They could return the hostages, pacify, sue for peace, and get back freedoms and rights and safety at the cost of lands they were never getting back anyway.
And who’s going to ensure that they actually do get those freedoms and rights and safety back once this “deal” has been made? Frankly, I don’t believe the Israelis will ever give them back anything once it’s been taken away. There’s zero good faith to be had any more. The Israelis want them to completely cease to exist and they’re just probing around looking for the right way to make that happen without completely losing the support of their international sugar daddies.
The Palestinians also want the Israelis to cease to exist, of course. But as you have so eloquently put it, the Israelis are the ones who have the power to actually make the choices here. So I place the lion’s share of the blame for failing to find a compromise on them.
And who’s going to ensure that they actually do get those freedoms and rights and safety back once this “deal” has been made?
Any guarantees must be negotiated for. I’d say at this point releasing the hostages is a prerequisite for the war to end and that negotiation process to begin.
Frankly, I don’t believe the Israelis will ever give them back anything once it’s been taken away. There’s zero good faith to be had any more.
As in, they don’t trust Israel to adhere to terms of a treaty they agreed to? Well, they could invite in the UN or the US or some other neutral party like Egypt to verify that terms are met, with legal consequences if they are not.
Perhaps they can negotiate for some lands back, perhaps not, but I doubt they will get anything like the sweetheart deal they declared war over in '48. Palestine still has more to lose and have very little leverage so I’d expect any viable treaty to be written with this in mind; concessions will have to be made.
Keep in mind that the alternative is that current trends continue and they risk losing everything.
The Israelis want them to completely cease to exist and they’re just probing around looking for the right way to make that happen without completely losing the support of their international sugar daddies.
That’s not my take, they seem more like they are frustrated that their regularly and overwhelmingly-defeated enemy refuses to pacify themselves despite taking ever more from them and building a massive security apparatus around them. None of it has worked, so I suspect they will continue annexing more lands to create distance because wiping them out isn’t an option, whether you think it’s because of “international sugar daddies,” or their own history of being subjected to genocidal extermination, Israel is playing by a different and more humane playbook, even if it is still quite bloody.
I place the lion’s share of the blame for failing to find a compromise on them.
It’s their fault for not compromising with an enemy who is uncompromising? One of their demands is driving them into the sea, how can one compromise with this, especially when they hold all the cards?
And who’s going to ensure that they actually do get those freedoms and rights and safety back once this “deal” has been made? Frankly, I don’t believe the Israelis will ever give them back anything once it’s been taken away. There’s zero good faith to be had any more. The Israelis want them to completely cease to exist and they’re just probing around looking for the right way to make that happen without completely losing the support of their international sugar daddies.
The Palestinians also want the Israelis to cease to exist, of course. But as you have so eloquently put it, the Israelis are the ones who have the power to actually make the choices here. So I place the lion’s share of the blame for failing to find a compromise on them.
Any guarantees must be negotiated for. I’d say at this point releasing the hostages is a prerequisite for the war to end and that negotiation process to begin.
As in, they don’t trust Israel to adhere to terms of a treaty they agreed to? Well, they could invite in the UN or the US or some other neutral party like Egypt to verify that terms are met, with legal consequences if they are not.
Perhaps they can negotiate for some lands back, perhaps not, but I doubt they will get anything like the sweetheart deal they declared war over in '48. Palestine still has more to lose and have very little leverage so I’d expect any viable treaty to be written with this in mind; concessions will have to be made.
Keep in mind that the alternative is that current trends continue and they risk losing everything.
That’s not my take, they seem more like they are frustrated that their regularly and overwhelmingly-defeated enemy refuses to pacify themselves despite taking ever more from them and building a massive security apparatus around them. None of it has worked, so I suspect they will continue annexing more lands to create distance because wiping them out isn’t an option, whether you think it’s because of “international sugar daddies,” or their own history of being subjected to genocidal extermination, Israel is playing by a different and more humane playbook, even if it is still quite bloody.
It’s their fault for not compromising with an enemy who is uncompromising? One of their demands is driving them into the sea, how can one compromise with this, especially when they hold all the cards?
So they should only begin to negotiate once their only bargaining chips have been given away?
Again, I don’t support what Hamas did. But they’re not idiots.