[jameshilliard]

> Probably because Israel violated the ceasefire earlier this year (that was a sham from the beginning) that lasted from January to March. The first phase of the ceasefire saw an exchange of hostages, but then the Israelis refused to move on to the second phase and broke the ceasefire by bombing Gaza in the middle of the night, killing over 400 Palestinians in one day, including over 200 children.

Israel has been rather consistent that a permanent ceasefire will only happen when Hamas effectively surrenders and gives up power. Hamas had also refused to continue releasing hostages which effectively ended the ceasefire(as the terms of the second phase were never finalized).

> Not to mention the fact that Israel just killed a top Hamas negotiator in Doha, Qatar only a few weeks ago. [1] How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?

I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate. That seemed to work out with Hezbollah at least.

[Braxton1980]

>I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate.

That's insane and not how you negotiate.

[jameshilliard]

> That's insane not how you negotiate

So how exactly do you negotiate with genocidal terrorists that refuse to surrender despite having clearly lost a war? There certainly isn't an easy solution here.

[Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe]

> that refuse to surrender

The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.

> how exactly

By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.

And from a guerrila warfare point of view, I disagree that they "clearly lost the war".

[jameshilliard]

> The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.

It actually doesn't have to be negotiated, one side can simply make a demand for surrender with their terms and then apply military pressure until capitulation. This is largely what happened with Germany/Japan in WW2.

> By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.

If it's clear the current negotiators/leaders will never surrender then there is arguably no benefit in keeping those particular negotiators/leaders alive. Once an organizations leadership tree is wiped out a few levels deep there's a decent chance you will get negotiators/leaders that will eventually capitulate to the demands(i.e. like what happened with Hezbollah).

[noitpmeder]

Well Israel's current solution is to impose famine and genocide on the civilian population. This certainly isn't the right solution here.

[jameshilliard]

> Well Israel's current solution is to impose famine and genocide on the civilian population.

There is no credible evidence that there is famine or genocide occurring in Gaza. Obviously the situation in Gaza is bad but that's to be expected for a war.

[twixfel]

This thread is literally about an article in which it is outlined that there is indeed a famine in Gaza.

[jameshilliard]

> This thread is literally about an article in which it is outlined that there is indeed a famine in Gaza.

It's not credible however[0]. There have been many claims without appropriate evidence for a while[1] and those involved tend to be antisemitic individuals interested only in pushing a specific narrative regardless of the facts on the ground.

[0] https://unwatch.org/hillel-neuer-on-sky-news-fabricated-u-n-...

[1] https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-un-food-rapporteur-mic...

[Braxton1980]

If Israel believes they are genocidal terrorists that won't surrender why are they even negotiating?

You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both

[jameshilliard]

> If Israel believes they are genocidal terrorists that won't surrender why are they even negotiating?

One reason would be to try and get back as many hostages as possible, regardless of whether or not the terrorists surrender.

> You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both

One can still attack an enemy while negotiating with them, I see no reason one would have to pick one option over the other.

It's not at all uncommon to negotiate with ones enemies while you attack them(including trying to kill them). If Israel explicitly gave the enemy representatives they were negotiating with diplomatic immunity then one might have a better argument against attacking those with immunity, but that was AFAIU not the case here.