Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Braxton1980 256 days ago
>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.
1 comments
jameshilliard 256 days ago
> 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.

link
Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 256 days ago
> 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".

link
jameshilliard 256 days ago
> 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).

link
noitpmeder 256 days ago
Well Israel's current solution is to impose famine and genocide on the civilian population. This certainly isn't the right solution here.
link
jameshilliard 256 days ago
> 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.

link
twixfel 256 days ago
This thread is literally about an article in which it is outlined that there is indeed a famine in Gaza.
link
jameshilliard 256 days ago
> 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...

link
Braxton1980 255 days ago
As opposed to the first source you posted which is the text of a sky news interview with Hillel Neuer

From wiki "Neuer was selected as one of the "top 100 most influential Jewish people in the world" by Israeli newspaper Maariv,[9] and by the Algemeiner Journal in 2017. He is an outspoken defender of Israel[10][11] and critic of the UN's human rights councils' actions.[12]"

So he's not pushing a pro-Israel view? How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?

I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense

link
Braxton1980 255 days ago
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

link
jameshilliard 254 days ago
> 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.

link