A bit tangential, but: This seems like it would be a wildly unpopular decision. At this point I would expect the release of the hostages to be Israelis’ highest priority. The hostages are Gaza’s...
A bit tangential, but:
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, reportedly rejected a deal for a five-day ceasefire with Palestinian militant groups in Gaza in exchange for the release of Israeli hostages.
This seems like it would be a wildly unpopular decision. At this point I would expect the release of the hostages to be Israelis’ highest priority.
The hostages are Gaza’s largest bargaining chip. If they’re willing to release them then Netanyahu should accept the victory.
I hate to say it, but bargaining over Gilad Shalit was a mistake. His freedom was traded for the deaths of over 10k people and hundreds of new hostages. I don't think it is, and I don't know that...
I hate to say it, but bargaining over Gilad Shalit was a mistake. His freedom was traded for the deaths of over 10k people and hundreds of new hostages.
At this point I would expect the release of the hostages to be Israelis’ highest priority.
I don't think it is, and I don't know that it should be. The highest priority is, and probably should be, making a repeat of this as unlikely as possible, for the sake of the 10k+ future dead when Hamas regroups and thinks they can make it work by just taking even more hostages and killing more civilians.
The hostages are Gaza’s largest bargaining chip.
True, but
If they’re willing to release them then Netanyahu should accept the victory.
I don't think letting Hamas rinse and repeat is a victory. That's not to say that Israel's overall strategy right now is appropriate -- clearly there are more civilian deaths happening than is necessary.
Something I've seen lost in the discourse online (rhetoric aside) is that there seems to be a desire from more even-keeled minds to return to the status quo as a starting point, but Israel...
Something I've seen lost in the discourse online (rhetoric aside) is that there seems to be a desire from more even-keeled minds to return to the status quo as a starting point, but Israel fundamentally can not do that and does not seems to have a great idea of what it should do instead. Internally there is rage at Netanyahu and there is rage at Hamas and there is a a seemingly contradictory desire to achieve both peace and security.
Aside from the bit where we aren't talking about all hostages here... (see Mrqewl's comment) This should also tell you how much a temporary ceasefire would be useful to Hamas militarily. If...
Aside from the bit where we aren't talking about all hostages here... (see Mrqewl's comment)
This should also tell you how much a temporary ceasefire would be useful to Hamas militarily. If they're willing to part with 50 or more hostages, as has been reported, that means that Hamas believes that within 5 days they can "recoup" those losses, i.e. reconsolidate their position to make up for 50 fewer hostages as bargaining chips.
Just as a nod towards the "Israel should just accept a ceasefire" demand. Not saying the ceasefire wouldn't have humanitarian use to it, but militarily it's a massive loss for Israel, especially considering the pace at which the IDF has been moving. I'm not surprised we ended up with partial humanitarian corridors instead of a ceasefire.
Yes, I did realize that. Is your point that my remark is off-topic? Or are you thinking that the "all hostages" in my comment relates to the "all of them" from the OP? Because it doesn't, it...
Yes, I did realize that. Is your point that my remark is off-topic? Or are you thinking that the "all hostages" in my comment relates to the "all of them" from the OP? Because it doesn't, it relates to the israelis taken as hostages by hamas that teaearlgraycold mentioned.
A bit tangential, but:
This seems like it would be a wildly unpopular decision. At this point I would expect the release of the hostages to be Israelis’ highest priority.
The hostages are Gaza’s largest bargaining chip. If they’re willing to release them then Netanyahu should accept the victory.
I hate to say it, but bargaining over Gilad Shalit was a mistake. His freedom was traded for the deaths of over 10k people and hundreds of new hostages.
I don't think it is, and I don't know that it should be. The highest priority is, and probably should be, making a repeat of this as unlikely as possible, for the sake of the 10k+ future dead when Hamas regroups and thinks they can make it work by just taking even more hostages and killing more civilians.
True, but
I don't think letting Hamas rinse and repeat is a victory. That's not to say that Israel's overall strategy right now is appropriate -- clearly there are more civilian deaths happening than is necessary.
Something I've seen lost in the discourse online (rhetoric aside) is that there seems to be a desire from more even-keeled minds to return to the status quo as a starting point, but Israel fundamentally can not do that and does not seems to have a great idea of what it should do instead. Internally there is rage at Netanyahu and there is rage at Hamas and there is a a seemingly contradictory desire to achieve both peace and security.
It was only for some of the hostages not all of them. If it was for all the hostages and he didn't takr that deal it would be a very bad move .
Aside from the bit where we aren't talking about all hostages here... (see Mrqewl's comment)
This should also tell you how much a temporary ceasefire would be useful to Hamas militarily. If they're willing to part with 50 or more hostages, as has been reported, that means that Hamas believes that within 5 days they can "recoup" those losses, i.e. reconsolidate their position to make up for 50 fewer hostages as bargaining chips.
Just as a nod towards the "Israel should just accept a ceasefire" demand. Not saying the ceasefire wouldn't have humanitarian use to it, but militarily it's a massive loss for Israel, especially considering the pace at which the IDF has been moving. I'm not surprised we ended up with partial humanitarian corridors instead of a ceasefire.
Did you not realize that's a quote from the article and that the article is about events during a debate on whether they should call for a ceasefire?
Yes, I did realize that. Is your point that my remark is off-topic? Or are you thinking that the "all hostages" in my comment relates to the "all of them" from the OP? Because it doesn't, it relates to the israelis taken as hostages by hamas that teaearlgraycold mentioned.
I'm confused. Please clarify.
I guess I just didn't see the point of that part if you knew it was relevant to the post.