Hamas refusing ceasefire??????

Defending a terrorist group is very strange of you
Objecting to the massacre and deliberate starvation of thousands of children is defending a terrorist group?

I mean Israel's caused a famine which is a slightly more pressing problem.

Yes that is a war crime to deliberately kill a child when it is avoidable.

There have only been a few isolated reports of Hamas taking a bit of aid.

The biggest issue is that not nearly enough aid is even being allowed into Gaza.

@lostonmars perhaps you need an update from what was said in October

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-envoy-says-israel-has-not-shown-evidence-that-hamas-is-diverting-un-aid-in-gaza

@Parkingt111 asked for credible sources.

Who are the live civilian female and child hostages yet to be released? I am not counting the ones reported to have been killed.

@lostonmars I take it the US and all the other aid groups are also Hamas supporters for continuously publicly saying that there needs to be more aid allowed in?
Or is it only mumsnetters who are accused of that?
And how does that one incident prove that a)sufficient aid is allowed in and b) that it's just Hamas that is taking it all
On the contrary the US have said there is no credible evidence to prove that

@lostonmars got any credible sources that say there is sufficient aid allowed in but Hamas is just taking it?

No, they didn't. There are still civilian female hostages in captivity. There are also civilian male hostages in captivity, as well as two children.

@HeidiInTheBigCity Do you think there is any sort of constructive ambiguity thing going on? In the sense that one side’s humanitarian pause is a temporary ceasefire for the other and we’re starting to see dialogue of sorts? It seems like a game of poker with lives instead of chips.

They released all the civilian female hostages back in November.
It’s IDF female hostages they have yet to release and to do that, they want a permanent ceasefire. That is the usual procedure in a war. You don’t release captured enemy soldiers until there is a ceasefire, otherwise you are releasing a soldier who can then immediately start fighting you again. Israel isn’t releasing anyone they captured that they suspect as part of Hamas either.

There are a lot of war crimes going on in this conflict, but holding captured enemy soldiers isn’t one.

Thank you @HeidiInTheBigCity and @Scirocco for teaching me things.

I can’t see why Israel would allow Hamas to continue in power or indeed existence after the attacks they planned, practised and executed and their own state mission.

Israel’s position as I understand is not to tolerate anything which undermines Israel’s security. That in itself is less clear- the position is subject to interpretation. The current hardline position would not be the same as earlier regimes may have held.

According to the news it's the IDF male hostages they're reluctant to return. They've been offering the women back for a long time now but no deal has been struck.

HAMAS don't seem willing to return female hostages, I wonder why?

“Neither position is irrational given each party's strategic goals and interests and preferred outcomes, actually! Note that I did not say "moral", "desirable", or anything of the sort. I said "not irrational"! Both parties may even have possible gains from continuing the status quo. And, yes, 3rd party pressure can work to shift the balance, of course!”

Great summing up Heidi.

Aid is required to be let in and safe routes given to convoys and to civilians needing to access it by law. Aid should not be contingent on Hamas surrendering, releasing hostages, or anything. Israel’s hindering of aid is a war crime.

I don't think this is particularly complicated, actually: if you try to look at the situation without any ideological blinkers on, this boils down to "bog standard negotiation theory", specifically, strategic interests and BATNAs (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)!

The Israeli current BATNA seems to boil down to something along the lines of "we just keep on going as is". Yes, it risks losing them some hostages - but that is an accusation they have already been facing and that some of their politicians have already been defending openly with the argument that there are bigger, more important strategic goals at play. Israel insists that it would not accept any permanent cessation of hostilities.

Hamas' BATNA would appear to be centred around not wanting to weaken their position permanently for temporary concessions. In other words, they will absolutely not want to agree to anything that does, in fact, allow for Israel to continue the onslaught after a "break" and trade away leverage on their part without assurances that this will not be allowed to happen.

Neither position is irrational given each party's strategic goals and interests and preferred outcomes, actually! Note that I did not say "moral", "desirable", or anything of the sort. I said "not irrational"! Both parties may even have possible gains from continuing the status quo.

And, yes, 3rd party pressure can work to shift the balance, of course!

Take the much more harmless example of a price negotiation in a business deal: if my BATNA had been "worst case scenario: I walk away from this one - and sell to XY instead for 5% less" but then XY withdrew their offer, I may now be a lot more amenable to giving my negotiating partner an additional discount. Conversely, if I received an offer for 10% more, my stance may harden. While the stakes are incomparably higher here, the theory is not fundamentally different!

I genuinely don't think it's helpful to look at this in a simplistic, opinion driven "oh, but, if X just did Y" sort of way. Because that will just never happen. Shifting incentives and the securing of strategic interests secures deals - not wishful thinking!

... and, no, I have never tried to negotiate a political deal. I most certainly have multi-million contracts, and have walked away many times on the grounds that "no deal" was actually the better option at some point.

Islamist. Not Islamic.

Hamas have never wanted peace and have always refused a two state solution. Hence the slogan ‘from the river to the sea’. Hamas’ objective is the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews. They are Islamic terrorists linked to other groups so if they achieve their aim they will move on to other countries and other targets.