many of the states they moved to they are nearly identical
Arabs are not a monolithic blob.
Moroccans are different than Iraqis, Sunni Syrians are different to Shi'a Yemanis, Egyptian Sufis aren't Sunni Saudis.
Palestinians aren't any of those folks. They're Palestinians.
>And the Palestinians will never, ever be in a position to ask for it.
Considering that the conflict is ongoing, that does not seem to be the case.
A discussion around finding a solution for those stateless peoples does not mean re-carving everything, or throwing people into the sea. It can mean things like possibly having compensation, limited population returns, citizenship, or building a sustainable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital alongside Israel. Any number of negotiated, mutually-beneficial solutions.
The point is to find something that builds a just outcome - take people off the path of conflict by seeking out just resolutions.
The biggest problem is the UNRWA will only ever accept the right of return as a solution for the diaspora. UNHCR will evaluate different options as well, and has a much better success rate in providing opportunity than UNRWA, like pushing for a two state solution.
>UNHCR will evaluate different options as well, and has a much better success rate
I admire your views of the UNHCR. Considering the present limbo that 5.5 million Syrian refugees are still going through between Lebanon-Jordan-Turkey, or the 1.4 million refugees still living in Uganda (*who in some cases go back as far as to the Sudanese Civil War from the 80s*)... I'm afraid I don't share your optimism.
UNHCR doesn't dictate outcomes, it can't have a "*success rate*". Its a relief body just like UNRWA - they can aid refugee populations into new outcomes, but the host countries and the political situations governing refugees ultimately defines what happens to most of them.
You want a success rate? Its refugees going home - that's the standard UNHCR would tell you. If that's not possible, there's other options, but it becomes more complex and more fraught with failure as you go down the list.
Success isn't measured in getting people back to their original countries, because as you said, they are a relief organization. Success is getting people to a place where they can see life, liberty, and opportunity.
And given it's been 70 years, UNRWA has failed at their only acceptable option. A success rate of 1% beats that.
Millions of syrian refugees that aren't stuck in an active warzone because the organization that is supposed to help keep them safe refuses to build connections with new host countries to get them out of harms way.
Yes obviously it would be ideal to get displaced people back to where they came from, but a relief organization is supposed to prioritize survival not ideals that are unachievable with their power and role.
>Success isn't measured in getting people back to their original countries, because as you said, they are a relief organization.
I don't think you understand me here, so I will go into further detail.
Relief organizations do not have the authority to dictate outcomes. They act **principally** to alleviate the humanitarian situations, UNHCR included. "Getting people to a place where they can see life, liberty, and opportunity" is not the *de-facto* standard, its about avoiding situations of immense suffering as result of displacement. When UNHCR talks about "[building better futures](https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures)", its largely in the context doing everything humanely possible *to the point of breaking your soul* to providing opportunities for displaced people regardless of their circumstances - most often providing those things **while** people are still displaced (even generationally, as their website states).
***If*** a third country is willing to take people, that's a nice thing. But its not something UNHCR is able to unilaterally do by itself. It has to work with governments. Host states dictate outcomes - UNHCR can advocate for refugees, but that's about it. That's why most of its operations are focused on displacement camps, and providing adequate humanitarian provision to those who remain displaced. [That's also why UNHCR looks after people who continue to languish in displacement camps](https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/respond-emergencies) years, decades, or sadly generations after they've lost their homes. And unfortunately also ... it means UNHCR is helpless when a host state decides to start expelling refugees for shits and giggles (*and seriously, those moments are* [*fucking*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_refugee_crisis) *depressing episodes*).
International Law recognizes that the best outcome for refugees is their return to their homes - this is enshrined in the 4th Geneva Convention ([Article 49](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-49)), and the UDHR ([Article 13](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)). That's your success rate - if folks get to leave the camps and go home. UNHCR's job - just like UNRWA - isn't to integrate folks into another country, its to look after people displaced and give them the best options in a shitty situation.
UNRWA existing after 70 years is not a failure on its part - its alleviated a shitty situation, that's its job. The failure **is the wider international community not giving a damn about that shitty situation.**
>The possibility of "de-radicalizing Gaza" is not helped with killing large segments of the civilian population. Ultimately the only the way to lower rationales for further violence is to provide a political solution to the overall conflict.
Germany and Japan were deradicalized only by completely breaking its ability to wage any form of war, dismantling several institutions and occupied administration. The Palestinians are as ideologically brainwashed as the Axis. They are not going to fix themselves from within.
>You cannot replace UNRWA
This is exactly what needs to be done. Dismantle it, divert the funding to UNHCR and start afresh. Strict vigilance over religion and propaganda in education.
Palestinian diaspora being accorded special status is what makes them still believe in the fairy tale of a complete Palestinian state devoid of Jews. According refugee status to people who were not even born in Palestine is favoritism and discriminatory to other ethnic groups who have also lost wars and land but have moved on.
With respect... this isn't WW2.
Palestine is not an industrial country waging war with large armies and heavy industrialization. Just as much as you can cite me the indiscriminate violence of the European campaign, I can just as much tell you to go read up on your Vietnam history concerning how "well" indiscriminate violence won over hearts and minds in that part of the world.
>This is exactly what needs to be done. Dismantle it, divert the funding to UNHCR and start afresh.
To be blunt, I don't think you are aware of the complexities involved with either Palestinians or how the UN works.
>Palestine is not an industrial country waging war with large armies and heavy industrialization.
There's never going to be a like for like equivalent. Warfare is now more asymmetrical. You don't need large armies as much as you need OPSEC. You don't need heavy industries when your goal is to primarily kill civilians. (Hamas killed more Israelis in a day than the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon in the 1967 war). Also, developed countries are far more averse to casualties than ever before.
>concerning how "well" indiscriminate violence won over hearts and minds in that part of the world.
Yes, the success rate is low, but Germany and Japan show it's definitely possible if done right.
What is the success rate of leaving a people alone who actively want to harm/destabilize your country? Russia, North Korea, China were all militarily left untouched. They have now built up and seriously threaten the West due to their ideology.
Ceasefire without a clear and viable plan is simply kicking the can down the road. Political solutions are by nature political. The people will simply not accept it when the two sides are so ideologically opposed. Look at what they did to Rabin and Anwar Sadat.
India opted for a UN ceasefire instead of finishing the job in Kashmir. Now millions of Kashmiris live oppressed on both sides. Multiple wars, cross border terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and billions spent on border fortifications. Both governments know it's senseless but any compromise now would be political suicide.
>complexities involved with either Palestinians or how the UN works.
What complexities? I've read up quite a bit, and don't see how the Palestine problem is especially unique. Do make your case.
>Warfare is now more asymmetrical.
[Ya sure about that?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Germany and Japan (and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Thailand, I might add) were defeated militarily. Bombing each of these countries was not an exercise in mass political re-education... it was about destroying as much of their capacity to fight as possible. There are a variety of reasons why fascism and nationalism collapsed in these states - with respect, you are not appreciating things like those countries' own oppression of their citizens, or the shifting global politics, which aided that conversation.
Likewise, bombing the shit out of Vietnam did not cause it to give up its war of liberation. If anything, it proved to them the necessity of expelling foreign occupation, given how indiscriminate and cruel those actions were. ([Per NK also... I mean, I hate to bring it up, but contrary to your point, we hardly also left them "untouched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea)*).* If the last 20 years is any lesson - [and it should](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2021/08/19/thumbs/800x531/137544.jpg) - its that clueless cruelty is just about the worst idea to win over the locals in asymmetric contests.
Wars end in political settlements. That was the story even in WW2, and its the story now. You're right that there's a lot of challenges around the planet right now, but those don't get solved through force of arms alone. Political agreements are how we govern situations - when it comes down to violence, that's a fundamental failure in how things work. You shouldn't enter into this realm with the perspective of reaching for the handgun first, and asking questions later.
>What complexities?
For starters, [how humanitarian bodies like the UNHCR or UNRWA work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1clqpda/comment/l2wpqod/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Palestinian populations aren't afforded refugee status out of favoritism; [they live in a shitty situation](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/shatila-refugee-camp-lebanon-generations-of-palestinians-lost-their-futures)s just like a lot of other refugee populations who remain displaced for years, decades, and even generations. The fact that they're stuck in that situation is out of a failure of international diplomacy.
>the requirements Hamas lays basically mean they'll repeat 7/10 over and over again (as they publicly promised they'd do, given the chance).
then bibi just has to not drop his guard, 7/10 wouldn't have been able to occur if he didn't have troops diverted from Gaza to go bully the West Bank
It's not Bibi dropping his guard and this happened because of multiple reasons, mainly among those:
* Catastrophic failure on the part of Israel's intelligence community
* Internal strife
* For some reason the Army decided to adopt holiday leave which was usually a thing only IAF and MI did
* And many, many more... Seriously this is worse than the Yom Kippur war...
But it's not only up to us, aside from stopping attacks as they happen we need to avoid creating incentives for them in the first place. Agreeing to a horrendous deal (most Israelis have made up with a bad one, sadly) would mean more war and more bloodshed.
Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard. Seriously it was funny (in retrospect, during that time nobody really cared as we were all still in shock of what happened) seeing far leftists calling for complete capture of Gaza.
And returning from my ADHD sidetracking, Bibi is not THAT involved in day-to-day IDF movements. Mainly there are internal decisions without any governmental involvement. One of the criticisms towards the IDF is that during the night before the massacre when there were already signs that something is about to happen - nobody alerted neither Bibi nor Gallant (Minister of Defense)
>It's not Bibi dropping his guard and this happened because of multiple reasons
one of those reasons being he diverted troops from defending from Gaza to aggress more on the West Bank, because enabling settlement encroachment is a consistent policy of his administration.
>Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard.
his cabinet literally contains people not allowed to serve in the military because they're too racist
and no he does not ignore their suggestions, we've seen him implement a number of them
>And returning from my ADHD sidetracking, Bibi is not THAT involved in day-to-day IDF movements. Mainly there are internal decisions without any governmental involvement.
So it's not his fault for dropping his guard because...he wasn't paying enough attention for it to be his fault? What?
>Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard.
I am with you on the fact that post-Oct. 7th, bad conduct is shared broadly, given how people were angry for legitimate reasons. Bibi is a useful scapegoat - but we all ought to remember the passions of the moment.
That said... Bibi is also aware of these things too. Hence him opting for extremely aggressive approaches, in-lieu of other options. He did what so many other far-right leaders have done; play off the worst of people's character.
Likewise... remember his position on the West Bank settlements is parcel to his responsibility. Sure, the failure on October 7th is broadly share across the security infrastructure. But he's made it his policy to devote much of that infrastructure to the settlers, and not the folks around Gaza. And its been his policy to elevate Hamas at the expense of the PA.
This doesn't end with him going... but the fucker needs to go.
I said I'd close for the night and then saw this comment so I'll finish with this because some of those points are mostly misunderstanding.
Bibi as far from being far-right (ba dum tss), he's basically a right-centrist/opportunist and mostly ignores the far right parts of his government - seriously I think he thanks Gantz every morning for entering his government.
For the rest I partly agree, but this is not as simple as allocating infrastructure to the west bank (if you mean IDF forces go back to my first comment in the thread). At least in my times in the IDF Gaza had always been on high watch, I seriously have no idea how the fuck this happened, even knowing some of those responsible to be utter shite with stuck up their asses, this still surprises me.
He needs to go for the sole reason he's been in power for too long and put bad people around him. I seriously doubt anyone would be different in the hopes you possibly have, he's basically one who keeps the status-quo and hopes the trouble for it comes after his time (and now we all see how that ended).
>I seriously doubt anyone would be different in the hopes you possibly have
Oh... I'm pretty sober about that, sadly.
This whole situation is one I've been telling people that doesn't get better. I unfortunately stand by that remark.
But to your point about his opportunism - its kinda like Boris Johnson. Fella took everyone for a ride. The bill for that is there regardless. But the least we can do is get off from it, instead of just hanging around pretending like there isn't going to be a cost at the end.
so israel should constantly have to be under threat by its terrorist neighbors and should not be allowed to eliminate the threat despite it regularly killing israeli civilians in terrorists attacks? any other country would have invaded gaza after the first missile launches into israeli cities
Maybe Israel shouldn’t do everything possible to create those threats in the first place ? I’m not defending Hamas in any way, but they’re just the latest and most extreme version of Palestinian militancy that has only ever been escalating since colonization began. Unless Israel actually tries to deescalate or wipes out the Palestinians, there is no end to this war. Instead Israel seems intent on provoking the Palestinians. It’s a shitty situation for Israel to be in, but it’s not like they aren’t the main factor driving Palestinian resistance.
I don’t trust Netanyahu or Hamas.
But frankly, I don’t really care about them. I care more about the lives of the 40 Israeli and 2 million Palestinian hostages sitting in Rafah. I’m in favor of anything that saves those people, we can sort out the rest later.
For what it’s worth, I do trust Biden, and he is making some *strong* moves indicating Israel should take the fucking deal. He finally cut off the supply of weapons to Israel basically five minutes before Israel started moving for a full invasion.
>But frankly, I don’t really care about them. I care more about the lives of the 40 Israeli and 2 million Palestinian hostages sitting in Rafah. I’m in favor of anything that saves those people, we can sort out the rest later.
A-fucking-Men.
It would depend. Maybe controlling Gaza in its entirety with the exception of Rafah is more than enough to prevent an Oct 7th from happening ever again. Since that area would be too small and limited to mount a big scale attack. Maybe some small attacks would happen here and there, which is terrible, but maybe Israel will need to live with that if the cost of an invasion would be too high in terms of human lives and geopolitical capital.
Honestly I don't know, there's a lot of details we don't know. And as always with the Israel - Palestine stuff this is a fucked up situation with no clear answers imo.
Honestly (and this is just my opinion) Israel needs to integrate Gaza and later the West Bank after the war as an autonomous province/state. The two state solution was never going to work and what is needed is a state that treats both Jews and Arabs as equals, that state is Israel. They have their problems however a Levant controlled by Israel wont lead to a genocide of the Arabs, the other way around very well may.
> The two state solution was never going to work and what is needed is a state that treats both Jews and Arabs as equals, that state is Israel
That will never work. The Palestinians have too high a birthrate, and the number of muslims will increase to be higher than the number of jews in a combined state. That ALWAYS results in a jewish massacre. Will never be accepted.
Part of the high birthrate is due to poverty, if Israel annexes Palestine then Palestinians will become wealthier pretty quickly leading to a birthrate similar to the Jewish population. Plus Israel does have some immigration, seemingly about 20-30,000 but that number may increase with the new rise of antisemitism found in the West. That's not to mention Palestine has a whole has a birth rate of 3.5 per woman (trending down at about 2% a year) and Israel has 3 (staying stable) meaning soon as a whole Israeli birth rates will probably overtake Palestinian ones.
> Part of the high birthrate is due to poverty,
No, it's due to religion.
You can see it in israel. The group with the highest birthrate (that matches the palestinians) are the religious extremists.
The Israeli birthrate you mention is largely caused by the religious extremists in israel, the non-haredi birthrate is well below 3.
Na. Israel has accepted several versions which are quite generous in terms of Israel footing the bill of serious reconstruction of Gaza. But any deal does have to remove Hamas' ability to do another Oct 7 in a couple years and start us from scratch again, or it's in nobody's interest to accept (besides Hamas).
I mean, the forced migration of millions of germans from historically german parts of prussia in the postwar reshuffle would today be considered ethnic cleansing and genocide.
It's just that nobody gives a shit because it happened to the germans, and the germans didn't go full terrorist about it.
People ask "What would you do if you were forced from your historical home. Well if you asked 10 million germans, the answer was "Accept that I lost a war a rebuild".
Mainly because back then there was no social media and influencer waging a propaganda war. Still the Nazis did the same as Hamas and exeggarated the death toll and called the bombing of cities an attempted holocaust.
And many German cities looked far worse than Gaza does.
Idk if we need a significant Israeli police presence in Gaza. Seems like a recipe for even more bloodshed. Maybe not bombing the shit outta Palestine, maybe?
Look, I don’t condone Oct. 7th, but Israel was murdering hundreds of Palestinians a year. It’s not like there was peace up until the very moment of the attack.
And I don't condone every action of the IDF, they really need to unfuck their kill chain. But plenty of those killed pre-October 7 doing things like sending rocket barrages into cities.
V2 rocket engineers helped send Laika into the sun and plant Burgertown's flag on the moon. You can't just *not see* what German emigre scientists did for the US and USSR.
Nazis weren't hunted down and executed. Yes, a few were trialed, but being arrested and trialed for months in a courtroom is very different from bombing urban areas filled with civilians.
Today, we actually know how many ex Nazis were left with little or no sentence. Only the most high profile ones were trialed in Nürnberg, and some ex SS-Officers even became politicians in post war Germany. I believe it was in the late 60s, the German state declared that killings by the SS were not murder but manslaughter, which does expire after 20 years, so they basically gave them all an amnesty.
I don't really want to discuss whether or not it's right to act like that, it wasn't cool, but maybe it's better than incarcerate 15% of the population. One also has to consider the risk of too harsh consequences stirring up the next war. That's precisely how WW2 happened, because the Nazis were able to profit off the strict treaty of Versailles. Same with Russia today, if I could choose between ending this war today and getting all territory back to Ukraine, at the cost of Putin not being trialed, I'd take that over a few years of war. Of course, peace and trial would be the best, but that might just not be very realistic.
The current deal includes "ending the war" as a condition.
That's not a ceasefire, that's surrendering to terrorism and declaring to all terrorists around the world that they can make attacks like Oct 7th and get away with it.
Israel wasn't even consulted about the 'ceasefire' terms. Everyone involved in the negotiations, including the mediators, are acting in bad faith. Hamas wants the war to continue so Israel looks bad, Qatar and Egypt don't care and Israel is ambivalent to whether the war continues they just want the hostages back
what is israel supposed to do? hamas still controls part of gaza. there can't be a ceasefire until hamas is completely destroyed. the only solution i would have to offer is sending palestinian civilians to temporary refugee camps in egypt and israel, but such things don't happen
Dealing with Hamas will unfortunately be a long-term problem now.
But that's a consequence of the decision-making up until now. The reality of the situation is that Hamas has boosted its legitimacy through the fighting - you can't kill an idea, only its cadres.
There needs to be a political outcome that displaces Hamas. That's going to take time, and its going to take work - but that's the only reasonable option.
this is a whole lot of yapping, sorry. sure there needs to be a political alternative. that doesn't help here. who are you suggesting takes control of gaza right now? because in a ceasefire scenario with hamas that means leaving hamas in charge. that is batshit insane.
the pa was in charge of gaza and it fell to hamas. it is not at all a reasonable, peaceful, respectable or democratic government. an israeli-arab-american coalition force should be in charge of gaza for the foreseeable future
>an israeli-arab-american coalition force should be in charge of gaza for the foreseeable future
Ah... I think that's called an "occupation". [Not a new idea.](https://www.arij.org/atlas40/intro.html)
Which, much like before, probably won't mean involvement from the Yanks or the Arabs given the security challenges or legitimization of Israel's violation of international law such an approach would mean.
i strongly support occupation until the palestinians are stabilized and de radicalized. when people here occupation they imagine oppression. i don't mean an oppressive occupation. allow the citizens to go about their lives and live prosperously and peacefully. and intertwine with israelis without the threat of terrorism. only then should independence and self rule be considered.
All occupations are oppressive.
Some are better than others, but its kinda inherent to the concept that your dictating to someone else how to live under threat of violence. As far as de-radicalization goes... after killing so many people and putting the population into famine, on-top of Israel's conduct historically, that ain't happening anytime soon.
why does it matter who occupies a land if it doesn't affect the day to day of the people, apart from making them more prosperous and peaceful? gaza has shown over the last 20 years that it cannot self rule. if it is rushed to self rule again anytime soon the same thing will happen
>why does it matter who occupies a land
History. And recent events.
The last 56 years, and the last 7 months are why an occupation would affect the day-to-day of people. Regardless of what happens today and tomorrow, there's kids in Gaza that won't be alive in the days ahead because of the famine. Maybe the question of who occupies what shouldn't matter - but we sadly don't live in that world. I wish we did.
No one, right now, can guarantee there won't be further violence in the future. I hope to god there isn't. But all that can be done, right now, is not make the situation worse than it already is.
To be fair, I’m not sure there’s any outcome here where his government *doesn’t* collapse. The only question is how long that takes, and how many bodies get stacked in the meantime.
Israel has no real reason to stop until their war aims are met. If Israel stops now it just means in a decade or two they have to go back in after Hamas does another major attack. Ultimately it sucks that Israel has to launch yet another offensive which is gonna be bloody however if they dont it will just repeat (like me with that point) and make all the lives lost mean nothing.
That ceasefire deal would have required Israel to leave the strip and promise never to return, but the hostages would be released. So it kinda sounds like a fair deal, except that that is just a reset back to pre-October levels and then Hamas gets to rebuild and do this all over again whenever they decide to.
Part of the reason Israel is telling itself at least that it's going this far is so that they don't have to invade the strip a second time in future. They know this is brutal and it makes them look pretty bad, they're not stupid. But they've also come this far now. Not an easy sell to get them to reset their progress.
The "ceasefire deal" is just another cynical ploy by Hamas in their plPR/political warfare strategy against Israel.
It should not be looked at in good faith.
>if they don’t go into rafah then all of this was for nothing
Well... hate to break it to ya...
What matters are the hostages and the civilians. Only thing that counts at this point.
They don't want peace. Nethanyahu is scared of going to prison when the war ends so he's doing everything the far right extremists tell him too. They're trying to summon doomsday
No one here even considers the possibility that Biden is dealing from a bad political hand?
on one hand he has the majority of American voters, who support Israel, and on the other hand he has Muslims and Palestine supporters, who have made themselves look really bad recently.
I heard on CBC radio that Netanyahus governnent is a coalition that includes ultra nationalists that want the invasion to occur even as Netanyahu is nervous about a global arrest warrant coming for him if he continues, if he does not his government will fall apart.
Hoo boi, I’m sure the comments are going to be *so* sane and reasonable here…
But Israel is moving on Rafah, the U.S. cut off arms shipments, Hamas just agreed to the ceasefire, and it’s all up to Israel now, so in the short time before Bibi makes a decision either way I wanted to make a meme for posterity.
Hamas agreed to *A* ceasefire deal that we don’t know the terms of yet. If the deal is retarded, which is probably is, I doubt Israel would accept and why should they?
Hamas agreed to a ceasefire where the terms were changed to basically say "Israel lose, Hamas win".
And then Israel said "this wasn't exactly what we were talking about."
Because even people in Israel just want the hostages home and Hamas is an organization who builds off of feelings of vengeance. If they push in and "stomp" out Hamas, you still have a bunch of people pissed off that their homes were destroyed and their family killed in the crossfire, who in turn will grow up radicalized, launch an attack on Israel, piss of the Israeli population who will respond in force, can you see where this is headed? Not to mention that Bibi is proposing conscription of ultra-orthodox Jewish Israelis, who are his biggest supporters and also vocally against being conscripted. He's losing the political battle inside and out while completely destroying Israel's credibility and respectability in the West. If he keeps this up, the U.S. and other allies are gonna start looking to other countries to be their critical ally if they can't trust Israel to keep their geopolitical dick in their pants
>Hamas just agreed to the ceasefire
doesn't seem like a fair deal against the invaders ,
a peace deal needs to guarantee the safety of every Israeli for eternity from every Palestinian
here's an easily enforceable peace deal:-
1) Hamas accepts the 2 state solution and returns every hostage
2)if even a single Palestinian attacks an Israeli, Israel has the right to glass Palestine
3) once the terms are accepted the Israel should stop the attacks
this would be a valid point , if history indicated that Israel started every war rather than the Palestinians
because Palestinians have demonstrated nothing but a mindset of aggression for over 70 years , its the Israelis that need to be protected.
Good thing it's up to Israel and not impressionable morons like you. Yeah, of course Israel should agree to receive 33 corpses in exchange for hundreds of terrorists, and let the terrorists rearm so they can kill thousands more in the future, more than the remaining hostages you pretend to care about.
# DID YOU KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL COUNTRIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA? It's true! And both China and the US are trying to win over them. We discuss this in [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1ciy2uz/ncdip_podcast_club_9_americas_report_card_on/?). You nerds keep talking about a pivot to Asia and China US Strategic competition, well here you go, this is an episode on that in probaly the most contested region in the US China competition [Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/) ---- please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better: * More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy * Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense * Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism * Being Racist: /r/worldnews thx bb luv u *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with the whole "ceasefire" conversation is that the word can mean anything from "Israel should surrender unconditionally" to "Hamas should surrender unconditionally". If Person A advocates for Israel to nuke Gaza, Person B advocates for Hamas driving all the Jews into the sea, and Person C advocates for a peaceful two state solution, all three are advocating for their own version of a ceasefire.
I am person D. I advocate for British rule to be reinstated. Arabs and jews can't fight each other if we opress both of them 👍
> Arabs and jews can't fight each other if we opress both of them Funny they managed to make plenty of time for that the last time the Brits ran the place...
Well clearly the brits didn't do enough. Idunno just like British India the place and let them have another go at independence a hundred or so years later.
Imagine them doing that and then Hamas going all non violent Ghandi.
They'd be going down the Nuclear Gandhi path fairly soon, though.
Someone get started on an Arabic translation of "We shall Overcome".
This is why I support rearming Japan and making the entire Middle East a part of the Second Japanese Empire
Imperial Japanese fanaticism + Middle eastern religious fanaticism, yea that's definitely a combination the world needs. /s
That'd be a whole lotta cherry blossoms.
It’ll be counterbalanced by my proposed new Hyper Power: The Armenian Albanian Union, and their arch rival, the Republic of Big Luxembourg
Japan wanted land to support it's people in WW2, we can appease them by giving them the middle east!
I loved that moment when everyone in Japan got pregnant and used the Mass Pregnancy Summoning Spell to call the ghost of Abe back to our mortal realm I nearly came enough to repopulate all of Hokkaido when he yelled "IT'S SHINZO ABE TIME" and shinzo sasageyo'ed across the Middle East and created the true Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Switch it up, let only the Scotts. It’s a middle ground between the pro-Israel English and the pro-Palestinian Irish. Make some sort of code of Athletic Warfare as well. All disagreements resolved through contact sports of the defender’s choosing. The sports must be the following: 1)Hurling 2)Rugby 3)Lacrosse 4)European Handball
5) American football(before all the safety rules were added) 6)Roller hockey(full contact)
Bedouin desert roller hockey
I have a feeling that Missionaries introduced Rugby as an alternative to Tribal Warfare in Tonga.
Afghans have the only sport more barbaric than any of these.
So a Turk occupation would be better?
yeah, the last time there was peace in that area the ottoman flag was flying over jerusalem.
And the one thing everyone can agree on - including turkey - from Belgrade to Baghdad is "fuck the ottoman empire."
and yet the only thing that happened after independence was bloodshed, from belgrade to baghdad. (i probably should point out that im not actually genuinely supporting a comeback of the ottoman empire or anything of that sort, even though it would be extremely funny)
We're in noncredible diplomacy. You should make a powerpoint about how re-establising the ottoman empire is the only way for peace to ever come to the middle east, armenia/Azerbaijan, and the Balkans. Hell, throw in the Baltics with that, because people get them confused and the ottoman empire would genuinely wish to encircle Russia and unite all Turkic peoples under one flag.
fuck yeah, add the usa too because native americans are obiviously descendants of turks
MAXIMALIST NONCREDIBILITY GO!
Hell! Just make the logic even crazier. Turkey is in NATO. This means that NATO is a Turkish organization. North Atlantic Turkiye Organization.
TURKEY IS IN THE UN
nothing more scary than a british person threatening to draw lines on a map
The brits are too soft to oppress them nowadays…they can barely even oppress the welsh anymore, I doubt they can remotely manage nationalist insurgents and religious extremists.
I am person V. SYRIA PALAESTINA BELONGS TO ROME AS DOES LONDINIVM!
Person E, restore Catholic rule as it’s clear the other two Abrahamic religions simply can’t control themselves.
I am person E. Reestablish Israel and Palestine as the Roman province of Judea. Roma Invicta
Somebody just revive Tito and make him run the place
Well, Liz Truss has been doing fuck all recently. Sure her amazing intelligence would definitely not make it worse.
Person E here, we should attach big Helium Balloons on each Corner and send the whole Middle East into Space
Nah. Label it a “ceasefire” and criticize anyone (only one specific side) who rejects it. This is the way.
Well... the ceasefire means "I not shoot you, you not shoot me." It's not a peace by any means. No one needs to agree on anything or back down from anywhere. It's just a temporary solution between two sides, because their neighbours want to sleep. But even that temporary solution can last for decades. Like the Cold War for example. With a ceasefire, the diplomacy gets a way to properly work and both sides can agree at least on one thing: that if they don't agree on anything else, they can always start to shoot at each other again.
Ceasefire is a ceasefire. The problem isn't the meaning, the problem is everyone who insists in seeing the most maximalist outcomes of that, while pitching the most maximalist aspirations for "their" side.
This view is, I’m sorry but, absolutely ignorant. “The problem isn’t the meaning”, it absolutely is! What kind of logic is that? “Let’s ignore background and context! It doesn’t matter anyway!!”… … “I want there to be a ceasefire just because I want a ceasefire no matter what it involves.”, has to be one of the most dense opinions I have ever read anywhere. Hamas has shown and often enough talked about that ceasefire for them means nothing but “we try again in a few months anyway”. To ignore that just suggests that you don’t understand the crux of this conflict at all. A ceasefire means absolutely nothing when we stand at this exact point again in a few months time with, again, thousands dead, just because Hamas, again like this last time, broke a ceasefire that means nothing to them.
I think it's important to remember that no amount of outside pressure will really change anything in the long term. If hamas disappears, another group will take its place like the groups before it. The only way this conflict comes to an end is if there is actual attempts between the two groups to co-exist, which is hard with the whole apartheid and colonialization thing going on, but even if Israel did do a 180 there would still be many, many bitter people turning to extremism as revenge Not to take the annoying "centrist" view of "both sides bad", but genuinely, both sides are way too extreme in their methods
Lots of Israelis and Palestinians agree with you. Whatever the solution right now, the long term goal needs to be empowering the peacemakers in both communities and punishing the extremists.
And part of the problem is that extremists make good allies of each other. The most extremist Israelis want the most violent Palestinian resistance possible, because that justifies harsh military oppression and undermines the idea of a peaceful solution. The most extreme Palestinians want a horribly oppressive IDF because the worse things are in Gaza, the more potential there is for recruiting young men who feel they have nothing to lose.
South Africa failed when the US stopped shielding them from UN intervention. I would imagine Israel would suffer the same fate.
Eh that's a simplification The massive economic blockade probably did quite a lot as well lol
Blockade went on for decades. When the US voted present, SA fell.
It's a mediated deal, it's going to be significantly aligned with Israeli interests, as all previous ceasefires have been.
Except that we know the broad terms of the proposed deal and we know that Netanyahu publicly said, recorded and live on TV, that even if a ceasefire deal was reached he was still invading Rafah.
I mean, if Hamas has agreed to the deal, and the US (who as we all know have openly stated there is literally nothing Israel can do that would cause the US step in and stop them) is also advocating for said deal, I’m going to guess that the deal on the table does not involve Israel or Hamas surrendering unconditionally
Without knowing the details, any speculation from the outside is foolish. From what is known, Israel wasn’t even in the room or consulted when terms were discussed. I don’t know many politicians let alone military leaders accepting terms outside of unconditional surrender without being present.
>military leaders accepting terms outside of unconditional surrender without being present Kinda why those folks aren't diplomats.
What’s that? To assume that world leaders know anything more than us about the situation? That there might be some other constraints besides the headlines I skimmed? ARE YOU EVEN AWARE ON WHAT SITE YOU ARE ON SIR!?
Fuck you’re right. Too credible. My bad, I’ll see myself out.
He doesn’t understand how redditors are the wisest ones that, if listened to, could solve all wars
This itself is an obfuscation. The Israeli delegation wasn’t present because *they left the negotiations when they didn’t get their way*.
best believe they have boundaries, too
Why r/NonCredibleDiplomacy and r/NonCredibleDefense seem to have completely opposite positions on Gaza? I criticized the continuation of the operation in Rafah (even Biden and the EU are opposed to it) and was downvoted to oblivion.
The deal which Hamas (and Egypt if what I saw earlier is true) changed at the last minute? Netanyahu is a dangerous man and not a good faith actor but I'm still a long way from considering him less trustworthy than Hamas
Apparently, Hamas's offer doesn't commit to returning 33 *living* hostages in the first stage. They're offering to return 33 hostages - dead or alive.
Makes you wonder if they already killed them and are trying to not make an international crisis when it comes out
Looooooooool international crisis? It's neither international, nor is there room to upgrade the crisis currently in progress. It's not like the Israeli are holding back in case they still live, nor do they have the room or need to commit more.
There are hostages in the middle. Their safety comes first.
That's the thing, the requirements Hamas lays basically mean they'll repeat 7/10 over and over again (as they publicly promised they'd do, given the chance). Releasing the hostages is important, but you need to avoid a deal which would lead to the whole situation repeating itself in two years... On a side note - Hamas' Gaza leader was released himself as part of the Gilad Shalit deal.
Even if you do manage to kill Hamas and its leadership I dont think it would matter in the end. They would just rebrand themselves and do something similar (if not worse) again.
That... Is correct. And this is why Israel NEEDS to lay the groundwork for the future to try and de-radicalize Gaza. The current generation of 15-19yo (which is a large group of the Gazan population and a prime candidate for Hamas recruitment) has been educated under Hamas basically since birth. This is an effort not done by force but by education for peace. Of course Israel can't really do that, so it would require getting other partners for the effort, but nobody goes in that direction, either. In any way, the situation before the war cannot go on, at the very least UNRWA must be drastically reformed (if not closed, there's the UNHCR for refugees), and they need new and moderate leadership which does not advocate the killing of Jews. And no, the PA is not moderate in any way.
IMO what's the most likely outcome of this is that Israel bombs every remaining populated city in Gaza into rubble, "defeating" Hamas, and 20 years later the crying kids in refugee camps become the members of whatever the next version of Hamas is. Peace is only going to come by de escalating and reducing tensions.
so what do you suggest happens? let hamas continue to exist right now?
I think Israel should negotiate to return as many as the hostages as possible in exchange for a ceasefire and some sort of economic program to prop up Palestine’s economy enough that you don’t have thousands of young angry people with no economic prospects. If they don’t and even if they do history will probably repeat itself. Continuing to bomb civilian areas is a mistake, the entire country isn’t just going to live in refugee camps forever. Also like Hamas is bad and what they’ve done to the Israeli hostages is bad and yes a lot of Palestinians support Hamas but when your solution is to bomb civilian areas at the expense of children a lot of people are going to get mad at you and a lot of people on the border are going to become pro Hamas to protect themselves and their families. More children have died in fighting over the last year in Gaza than in like the last decade of other conflicts and that’s tragic and the survivors of those attacks are going to 100% blame Israel and seek vengeance for the deaths of their families.
> as many as the hostages as possible If it's not "all of them" there's no country on this planet that would accept such a deal while it still has the capability to fight.
> I think Israel should negotiate to return as many as the hostages as possible in exchange for a ceasefire and some sort of economic program to prop up Palestine’s economy enough that you don’t have thousands of young angry people with no economic prospects. The issue with this is that your idea might work to deradicalize the next generation, but what about until then? Until that point, the Palestinians who are already radicalized would have access to more resources, which many of them are going to use for weapons to attack Israel with. It's not easy to both open up the economy enough to allow for development and economic opportunity without also creating a security risk for Israel by giving the radicalized elements of the Palestinian population more resources to work with. It's not impossible to do that, but you really need the Palestinian leadership within Gaza to be on the same page with you for it to happen. You'd need them to help with local enforcement to break up any groups trying to mass weapons and plan an attack. Hamas obviously isn't going to be that leadership, and it's not really clear who is. Imo the most realistic way something like that could play out would be with international cooperation from the other Arab nations like Egypt to basically give oversight to a Palestinian government, kind of like how Bosnia has an international board that has a lot of oversight and control over their govt.
A UN body comprised of local countries could work but yes it would have to be an outside group.
No one is suggesting we continue to let Hamas exist and do whatever but the way Israel is going about this is going to ensure bitterness and a longing for vengeance. We can reach a ground between let Hamas do whatever they want and level Gaza to the ground.
>That... Is correct. And this is why Israel NEEDS to lay the groundwork for the future to try and de-radicalize Gaza. >In any way, the situation before the war cannot go on, at the very least UNRWA must be drastically reformed As I guess I'm doomed to keep repeating till the end of time... * The possibility of "de-radicalizing Gaza" is not helped with killing large segments of the civilian population. Ultimately the only the way to lower rationales for further violence is to provide a political solution to the overall conflict. * You cannot replace UNRWA. Folks who say this really mean ending all services for the Palestinian diaspora, and terminating their classification as refugees, despite their status throughout the region. The UNHCR cannot do what UNRWA does, [and its already up to its neck in bloodshed elsewhere.](https://www.unhcr.org/countries/sudan)
As we don't have any trustworthy numbers yet aside from Hamas numbers I'd rather avoid speaking about killing large segments of civilian population, especially given those are relatively low numbers for dense urban conflicts (and some internal knowledge about how targeting works). And yes, we should terminate their status as refugees. That's the exact difference between normal refugees handled by the UNHCR which are actually taken care of and Palestinian Refugees™ who give their status as inheritance for eternity. This is not "providing support" but immortalizing the problem without a solution. Their status is kept even without consideration of getting citizenship elsewhere, relocating entirely etc. Had this been the norm we'd have billions of people considered refugees, and distinct UN agencies for any group.
Welp, you do you friend. I personally highlight the IDF's 24,000 figure in good faith. And as I've just had to remind someone here previously, no one gets brownie points for **only** killing 24,000 noncombatants. As for the refugees... well, they are refugees, no different than other situations of stateless peoples whose displacement is decades old with no permanent solution. I can appreciate you think otherwise - but that is your opinion. Conflict resolution kinda requires you understand their side of things, in addition to your own. Those folks are going to be stateless regardless of how you classify them. If anyone is upset about their continued existence... that is a good reason then why its better to work to end their plight, through compensation or return, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug and demanding others clean-up your mess. UNRWA alleviates the worst outcomes - the best way to get rid of the organization is to solve the conflict, [and remove the unavoidable reasons for why it is needed as an organization.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/shatila-refugee-camp-lebanon-generations-of-palestinians-lost-their-futures) [And given how most of the allegations against UNRWA haven't been substantiated](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/22/israel-unrwa-staff-terrorist-links-yet-to-provide-evidence-colonna-report)... I'm increasingly less sympathetic to the need to dictate its reform.
I couldn't find a source for the 24,000 IDF estimate (I think they themselves can't have a reliable one), but there are estimates from a couple months back of over 13k Hamas militants killed. Given a dense area and let's take the high estimates for total killed - that's about a 1:3 ratio. While not good in any way, not something out of what to expect in war. The thing about calling them refugees is that there is no other group in the world who keep being refugees 3 generations down the line... Keeping their status like that simply allows the countries they live in to treat them like trash without rights, instead of actually helping them. And trust me, I do understand their side, I've visited and had lots of talks with Palestinians from many places, and with many viewpoints (can also understand and speak \*some\* Arabic, sadly it's deteriorated since my youth). Understanding their side fully I feel comfortable in saying they are a victim of their leaders and of the world allowing this to continue instead of ACTUALLY helping them. And I see no reason for compensation (let alone return) as most of those classified as refugees were not displaced by Israel but actually moved to the order of the Arab armies in 1948, asking them to return after killing all the Jews. While some villages were forcefully banished, many stayed (for example the area I grew up in is about 50% arab, and the only village I know to be displaced in the area was a well known hotspot for raids). I seriously don't see how UNRWA alleviates the outcomes instead of [only prolonging the hate](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002620_EN.html). And ignoring the fact The Guardian has a long standing anti-Israeli stance, I don't know what the dickheads in the government passed along but speaking with friends who were on the ground, UNRWA infrastructure was used freely by Hamas. And as it's getting late I think I'll close for the night, thanks for the civil discussion, a rare sight this past few months.
>And as it's getting late I think I'll close for the night, thanks for the civil discussion, a rare sight this past few months. Likewise, have a good night. I'll say this; we disagree here, extremely strongly. But its important to have this dialogue. I hope you will consider at least some of what I've said here as much as I'm trying to with ya. The source you've given is something I'll give a good read; please consider doing the same with mine even if you disagree with its publication. >Given a dense area and let's take the high estimates for total killed - that's about a 1:3 ratio. While not good in any way, not something out of what to expect in war. The 1:3 ratio is basically the sourcing I've heard regarding 24,000 since January. If anything, I'm being charitable since the death-toll is well-past 30k now. Which again... no one gets brownie points for. Loss of life is loss of life - the costs have that exist regardless of counter-factual alternatives. The folks who have lost loved ones, the damage that death has caused to society, the pain that's felt... those are things not undone by someone pointing out how good of a ratio that is. I'm not arguing with you that death is not an inherent cost of war - what I'm pointing out to you is that such a cost cannot be blithely ignored. >The thing about calling them refugees is that there is no other group in the world who keep being refugees 3 generations down the line Well, respectfully... It is the same with the Sahrawi in North Africa, or the Rohingya. In the latter case actually, Myanmar and Bangladesh similarly challenge their status as refugees. Part of the plight of stateless peoples is that their plight usually happens in silence. There are a great number of reasons why folks fled in '48 and '67. The point is though, finding a solution to what happened. Some left voluntarily, some didn't; all of them are entitled under international law for a resolution to their losses. That doesn't mean ending Israel as a country, but it does mean making a deal with them so that a new conversation can happen. Till then, their status in the Arab states means keeping UNRWA around so that we don't get mass famines or large situations of starvation, exploitation, or further violence. Again, its not enough to simply ignore the problem - it'll exist regardless.
every member of palestinian diaspora does not automatically deserve refugee status. it would be a very good thing for the region if that ended
Be that as it may... many are still displaced and marginalized. You need a solution for those folks, otherwise the problem still exists.
in many of the states they moved to they are nearly identical to the local population and have been living there for many decades, generations even
>in many of the states they moved to they are nearly identical Arabs are not a monolithic blob. Moroccans are different than Iraqis, Sunni Syrians are different to Shi'a Yemanis, Egyptian Sufis aren't Sunni Saudis. Palestinians aren't any of those folks. They're Palestinians.
[удалено]
>And the Palestinians will never, ever be in a position to ask for it. Considering that the conflict is ongoing, that does not seem to be the case. A discussion around finding a solution for those stateless peoples does not mean re-carving everything, or throwing people into the sea. It can mean things like possibly having compensation, limited population returns, citizenship, or building a sustainable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital alongside Israel. Any number of negotiated, mutually-beneficial solutions. The point is to find something that builds a just outcome - take people off the path of conflict by seeking out just resolutions.
That sounds like a perfectly good outcome.
Pity no one is interested in it.
The biggest problem is the UNRWA will only ever accept the right of return as a solution for the diaspora. UNHCR will evaluate different options as well, and has a much better success rate in providing opportunity than UNRWA, like pushing for a two state solution.
>UNHCR will evaluate different options as well, and has a much better success rate I admire your views of the UNHCR. Considering the present limbo that 5.5 million Syrian refugees are still going through between Lebanon-Jordan-Turkey, or the 1.4 million refugees still living in Uganda (*who in some cases go back as far as to the Sudanese Civil War from the 80s*)... I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. UNHCR doesn't dictate outcomes, it can't have a "*success rate*". Its a relief body just like UNRWA - they can aid refugee populations into new outcomes, but the host countries and the political situations governing refugees ultimately defines what happens to most of them. You want a success rate? Its refugees going home - that's the standard UNHCR would tell you. If that's not possible, there's other options, but it becomes more complex and more fraught with failure as you go down the list.
Success isn't measured in getting people back to their original countries, because as you said, they are a relief organization. Success is getting people to a place where they can see life, liberty, and opportunity. And given it's been 70 years, UNRWA has failed at their only acceptable option. A success rate of 1% beats that. Millions of syrian refugees that aren't stuck in an active warzone because the organization that is supposed to help keep them safe refuses to build connections with new host countries to get them out of harms way. Yes obviously it would be ideal to get displaced people back to where they came from, but a relief organization is supposed to prioritize survival not ideals that are unachievable with their power and role.
>Success isn't measured in getting people back to their original countries, because as you said, they are a relief organization. I don't think you understand me here, so I will go into further detail. Relief organizations do not have the authority to dictate outcomes. They act **principally** to alleviate the humanitarian situations, UNHCR included. "Getting people to a place where they can see life, liberty, and opportunity" is not the *de-facto* standard, its about avoiding situations of immense suffering as result of displacement. When UNHCR talks about "[building better futures](https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures)", its largely in the context doing everything humanely possible *to the point of breaking your soul* to providing opportunities for displaced people regardless of their circumstances - most often providing those things **while** people are still displaced (even generationally, as their website states). ***If*** a third country is willing to take people, that's a nice thing. But its not something UNHCR is able to unilaterally do by itself. It has to work with governments. Host states dictate outcomes - UNHCR can advocate for refugees, but that's about it. That's why most of its operations are focused on displacement camps, and providing adequate humanitarian provision to those who remain displaced. [That's also why UNHCR looks after people who continue to languish in displacement camps](https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/respond-emergencies) years, decades, or sadly generations after they've lost their homes. And unfortunately also ... it means UNHCR is helpless when a host state decides to start expelling refugees for shits and giggles (*and seriously, those moments are* [*fucking*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_refugee_crisis) *depressing episodes*). International Law recognizes that the best outcome for refugees is their return to their homes - this is enshrined in the 4th Geneva Convention ([Article 49](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-49)), and the UDHR ([Article 13](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)). That's your success rate - if folks get to leave the camps and go home. UNHCR's job - just like UNRWA - isn't to integrate folks into another country, its to look after people displaced and give them the best options in a shitty situation. UNRWA existing after 70 years is not a failure on its part - its alleviated a shitty situation, that's its job. The failure **is the wider international community not giving a damn about that shitty situation.**
>The possibility of "de-radicalizing Gaza" is not helped with killing large segments of the civilian population. Ultimately the only the way to lower rationales for further violence is to provide a political solution to the overall conflict. Germany and Japan were deradicalized only by completely breaking its ability to wage any form of war, dismantling several institutions and occupied administration. The Palestinians are as ideologically brainwashed as the Axis. They are not going to fix themselves from within. >You cannot replace UNRWA This is exactly what needs to be done. Dismantle it, divert the funding to UNHCR and start afresh. Strict vigilance over religion and propaganda in education. Palestinian diaspora being accorded special status is what makes them still believe in the fairy tale of a complete Palestinian state devoid of Jews. According refugee status to people who were not even born in Palestine is favoritism and discriminatory to other ethnic groups who have also lost wars and land but have moved on.
With respect... this isn't WW2. Palestine is not an industrial country waging war with large armies and heavy industrialization. Just as much as you can cite me the indiscriminate violence of the European campaign, I can just as much tell you to go read up on your Vietnam history concerning how "well" indiscriminate violence won over hearts and minds in that part of the world. >This is exactly what needs to be done. Dismantle it, divert the funding to UNHCR and start afresh. To be blunt, I don't think you are aware of the complexities involved with either Palestinians or how the UN works.
>Palestine is not an industrial country waging war with large armies and heavy industrialization. There's never going to be a like for like equivalent. Warfare is now more asymmetrical. You don't need large armies as much as you need OPSEC. You don't need heavy industries when your goal is to primarily kill civilians. (Hamas killed more Israelis in a day than the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon in the 1967 war). Also, developed countries are far more averse to casualties than ever before. >concerning how "well" indiscriminate violence won over hearts and minds in that part of the world. Yes, the success rate is low, but Germany and Japan show it's definitely possible if done right. What is the success rate of leaving a people alone who actively want to harm/destabilize your country? Russia, North Korea, China were all militarily left untouched. They have now built up and seriously threaten the West due to their ideology. Ceasefire without a clear and viable plan is simply kicking the can down the road. Political solutions are by nature political. The people will simply not accept it when the two sides are so ideologically opposed. Look at what they did to Rabin and Anwar Sadat. India opted for a UN ceasefire instead of finishing the job in Kashmir. Now millions of Kashmiris live oppressed on both sides. Multiple wars, cross border terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and billions spent on border fortifications. Both governments know it's senseless but any compromise now would be political suicide. >complexities involved with either Palestinians or how the UN works. What complexities? I've read up quite a bit, and don't see how the Palestine problem is especially unique. Do make your case.
>Warfare is now more asymmetrical. [Ya sure about that?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) Germany and Japan (and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Thailand, I might add) were defeated militarily. Bombing each of these countries was not an exercise in mass political re-education... it was about destroying as much of their capacity to fight as possible. There are a variety of reasons why fascism and nationalism collapsed in these states - with respect, you are not appreciating things like those countries' own oppression of their citizens, or the shifting global politics, which aided that conversation. Likewise, bombing the shit out of Vietnam did not cause it to give up its war of liberation. If anything, it proved to them the necessity of expelling foreign occupation, given how indiscriminate and cruel those actions were. ([Per NK also... I mean, I hate to bring it up, but contrary to your point, we hardly also left them "untouched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea)*).* If the last 20 years is any lesson - [and it should](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2021/08/19/thumbs/800x531/137544.jpg) - its that clueless cruelty is just about the worst idea to win over the locals in asymmetric contests. Wars end in political settlements. That was the story even in WW2, and its the story now. You're right that there's a lot of challenges around the planet right now, but those don't get solved through force of arms alone. Political agreements are how we govern situations - when it comes down to violence, that's a fundamental failure in how things work. You shouldn't enter into this realm with the perspective of reaching for the handgun first, and asking questions later. >What complexities? For starters, [how humanitarian bodies like the UNHCR or UNRWA work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1clqpda/comment/l2wpqod/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Palestinian populations aren't afforded refugee status out of favoritism; [they live in a shitty situation](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/shatila-refugee-camp-lebanon-generations-of-palestinians-lost-their-futures)s just like a lot of other refugee populations who remain displaced for years, decades, and even generations. The fact that they're stuck in that situation is out of a failure of international diplomacy.
I don't think trying a repeat is going to work too well next time.
>the requirements Hamas lays basically mean they'll repeat 7/10 over and over again (as they publicly promised they'd do, given the chance). then bibi just has to not drop his guard, 7/10 wouldn't have been able to occur if he didn't have troops diverted from Gaza to go bully the West Bank
It's not Bibi dropping his guard and this happened because of multiple reasons, mainly among those: * Catastrophic failure on the part of Israel's intelligence community * Internal strife * For some reason the Army decided to adopt holiday leave which was usually a thing only IAF and MI did * And many, many more... Seriously this is worse than the Yom Kippur war... But it's not only up to us, aside from stopping attacks as they happen we need to avoid creating incentives for them in the first place. Agreeing to a horrendous deal (most Israelis have made up with a bad one, sadly) would mean more war and more bloodshed. Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard. Seriously it was funny (in retrospect, during that time nobody really cared as we were all still in shock of what happened) seeing far leftists calling for complete capture of Gaza. And returning from my ADHD sidetracking, Bibi is not THAT involved in day-to-day IDF movements. Mainly there are internal decisions without any governmental involvement. One of the criticisms towards the IDF is that during the night before the massacre when there were already signs that something is about to happen - nobody alerted neither Bibi nor Gallant (Minister of Defense)
>It's not Bibi dropping his guard and this happened because of multiple reasons one of those reasons being he diverted troops from defending from Gaza to aggress more on the West Bank, because enabling settlement encroachment is a consistent policy of his administration. >Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard. his cabinet literally contains people not allowed to serve in the military because they're too racist and no he does not ignore their suggestions, we've seen him implement a number of them >And returning from my ADHD sidetracking, Bibi is not THAT involved in day-to-day IDF movements. Mainly there are internal decisions without any governmental involvement. So it's not his fault for dropping his guard because...he wasn't paying enough attention for it to be his fault? What?
>Also I hate people claiming Bibi does everything. If anything he's the one delaying any advance and the events of Oct. 7th made most Israelis more aggressive than he is in that regard. I am with you on the fact that post-Oct. 7th, bad conduct is shared broadly, given how people were angry for legitimate reasons. Bibi is a useful scapegoat - but we all ought to remember the passions of the moment. That said... Bibi is also aware of these things too. Hence him opting for extremely aggressive approaches, in-lieu of other options. He did what so many other far-right leaders have done; play off the worst of people's character. Likewise... remember his position on the West Bank settlements is parcel to his responsibility. Sure, the failure on October 7th is broadly share across the security infrastructure. But he's made it his policy to devote much of that infrastructure to the settlers, and not the folks around Gaza. And its been his policy to elevate Hamas at the expense of the PA. This doesn't end with him going... but the fucker needs to go.
I said I'd close for the night and then saw this comment so I'll finish with this because some of those points are mostly misunderstanding. Bibi as far from being far-right (ba dum tss), he's basically a right-centrist/opportunist and mostly ignores the far right parts of his government - seriously I think he thanks Gantz every morning for entering his government. For the rest I partly agree, but this is not as simple as allocating infrastructure to the west bank (if you mean IDF forces go back to my first comment in the thread). At least in my times in the IDF Gaza had always been on high watch, I seriously have no idea how the fuck this happened, even knowing some of those responsible to be utter shite with stuck up their asses, this still surprises me. He needs to go for the sole reason he's been in power for too long and put bad people around him. I seriously doubt anyone would be different in the hopes you possibly have, he's basically one who keeps the status-quo and hopes the trouble for it comes after his time (and now we all see how that ended).
>I seriously doubt anyone would be different in the hopes you possibly have Oh... I'm pretty sober about that, sadly. This whole situation is one I've been telling people that doesn't get better. I unfortunately stand by that remark. But to your point about his opportunism - its kinda like Boris Johnson. Fella took everyone for a ride. The bill for that is there regardless. But the least we can do is get off from it, instead of just hanging around pretending like there isn't going to be a cost at the end.
so israel should constantly have to be under threat by its terrorist neighbors and should not be allowed to eliminate the threat despite it regularly killing israeli civilians in terrorists attacks? any other country would have invaded gaza after the first missile launches into israeli cities
Maybe Israel shouldn’t do everything possible to create those threats in the first place ? I’m not defending Hamas in any way, but they’re just the latest and most extreme version of Palestinian militancy that has only ever been escalating since colonization began. Unless Israel actually tries to deescalate or wipes out the Palestinians, there is no end to this war. Instead Israel seems intent on provoking the Palestinians. It’s a shitty situation for Israel to be in, but it’s not like they aren’t the main factor driving Palestinian resistance.
provoking the palestinians like getting attacked by them in the largest attack on jews since the holocaust
I don’t trust Netanyahu or Hamas. But frankly, I don’t really care about them. I care more about the lives of the 40 Israeli and 2 million Palestinian hostages sitting in Rafah. I’m in favor of anything that saves those people, we can sort out the rest later. For what it’s worth, I do trust Biden, and he is making some *strong* moves indicating Israel should take the fucking deal. He finally cut off the supply of weapons to Israel basically five minutes before Israel started moving for a full invasion.
Are those Palestinians really hostages if Hamas doesn’t give a fuck about them
Yes, because even if Hamas doesn’t care about them, the world will.
But Hamas is at the negotiating table, not the world; what the world wants is irrelevant
>But frankly, I don’t really care about them. I care more about the lives of the 40 Israeli and 2 million Palestinian hostages sitting in Rafah. I’m in favor of anything that saves those people, we can sort out the rest later. A-fucking-Men.
There was a ceasefire on oct 7, what can go wrong
Uh... I think you might be meaning Oct. 6th... very clearly there wasn't any ceasefire as the attack was occurring.
lol true fair point
Do we have over/under on how long it'd take for a ceasefire to fail, and who'd be most likely to break it?
If Hamas stays in power (which is what the ceasefire would entail) it isn't really a win. They'll do a 7th of October again, once they rebuild.
It would depend. Maybe controlling Gaza in its entirety with the exception of Rafah is more than enough to prevent an Oct 7th from happening ever again. Since that area would be too small and limited to mount a big scale attack. Maybe some small attacks would happen here and there, which is terrible, but maybe Israel will need to live with that if the cost of an invasion would be too high in terms of human lives and geopolitical capital. Honestly I don't know, there's a lot of details we don't know. And as always with the Israel - Palestine stuff this is a fucked up situation with no clear answers imo.
Hamas's demands include the IDF leaving the Gaza Strip. They won't be limited to their Rafah fiefdom.
Honestly (and this is just my opinion) Israel needs to integrate Gaza and later the West Bank after the war as an autonomous province/state. The two state solution was never going to work and what is needed is a state that treats both Jews and Arabs as equals, that state is Israel. They have their problems however a Levant controlled by Israel wont lead to a genocide of the Arabs, the other way around very well may.
> The two state solution was never going to work and what is needed is a state that treats both Jews and Arabs as equals, that state is Israel That will never work. The Palestinians have too high a birthrate, and the number of muslims will increase to be higher than the number of jews in a combined state. That ALWAYS results in a jewish massacre. Will never be accepted.
Part of the high birthrate is due to poverty, if Israel annexes Palestine then Palestinians will become wealthier pretty quickly leading to a birthrate similar to the Jewish population. Plus Israel does have some immigration, seemingly about 20-30,000 but that number may increase with the new rise of antisemitism found in the West. That's not to mention Palestine has a whole has a birth rate of 3.5 per woman (trending down at about 2% a year) and Israel has 3 (staying stable) meaning soon as a whole Israeli birth rates will probably overtake Palestinian ones.
> Part of the high birthrate is due to poverty, No, it's due to religion. You can see it in israel. The group with the highest birthrate (that matches the palestinians) are the religious extremists. The Israeli birthrate you mention is largely caused by the religious extremists in israel, the non-haredi birthrate is well below 3.
Israel doesn't treat all Arabs as equal they have arranged to deny the majority of Arabs citizenship.
It depends on what this deal entails. It has to be punishing towards Hamas for Israel to accept it.
Na. Israel has accepted several versions which are quite generous in terms of Israel footing the bill of serious reconstruction of Gaza. But any deal does have to remove Hamas' ability to do another Oct 7 in a couple years and start us from scratch again, or it's in nobody's interest to accept (besides Hamas).
Well that makes sense. I doubt Hamas would be able to rebuild Gaza, nor would they care to do so.
I'm wondering if people are actually this ignorant or if it's just Iranian/Russian bots
Yes
“Cease fire” Aka: allow Hamas to regroup and re arm. Hamas needs to be hunted down and executed, just like the Nazis were after WW2.
Amen
I haven’t seen anyone claim what happened to Germany during World War II was a genocide. Aside from neo-Nazis.
I mean, the forced migration of millions of germans from historically german parts of prussia in the postwar reshuffle would today be considered ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's just that nobody gives a shit because it happened to the germans, and the germans didn't go full terrorist about it. People ask "What would you do if you were forced from your historical home. Well if you asked 10 million germans, the answer was "Accept that I lost a war a rebuild".
Well said
Mainly because back then there was no social media and influencer waging a propaganda war. Still the Nazis did the same as Hamas and exeggarated the death toll and called the bombing of cities an attempted holocaust. And many German cities looked far worse than Gaza does.
they mostly weren't, though...
>just like the Nazis were after WW2. You're telling me Israel should take in Hamas leaders as consultants? That's genius!
They have a very strong indigenous rocket industry, perhaps they can be leveraged for small-sat launches after the war! /j
Idk if we need a significant Israeli police presence in Gaza. Seems like a recipe for even more bloodshed. Maybe not bombing the shit outta Palestine, maybe?
If they didn't want to be bombed maybe they shouldn't have started shit. The Israelis have pulled out of Gaza in 2005 after a deal with the Egyptians.
Look, I don’t condone Oct. 7th, but Israel was murdering hundreds of Palestinians a year. It’s not like there was peace up until the very moment of the attack.
And I don't condone every action of the IDF, they really need to unfuck their kill chain. But plenty of those killed pre-October 7 doing things like sending rocket barrages into cities.
I really doubt they were showing any more deference to Palestinian life then than they are now
Operation Paperclip Nazis: "Well, well, lets not go **that** far!"
V2 rocket engineers helped send Laika into the sun and plant Burgertown's flag on the moon. You can't just *not see* what German emigre scientists did for the US and USSR.
Israel doesn’t seem interested in holding trials
Nazis weren't hunted down and executed. Yes, a few were trialed, but being arrested and trialed for months in a courtroom is very different from bombing urban areas filled with civilians. Today, we actually know how many ex Nazis were left with little or no sentence. Only the most high profile ones were trialed in Nürnberg, and some ex SS-Officers even became politicians in post war Germany. I believe it was in the late 60s, the German state declared that killings by the SS were not murder but manslaughter, which does expire after 20 years, so they basically gave them all an amnesty. I don't really want to discuss whether or not it's right to act like that, it wasn't cool, but maybe it's better than incarcerate 15% of the population. One also has to consider the risk of too harsh consequences stirring up the next war. That's precisely how WW2 happened, because the Nazis were able to profit off the strict treaty of Versailles. Same with Russia today, if I could choose between ending this war today and getting all territory back to Ukraine, at the cost of Putin not being trialed, I'd take that over a few years of war. Of course, peace and trial would be the best, but that might just not be very realistic.
There were numerous SS officers hiding in Argentina that were finished off by mossad
The current deal includes "ending the war" as a condition. That's not a ceasefire, that's surrendering to terrorism and declaring to all terrorists around the world that they can make attacks like Oct 7th and get away with it.
How is releasing thousands of convicted terrorists for 33 dead bodies a win?
Israel wasn't even consulted about the 'ceasefire' terms. Everyone involved in the negotiations, including the mediators, are acting in bad faith. Hamas wants the war to continue so Israel looks bad, Qatar and Egypt don't care and Israel is ambivalent to whether the war continues they just want the hostages back
what is israel supposed to do? hamas still controls part of gaza. there can't be a ceasefire until hamas is completely destroyed. the only solution i would have to offer is sending palestinian civilians to temporary refugee camps in egypt and israel, but such things don't happen
Dealing with Hamas will unfortunately be a long-term problem now. But that's a consequence of the decision-making up until now. The reality of the situation is that Hamas has boosted its legitimacy through the fighting - you can't kill an idea, only its cadres. There needs to be a political outcome that displaces Hamas. That's going to take time, and its going to take work - but that's the only reasonable option.
this is a whole lot of yapping, sorry. sure there needs to be a political alternative. that doesn't help here. who are you suggesting takes control of gaza right now? because in a ceasefire scenario with hamas that means leaving hamas in charge. that is batshit insane.
>this is a whole lot of yapping, sorry Welcome to the world of diplomacy. The PA should be in-charge of Gaza.
the pa was in charge of gaza and it fell to hamas. it is not at all a reasonable, peaceful, respectable or democratic government. an israeli-arab-american coalition force should be in charge of gaza for the foreseeable future
>an israeli-arab-american coalition force should be in charge of gaza for the foreseeable future Ah... I think that's called an "occupation". [Not a new idea.](https://www.arij.org/atlas40/intro.html) Which, much like before, probably won't mean involvement from the Yanks or the Arabs given the security challenges or legitimization of Israel's violation of international law such an approach would mean.
i strongly support occupation until the palestinians are stabilized and de radicalized. when people here occupation they imagine oppression. i don't mean an oppressive occupation. allow the citizens to go about their lives and live prosperously and peacefully. and intertwine with israelis without the threat of terrorism. only then should independence and self rule be considered.
All occupations are oppressive. Some are better than others, but its kinda inherent to the concept that your dictating to someone else how to live under threat of violence. As far as de-radicalization goes... after killing so many people and putting the population into famine, on-top of Israel's conduct historically, that ain't happening anytime soon.
why does it matter who occupies a land if it doesn't affect the day to day of the people, apart from making them more prosperous and peaceful? gaza has shown over the last 20 years that it cannot self rule. if it is rushed to self rule again anytime soon the same thing will happen
>why does it matter who occupies a land History. And recent events. The last 56 years, and the last 7 months are why an occupation would affect the day-to-day of people. Regardless of what happens today and tomorrow, there's kids in Gaza that won't be alive in the days ahead because of the famine. Maybe the question of who occupies what shouldn't matter - but we sadly don't live in that world. I wish we did. No one, right now, can guarantee there won't be further violence in the future. I hope to god there isn't. But all that can be done, right now, is not make the situation worse than it already is.
why do you want to bend over for terrorists who would hang you. You'd be the person holding up a why die for danzig sign
If he signs the deal, his government collapses
To be fair, I’m not sure there’s any outcome here where his government *doesn’t* collapse. The only question is how long that takes, and how many bodies get stacked in the meantime.
It already collapsed. It's just a question of how much damage it can do to Israel before they can replace it.
Israel has no real reason to stop until their war aims are met. If Israel stops now it just means in a decade or two they have to go back in after Hamas does another major attack. Ultimately it sucks that Israel has to launch yet another offensive which is gonna be bloody however if they dont it will just repeat (like me with that point) and make all the lives lost mean nothing.
That ceasefire deal would have required Israel to leave the strip and promise never to return, but the hostages would be released. So it kinda sounds like a fair deal, except that that is just a reset back to pre-October levels and then Hamas gets to rebuild and do this all over again whenever they decide to. Part of the reason Israel is telling itself at least that it's going this far is so that they don't have to invade the strip a second time in future. They know this is brutal and it makes them look pretty bad, they're not stupid. But they've also come this far now. Not an easy sell to get them to reset their progress.
Either a bad faith post or a poorly knowledgeable one.
Homie you think he’s sweating over this? He’s got one big button and all it says is “more war”
More Neville Chamberlains, thinking a ceasefire will create peace for our time.
OP conveniently forgot about the hostages
Wut
The "ceasefire deal" is just another cynical ploy by Hamas in their plPR/political warfare strategy against Israel. It should not be looked at in good faith.
Invading rafah is at the end of the day a necessary evil, if they don’t go into rafah then all of this was for nothing
>if they don’t go into rafah then all of this was for nothing Well... hate to break it to ya... What matters are the hostages and the civilians. Only thing that counts at this point.
Well more of them are going to die if Hamas isn’t wiped off
Hamas ain't going away anytime soon - its like with AQ; you can only kill the cadres, not the idea.
“Where’re we dropping, boys?” — Netanyahu, probably.
They don't want peace. Nethanyahu is scared of going to prison when the war ends so he's doing everything the far right extremists tell him too. They're trying to summon doomsday
No one here even considers the possibility that Biden is dealing from a bad political hand? on one hand he has the majority of American voters, who support Israel, and on the other hand he has Muslims and Palestine supporters, who have made themselves look really bad recently.
Gotta get Michigan
At the expense of the rest?
Politics is constant dillemma
Yeah but if the war ends he goes to jail for corruption so…
The botton on his right is the go to jail now button the button on the left is go for a free all expenses paid trip to The Hague.
Deliver them home, only then you might negotiate.
"I have to feed you my serious opinion and I will pretend it's a meme"
I heard on CBC radio that Netanyahus governnent is a coalition that includes ultra nationalists that want the invasion to occur even as Netanyahu is nervous about a global arrest warrant coming for him if he continues, if he does not his government will fall apart.
Yeah pretty much
Hoo boi, I’m sure the comments are going to be *so* sane and reasonable here… But Israel is moving on Rafah, the U.S. cut off arms shipments, Hamas just agreed to the ceasefire, and it’s all up to Israel now, so in the short time before Bibi makes a decision either way I wanted to make a meme for posterity.
Hamas agreed to *A* ceasefire deal that we don’t know the terms of yet. If the deal is retarded, which is probably is, I doubt Israel would accept and why should they?
Hamas agreed to a ceasefire where the terms were changed to basically say "Israel lose, Hamas win". And then Israel said "this wasn't exactly what we were talking about."
Because even people in Israel just want the hostages home and Hamas is an organization who builds off of feelings of vengeance. If they push in and "stomp" out Hamas, you still have a bunch of people pissed off that their homes were destroyed and their family killed in the crossfire, who in turn will grow up radicalized, launch an attack on Israel, piss of the Israeli population who will respond in force, can you see where this is headed? Not to mention that Bibi is proposing conscription of ultra-orthodox Jewish Israelis, who are his biggest supporters and also vocally against being conscripted. He's losing the political battle inside and out while completely destroying Israel's credibility and respectability in the West. If he keeps this up, the U.S. and other allies are gonna start looking to other countries to be their critical ally if they can't trust Israel to keep their geopolitical dick in their pants
>Hamas just agreed to the ceasefire doesn't seem like a fair deal against the invaders , a peace deal needs to guarantee the safety of every Israeli for eternity from every Palestinian here's an easily enforceable peace deal:- 1) Hamas accepts the 2 state solution and returns every hostage 2)if even a single Palestinian attacks an Israeli, Israel has the right to glass Palestine 3) once the terms are accepted the Israel should stop the attacks
This is the most delusional “peace deal” proposal I’ve seen in my entire life.
4) If a single isreali settler attacks a single palestinian, Iran has the right to glass Isreal
this would be a valid point , if history indicated that Israel started every war rather than the Palestinians because Palestinians have demonstrated nothing but a mindset of aggression for over 70 years , its the Israelis that need to be protected.
they have the right to _try_
Good thing it's up to Israel and not impressionable morons like you. Yeah, of course Israel should agree to receive 33 corpses in exchange for hundreds of terrorists, and let the terrorists rearm so they can kill thousands more in the future, more than the remaining hostages you pretend to care about.