In your view, does this roadmap increase or decrease the likelihood of a peaceful outcome - and why?
Hamas wont disarm, israel wont leave. Neither are they linked to each other.
Nothing will come of this like every other time
Why would Hamas ever trust Israel enough to disarm given the history of failed ceasefires and Israel’s support of settlers and pro-Israel terrorists.
Trust isn’t really the point. Everyone knows Israel and Hamas don’t trust each other. I’m more concerned with whether the violent conflict can be reduced, and a stable peace achieved.
Are Hamas’s arms doing Gaza any favours? Not that I can see.
AFAICT, if Hamas disarmed:
- Israel’s only(?) excuse for mass military action in Gaza would disappear.
- International support (already shaky) for Israeli military presence in Gaza would decrease.
- One or more of Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, the United States, or the European Union might end their designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, which could in turn increase the aid and other international support available to Gaza.
If you think I’m wrong, I’d be glad to know why.
I see your point, but it’d be like saying we should disarm Ukraine, 'cause then Russia doesn’t have a reason to invade them.
It wouldn’t solve the problem. Israel would just have an easier time eradicating the palestinian people. Israel doesn’ t give a shit about Hamas, what they care about it taking what they believe is theirs, and killing those they deem “others”.
it’d be like saying we should disarm Ukraine, 'cause then Russia doesn’t have a reason to invade them
Putin’s All-Russia People’s Front’s policies toward Ukraine have many similarities to Netanyahu’s Likud party’s policies toward Gaza. Both sets of policies are tragic, causing many innocent people’s deaths.
Nevertheless, Ukraine and Gaza are different enough for one to reasonably reach different conclusions about how best peace can be achieved in each place:
- Ukraine’s weapons are protecting Ukraine against Russian attacks and invasion attempts. Therefore, it is in Ukraine’s interests to have them. Hamas’s weapons are not protecting Gaza against Israeli attacks or invasion. There is no obvious benefit from Hamas having them.
- Servant of the People, and Ukraine, do recognise Russia, and have not seriously proposed eliminating it. Hamas does not officially recognise Israel, and has seriously proposed eliminating it.
- Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the UK, the USA, the EU, and the Organization of American States, all designate Hamas a terrorist organisation. This reduces the aid Gaza receives. They seem unlikely to reverse the designation unless Hamas disarms. None of them designate Servant of the People, or Ukraine, a terrorist organisation.
Those points lead me to believe Hamas should disarm.
I also believe countries giving aid to Israel should make it formally contingent on Israel withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank, to pre-1967 borders, and recognising Palestinian statehood. However, it looks like the US is going to stop aid to Israel regardless.
Why would Hamas need to be disarmed? To leave Palestinians unarmed next to aggressive imperialist nation?
Terrorism arises in defense to oppression.
No, Israel is the one who needs to be disarmed and return the stolen land to the Palestinians.
Terrorism arises in defense to oppression.
Technical point: that isn’t exhaustively true. Terrorism can be, and sometimes is, committed against vulnerable parties by more privileged ones.
You are right. It did need to be spelled out who the privileged ones and the vulnerable ones are.
I’m not familiar with “Trump’s comprehensive plan” which is referenced a lot.
A lot of restrictions on Palestine and nothing about Israel outside of withdrawal.
I think it’s moot bc Israel would never agree to it.
