[Pants-of-dog]

No one mentioned Mosul, as it is a whataboutism and can be ignored. It is not part of the argument. It is very possible that Mosul was also an example of urbicide.

Israeli diplomatic overtures and negotiations have released the vast majority of hostages currently freed. This is not evidence that urbicide is an effective tactic. It is evidence that diplomacy and negotiation are effective tactics.

[Negotiator]

There is just a very morbid fascination in how israeli politicians keep doubling down on openly demanding genocide, in full public.

There was just another such statement documented on the Jimmy Dore show. This politician claims that it would be "moral" to murder all two million palestinians in Gaza, to the last woman and child, but "the world wont let us do it".

https://rumble.com/v5a8s1h-morally-just ... icial.html

The way in which current israeli society as a whole seems to be unable to grasp that demanding genocide in public is extremely destructive towards the international standing of their own country is just completely mindblowing.

[wat0n]

^ That's the far-right being the far-right, what's most interesting though is that he says Israel isn't in fact doing anything it's being accused of and that he wishes it was.

No one mentioned Mosul, as it is a whataboutism and can be ignored. It is not part of the argument. It is very possible that Mosul was also an example of urbicide.

Wrong.

Mosul is a good example because the tactics and strategies used by ISIS there are very similar to those used by Hamas in Gaza.

It is also a good example as it shows even using mostly small precision munitions in an urban setting will lead to devastation.

Israeli diplomatic overtures and negotiations have released the vast majority of hostages currently freed. This is not evidence that urbicide is an effective tactic. It is evidence that diplomacy and negotiation are effective tactics.

Such negotiations were only possible because Hamas was and still is facing military pressure.

What it does show is that military pressure works.

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument was not whether military pressure is useful at the negotiating table.

The argument was whether the urbicide is an effective tactic for the stated aims of the IDF and Israeli government. At best, it is only slightly effective since it is so indirect. And this is making a lot of theoretical assumptions. It is entirely possible that the urbicide has had no effect at all on the hostage negotiations.

[wat0n]

No such urbicide is happening, given Gazan cities will be rebuilt just like Mosul was.

It seems @Pants-of-dog is now walking back his idiotic claims that military pressure is not successful at 1) releasing hostages, 2) stopping Hamas' rocket launches.

[Unthinking Majority]

Israeli diplomatic overtures and negotiations have released the vast majority of hostages currently freed. This is not evidence that urbicide is an effective tactic. It is evidence that diplomacy and negotiation are effective tactics.

This is inaccurate:

"As of 24 July 2024, 116 hostages had been returned alive to Israel, with 105 being released in a prisoner exchange deal, four released by Hamas unilaterally and seven rescued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2 ... age_crisis

Hamas kidnapped Israeli civilians in order to gain negotiation leverage (such as getting prisoners released) and to use them as human shields etc. The fact that Israel made concessions in order to get the hostages released is a negotiation and security failure on Israel's part. They have now provided more incentive for Hamas and other terrorist groups to do the same thing in the future, which makes things less safe for Israeli civilians.

The US has a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" policy. This is the correct policy, however unfortunate for hostages & victims of terror attacks. There is no incentive for terrorists/insurgents to kidnap hostages vs the US, and so terrorists are much less likely to do so as its a waste of time for them and arguably hurts their PR and therefore isn't an ineffective strategy.

All this proves is that hostage-taking is an effective strategy against Israel to secure concessions from them.

Diplomacy works by providing "carrots and sticks" for wanted and unwanted behaviour. In this case, Israel has provided a "carrot" (reward) for Hamas to take and release Jewish prisoners. What they should have done is provide "sticks" (punishment) for taking hostages and continued to give "sticks" until all the hostages were released.

This is the same reason why Israel and its allies should provide ZERO political concessions for Gaza/West Bank/Hamas based on the Oct 7 attacks. They need to disincentivize terrorist attacks, not incentivize them. We have Canada and other countries making calls for a Palestinian state based on Oct 7 and the aftermath. What fools. They're proving to terrorists that their terror methods work. A Palestinian state and lifting of embargos and other concessions should be a reward for good behaviour by the Gaza government (Hamas), not bad behaviour.

[wat0n]

Military pressure on Hamas also led it to severely tone down its demands for releasing hostages in negotiations, Hamas would have never agreed to a less lopsided agreement than the Shalit exchange if it had not faced military pressure.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is inaccurate:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2 ... age_crisis

The quoted text confirms my claim exactly.

105 were released through diplomatic means.

7 were saved by the IDF.

Hamas kidnapped Israeli civilians in order to gain negotiation leverage (such as getting prisoners released) and to use them as human shields etc. The fact that Israel made concessions in order to get the hostages released is a negotiation and security failure on Israel's part. They have now provided more incentive for Hamas and other terrorist groups to do the same thing in the future, which makes things less safe for Israeli civilians.

The US has a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" policy. This is the correct policy, however unfortunate for hostages & victims of terror attacks. There is no incentive for terrorists/insurgents to kidnap hostages vs the US, and so terrorists are much less likely to do so as its a waste of time for them and arguably hurts their PR and therefore isn't an ineffective strategy.

All this proves is that hostage-taking is an effective strategy against Israel to secure concessions from them.

Diplomacy works by providing "carrots and sticks" for wanted and unwanted behaviour. In this case, Israel has provided a "carrot" (reward) for Hamas to take and release Jewish prisoners. What they should have done is provide "sticks" (punishment) for taking hostages and continued to give "sticks" until all the hostages were released.

This is the same reason why Israel and its allies should provide ZERO political concessions for Gaza/West Bank/Hamas based on the Oct 7 attacks. They need to disincentivize terrorist attacks, not incentivize them. We have Canada and other countries making calls for a Palestinian state based on Oct 7 and the aftermath. What fools. They're proving to terrorists that their terror methods work. A Palestinian state and lifting of embargos and other concessions should be a reward for good behaviour by the Gaza government (Hamas), not bad behaviour.

The USA negotiates with terrorist groups. Reagan, for example, sold arms to Iran in exchange for hostages held by Hezbollah. A portion of these funds went to help finance the Contras in Nicaragua, which is more like direct support of terrorist groups but still shows that terrorist groups and the US can have mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services.

[wat0n]

105 were released because military pressure forced Hamas to agree to terms it did not want to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

105 Israeli hostages were released in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners, 107 of which were children,

I would say that the human rights atrocity we call arbitrary detention is a more effective strategy for forcing the release of hostages.

[wat0n]

Detention is not arbitrary. Also, the "children" you speak about are 15+ years old.

Either way, this compares to 1,027 being released for Gilad Shalit in 2011, including Yahya Sinwar, with little military pressure beared on Hamas to do that.

[Unthinking Majority]

The quoted text confirms my claim exactly.

105 were released through diplomatic means.

7 were saved by the IDF.

What i meant is that negotiation in this case is not overall effective. It seems effective in the short-term because these hostages are released, but in the long-term it will absolutely get more people kidnapped, assaulted, and killed. As I said, instead of making good things happen by released hostages Israel should make more bad things for Hamas happen and tell them they will be reduced or stopped if all hostages are released. Israel needs to create leverage.

[Pants-of-dog]

What i meant is that negotiation in this case is not overall effective. It seems effective in the short-term because these hostages are released, but in the long-term it will absolutely get more people kidnapped, assaulted, and killed. As I said, instead of making good things happen by released hostages Israel should make more bad things for Hamas happen and tell them they will be reduced or stopped if all hostages are released. Israel needs to create leverage.

By the same logic, bombing all the hospitals and food production and killing Palestinians and arresting kids and all those bad things the IDF and Israeli government have done also caused the October 7 attack.

There seems to be no solution from liberals and centrists to end the violence.

[wat0n]

The solution is to replace Hamas' government in Gaza and have Israel sign a peace treaty with the PA that addresses all issues. I think it's obvious such peace treaty will be largely imposed like the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was.

[Unthinking Majority]

By the same logic, bombing all the hospitals and food production and killing Palestinians and arresting kids and all those bad things the IDF and Israeli government have done also caused the October 7 attack.

So events from the future caused events to occur in the past? I'm not following the cause and effect here.

There seems to be no solution from liberals and centrists to end the violence.

Liberals and centrists have proposed various 2-state solutions since before the creation of the modern state of Israel. Palestinian leadership has rejected 100% of these proposals and has never negotiated in good faith towards such a goal. Their goal has always been the destruction of the state of Israel and probably always will be, and yet so many pro-Palestine supporters support this as well, along with the terrorist violence (you yourself have never condemned the Oct 7 attack). Is this solution of these far-right religious extremists such as Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Yasser Arafat, Saudi Arabia etc and their supporters going to end the violence?

If you support diplomacy and negotiation then one side has to actually engage in it with the intentions of peace and be willing to make compromises from their ideal positions for it to work. Palestinians have never accepted any compromises from their 1-state Arab-controlled solution goal. Israel de-occupied Gaza 20 years ago in exchange for nothing in order to reduce violence from the Intifada and the results have been continual Hamas and jihadist terrorism. There's nothing Israel can do to end the violence besides leaving the area entirely.

What's your solution?

[Pants-of-dog]

Removing Hamas would not work.

It does not address Israeli settler colonialism, and thus does not address the root causes of the violence.

After all, Israeli forces were detaining and killing Palestinians and stealing their land ling before Hamss showed up.

Hamas is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

————

So events from the future caused events to occur in the past? I'm not following the cause and effect here.

Moat of those things happened before October 7.

You seem to incorrectly believe that there was a happy peaceful relationship between the Israeli government and Palestinians before October 7. That is not the case at all.

The point is that the very tactics you champion led to the October 7 attack.

Liberals and centrists have proposed various 2-state solutions since before the creation of the modern state of Israel. Palestinian leadership has rejected 100% of these proposals and has never negotiated in good faith towards such a goal.

I do not think is true.

Their goal has always been the destruction of the state of Israel and probably always will be, and yet so many pro-Palestine supporters support this as well, along with the terrorist violence (you yourself have never condemned the Oct 7 attack). Is this solution of these far-right religious extremists such as Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Yasser Arafat, Saudi Arabia etc and their supporters going to end the violence?

Since you support the conditions that led to the October 7 attack, you implicitly support such attacks as well.

It is hypocritical to say you condemn the attack while simultaneously arguing for the exact things that made the attack happen in the first place.

Also, Israel is a supporter of Saudi Arabia, as well as the USA.

If you support diplomacy and negotiation then one side has to actually engage in it with the intentions of peace and be willing to make compromises from their ideal positions for it to work. Palestinians have never accepted any compromises from their 1-state Arab-controlled solution goal. Israel de-occupied Gaza 20 years ago in exchange for nothing in order to reduce violence from the Intifada and the results have been continual Hamas and jihadist terrorism. There's nothing Israel can do to end the violence besides leaving the area entirely.

What's your solution?

This seems like a somewhat racist depiction of Palestinians as terrorist supporting murderous animals.

I am just going to ignore it.

[wat0n]

I will note massacres against Jews in the region long predate the establishment of Israel, so in any event there's more to them than Israel's policies.

I will also note settler colonialism also predates Israel's establishment and indeed is the reason why Islam is the predominant religion in the Levant.

[Deutschmania]

Excerpted from this article from the Guardian

Israeli politics has changed, Golan said. “I’m not sure whether Israel right now is truly a democratic state any more … It is not a question of left or right any more: these titles are meaningless,” he said.


“The right today in Israel is people who think we can annex millions of Palestinians, and Israel should adopt some sort of policy of revenge, that we can live by our swords and not attempt to reconcile with the Palestinians or any other hostile entity in the region. I think 180 degrees the opposite. " Golan was widely expected to become the army chief of staff, but was sidelined after giving a controversial speech in 2016 in which he drew parallels between political trends in present-day Israel and 1930s Germany. He left the IDF shortly afterwards. “Our vision is a two-state solution, but right now we are a nation in trauma. People lost their sense of security; people do not trust the IDF to protect them,” he said.

“We need to be proactive militarily, but at the same time we need to combine it with political vision. I have no intention to say it’s easy … It’s a process that will take years.”

Unlike Netanyahu’s coalition, the Democrats have outlined a plan for “the day after” the war: Israel must continue to have freedom of action in Gaza and the West Bank for the near future, Golan said, while Arab states and the US spearhead building “islands of stability” and an “alternative to Hamas” in Gaza that will involve the return of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. Hamas-free ‘“bubbles” have already been trialled by the Israeli army in northern Gaza, with little success.

A reasonable government, he added, would rebuild relationships with allies that have soured over Netanyahu’s handling of the war, and muster international support to contain the threat posed by Iran and its proxies in the region.

“The liberal camp in Israel is still alive … We do not fight for revenge. We fight for the security of Israel,” Golan said, adding: “We cannot do it alone; we need the rest of the world with us.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/12/im-not-sure-israel-is-a-democratic-state-any-more-yair-golans-mission-to-save-his-country

[Pants-of-dog]

No one said that the root cause of the violence against Israelis is settler colonialism.

Settler colonialism is the root cause of violence against Palestinians.

The reaction to the oppression caused by settler colonialism is the cause of violence against Israelis.

[wat0n]

Palestinian identity itself is a product of settler colonialism.

Israel is just how land-back looks like.