Could Israel have got the hostages back by negotiation rather than war ?

[mouthpipette]

Was the question I put to AI.

Fascinating reading. Sources given are NYT and Al Jazheera amongst others and it includes many facts and examples. Parts of it are waffle, bits of it don't make sense and there are probably omissions, but there are enough salient points to think negotiation (though fraught with difficulty) could have been a viable option.

Israel isn’t facing the IRA. It’s facing a death cult that forms part of an existential threat financed and directed by Iran.

Solidarity.

I feel like I was neutral before 7/10 and even after that I started off more seeing both sides, though I felt immense sympathy for Israel in the aftermath of that terrorist attack. But the more I see the ignorance of the arguments used by some pro Pals on MN, the more I have to defend Israel from plain misinformation & hyperbole, the more I sympathise with Israel.

I’ve realised many people don’t even want to find the truth. I still do even if that means I end up blaming Israel more. I can tell the truth is very important to you too.

Solidarity back xx

Sometimes I worry that the constant back and forth on here only serves to entrench us all into our own ways of thinking. I know I'm guilty of being a mocking pompous twat too.

Appreciate your quiet, strong and respectful voice on here. I do think the truth is the most important thing, and we are all free to build our own narratives- but let them be built from truth!

Thank you so much xx

I think it’s very true that the constant back & forth has the unwanted side effect of entrenching us further into our own ways of thinking.

It’s nice when you find someone on the other side that can debate the issues politely & reasonably so it makes you think… not many like that though!

Ha lol! Yes sometimes someone replies to me without accusing me of starving babies or supporting genocide and I feel absurdly grateful 🙏

I do - I think you’re nice 😂

It would have to be more than ego by now I think, it was clear a very long time ago that Hamas we’re not going to win the conflict but by the same token they also aren’t going to lose because they are still very much in power. Which makes me wonder who is keeping them in power if they still haven’t been sufficiently weakened yet that they relinquished power. I mean the rockets have stopped but Hamas have not gone anywhere and I don’t think they ever will. There’s no way ordinary Gazans are keeping them in power in the face of all their own suffering.

Rocket fire from Gaza has significantly reduced, not stopped. This month so far they fired rockets on August 10th, 9th and 7th.
the rockets fired on the 10th were reportedly launched from east of Gaza City.

@AuntyDepressant if they represent the people of Gaza how can you really think they “aren’t going to lose”.

The people of Gaza has lost so much already - their homes, lives, children’s lives.

Unfortunately if Hamas insist on not disarming, releasing the hostages & leaving Gaza it is mainly the people of Gaza who will continue losing.

I’m not convinced they do represent the people of Gaza. Surely the average person on the street cannot believe their lives are better with Hamas remaining in power? So far they are remaining in power. It’s hard to understand why.

Agreed they don’t really represent the people of Gaza.

I think they rule by fear.

So having ascertained that Hamas have been virtually destroyed as an effective fighting force (all they are left with now is not particularly effective guerrilla tactics) why are Israel still there?

The issue is ‘not very effective guerrilla tactics’ still means people that will never go away. Being honest with yourself, would you be happy if your government just shrugged and left it so those people popped up periodically taking out a few (or many) people in your community every now and then. Would you really be fine with that? The issue is, there can be negotiations until the cows come home but there will always be Hamas, who don’t even tow the main party line (who it’s extremely doubtful would ever seriously agree to peace anyway).

The only real hope is for the Palestinian people, as a majority, to stop backing and supporting Hamas, as while there are more who now see it’s not in their best interest, there is still more than enough support to enable them. If that stops, they lose their power. Then there is a space for negotiation.

How many threads get deleted? Some just can't but get abusive and personal. I also agree with the hate for Israel, because nobody's bothered about appearing racist. If it were another Arab country, in Israel's place, you just know it would be a whole different story.

if this were true Israel would be backing the New York declaration surely. It proposed implementing a military peacekeeping from various countries under the umbrella of the PA.

Who will Israel negotiate with, if Hamas was gone? And how can the IDF put in the proposed civil administration “government” in Gaza when it won’t have the trust of the population? If Israel really wanted to get rid of Hamas it would work with proposals like the New York Declaration.

That’s why it looks like Israel just wants to get rid of the Palestinians altogether. Hence the international condemnation now.

Who will Israel negotiate with, if Hamas was gone?

Then they would negotiate with a relevant Authority that would be set up. But that’s completely moot as Hamas is not gone, are not going and will not go no matter what. Until then, they will disrupt any such Authority, or attempt thereof. It’s also questionable who the Palestinian populace would throw themselves behind in this regard given the support for Hamas. So, who will they place their trust in, an Authority they may not want, or a group they support? If they thought it through, they’d jump on the current wagon, give lip service to a new Authority to solve the immediate problem, then once established, work to wiggle Hamas back into it. Then it all starts again.

There needs to be a permanent solution. I don’t know what it is. I suspect it’s a ‘very be person must move out’ thing - my analogy is, you can never have divorced people who don’t like each other sharing a home by agreeing to use different rooms, and expecting it to be peaceful for longer than 5 minutes. Same here. So, who moves, and where to, really. I have nothing to do with either side, no background, friends or family with either, but it’s only ever going to be truly solved by one person moving out of the house I suspect. I’ve truly got no preference on who that would have to be.

ETA - anyone ever watched that movie, think it was War of the Roses (or something similar) with Michael Douglas and someone Turner. Watch it and call one of them Israel and one Palestine. Same situation but then just think if the house as an area of land.