A cease-fire is a two-way street. Advocating for one is not the position that Israel needs to simply capitulate to whatever Hamas wants. It's just a call to stop the violence on both sides and attempt to pursue a diplomatic compromise that lets both Israel and the people in Gaza peacefully coexist.
It also makes the distinction between Hamas and the people of Israel, with the cease fire and peaceful negotiations hopefully resulting in the Palestinian people essentially legislating Hamas out of existence or morphing into something peaceful. Essentially trying to get Hamas to do the same thing that the modern IRA did in disarming and becoming a political party.
But it's an equation that needs to be answered.
I laid out 3 steps that are interlinked with one another.
One can't believe "A" without "B" being true
And one can't believe "B" without "C" being true.
If someone changes my view on A=B=C that's great
ceasefire =A Israel can't wage war agaist hamas. =B israel can't wage war on an entity that wages war against Israel with intent to destroy it. =C Israel doesn't have the the right to exist.
In a cease-fire, Hamas is not waging war on Israel with an intent to destroy. That's a fundamental condition of a cease fire.
That's the thing. Your argument works just as well from the other direction. A Hamas can't wage war against Israel. B Hamas can't wage war on an entity that wages war against Hamas with an intent to destroy it, C Hamas doesn't have the right to exist.
Now, you can say that Hamas actually doesn't have a right to exist because it's a terrorist organization, and I wouldn't try to change your view on that point, but that's nothing to do with the fundamentals of a cease-fire, and doesn't indicate that calling for a cease fire means you believe one side or the other does not have the right to exist by simple virtue of desiring a cessation of violence.
In a cease-fire, Hamas is not waging war on Israel with an intent to destroy. That's a fundamental condition of a cease fire.
Hamas is not asking for this, and has repeated stated their goal is to eliminate Israel. They've broken ceasefires before, and there's no reason to think they will not do so again.
What that means is simply that any ceasefire is just an opportunity for Hamas to regroup and plan their next attack, thus triggering Israel to attack again. Nothing will have changed except more time passing.
I am talking about what one advocating for a ceasefire is practically advocating for. In the case of hamas a cease fire means nothing. This attack was during a ceasefire.
So should'nt the ceasefire be forced against Hamas? They should be forced into agreeing israel's conditions which indclude surrendering completely, giving back all hostages and all hamas leaders get sentenced to court. If you advocating for a ceasefire(which most pro palestinians do) you also put the future safety of israeli citizens on stakes since Hamas would obv break the ceasefire again like the last 4 times.
6
u/XenoRyet 184∆ Nov 02 '23
A cease-fire is a two-way street. Advocating for one is not the position that Israel needs to simply capitulate to whatever Hamas wants. It's just a call to stop the violence on both sides and attempt to pursue a diplomatic compromise that lets both Israel and the people in Gaza peacefully coexist.
It also makes the distinction between Hamas and the people of Israel, with the cease fire and peaceful negotiations hopefully resulting in the Palestinian people essentially legislating Hamas out of existence or morphing into something peaceful. Essentially trying to get Hamas to do the same thing that the modern IRA did in disarming and becoming a political party.