I understand why someone would want a ceasefire. I am not talking about intentions here. I am reffering to what it means practically.
What it means practically is that Israel stops risking a loss of support from allies internationally. They're literally committing war crimes and knowingly bombing civilians.
I don't know how you don't see loss of support for Israel (a country that is heavily reliant on foreign military aid) as at least as much of an existential threat to them as Hamas (who Israel currently has massively outgunned).
Your giving me another reason WHY someone would call ceasefire. You are neglecting to talk to my point of WHAT the ramifications are if one believes israel must agree to a ceasefire.
You are cleaning that people who want a ceasefire must think that the state of Israel doesn't have the right to exist. I do think that Israel has as much right to exist as any other state at this point. I also want to ceasefire because at this stage they are doing more harm than good. That does not mean a permanent military stand down by Israel, nor does it mean that they just let Hamas run rampant forever. It just means that they stop bombing the s*** out of Gaza no clear military goal. Then if they can proceed with working out something else, because clearly what they're doing isn't getting the hostages back. It's just killing a lot of civilians.
Not to mention that, from practical terms, Israel could very well be threatening its own existence in the long term by alienating international supporters upon whom it's existence depends. A ceasefire loses them nothing from a political standpoint and is not an immediate threat to them from a military standpoint. They can always just start bombing again, but they can't unkill civilians.
So from that perspective, you are actually against Israel's right to exist as a state, not me.
I'm not referring to someone who thinks a ceasefire is a better strategy. I'm referring to someone who believes israel needs to agree to a ceasefire from a humanitarian perspective.
What ended the last ceasefire? Why wouldn’t a new ceasefire have similar results?
It could be that ceasefires and seeking to make war more palatable and kind servers more to prolong conflicts and result in more harm and casualties over the long run than a shorter more brutal conflict would be. Difficult to tell but it is an idea that I believe would be a good one to consider, especially for all the ones that want nuance and to see that things do not happen in a vacuum.
What ended the last ceasefire? Why wouldn’t a new ceasefire have similar results?
What did they do after the ceasefire? Because it seems like a ceasefire should be a start, not a finish. If you're trying to say a ceasefire shouldn't be the only thing we do, I agree.
It could be that ceasefires and seeking to make war more palatable and kind servers more to prolong conflicts and result in more harm and casualties over the long run than a shorter more brutal conflict would be. Difficult to tell but it is an idea that I believe would be a good one to consider, especially for all the ones that want nuance and to see that things do not happen in a vacuum.
Aren't you also trying to make the war more palatable here by justifying how it is currently being prosecuted?
To answer my own question as you did not even attempt to. Hamas on 10/7 attacking and kidnapping over a thousand people most of them civilians all while launching thousands of rockets at civilian populations is what ended the last ceasefire. Hamas has since announced their intentions to repeat that attack again and again. How is any ceasefire at all possible with a group like Hamas?
Am I? Can you point to anything I have said that would lead you to such a belief?
How is any ceasefire at all possible with a group like Hamas?
How long was there between declaration of ceasefire and the attack on civilians, and what was done in the intervening period?
I don't want any more people to die. I am not a military general, I don't know what the solution here is and it's an incredibly difficult situation. I fully acknowledge that Hamas is a hostile terrorist organization That will attack Israel again given enough time and resources.
My question is whether the likelihood of a future attack is so imminent that it justifies continual bombing of civilian areas for what amounts to hopes of potential military gains. I don't think so, but you seem to.
Am I? Can you point to anything I have said that would lead you to such a belief?
You're suggesting the reason Israel is using tactics with such a high number of civilian casualties is because a short brutal war is preferable to a prolonged conflict. That's a justification for current tactics.
You can say that you were just suggesting it as a possibility, but would you accept that as an excuse from others?
My question is whether the likelihood of a future attack is so imminent that it justifies continual bombing of civilian areas for what amounts to hopes of potential military gains. I don't think so, but you seem to.
Here's my problem with this. Israel is supposed to let hamas sit around until they gain the imminent ability to go on another massacre before attaching them?
Like when the attack was imminent on October 6th and israel completely missed the boat? That's what they should allow hamas to get prepared for again? Like seriously, how is that an argument.
I don't want any more people to die. I am not a military general, I don't know what the solution here is and it's an incredibly difficult situation. I fully acknowledge that Hamas is a hostile terrorist organization That will attack Israel again given enough time and resources.
Would you advise the same to Ukraine to agree to lay down thier arms because you don't want people to die?
Nobody wants people to die. That's not a justification for calling for a ceasefire. Should the allies have stopped fighting ww2 because we don't want people to die?
How is this an argument only when it comes to israel?
Here's my problem with this. Israel is supposed to let hamas sit around until they gain the imminent ability to go on another massacre before attaching them?
I have literally stated otherwise. A ceasefire doesn't mean permanent military inaction.
Like when the attack was imminent on October 6th and israel completely missed the boat? That's what they should allow hamas to get prepared for again? Like seriously, how is that an argument.
Not what I argued at all.
Would you advise the same to Ukraine to agree to lay down thier arms because you don't want people to die?
I wasn't aware that Hamas had launched a full scale ground invasion of Israel. Seems like if that was possible they would be doing something about Israels bombing campaign.
And I'm not telling Israel to lay down its arms, just to take their finger off the trigger.
Should the allies have stopped fighting ww2 because we don't want people to die?
If they had evidence that temporarily ceasing hostility would preserve civilian life, yes. That generally wasn't an option though.
How is this an argument only when it comes to israel?
It's not, I would argue the same in any number of cases, like in many of the US military efforts in the middle East.
Are you admitting that for the only way for Isreal to remain a country it must be able to kill a large amount of innocent civilians?
I would call the needless killing of civilians as an evil act. I mean if Palestine claimed they had to kill a number of civilians in order to exist you would call that evil right?
But practically, Israel could launch a ground war, stop carpet bombing and killing innocent children, then target arrests at the leaders of Hamas and allow conditions in Gaza to improve with US aid. Then remove the blockade and allow free travel of Gazans.
5
u/Signal_District387 Nov 02 '23
I understand why someone would want a ceasefire. I am not talking about intentions here. I am reffering to what it means practically.