I think Netanyahu is choosing his words carefully to get the ceasefire through (which after all he proposed) without alienating the hard(er) right wing.
Here's what he actually said:
Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel
Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter
The thing is that all of those conditions, except for the hostages, are pretty subjective. Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated. Nothing stops Netanyahu from declaring the same tomorrow.
That leaves the hostages. But in the three phase plan, freeing the hostages comes before the permanent ceasefire. So again, the peace plan is not inconsistent with his latest statements. I think he is simply using a harder posture to help win support.
and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel
The only way that can be ensured is by driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza.
But this isn't genocide I'm told.
Not necessarily. If Israel no longer feels threatened by Gaza then for all practical purposes it no longer poses a threat. Which might even be the case right now.
And how would they no longer feel threatened without driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza?
Whether or not Israel feels threatened is up to Israel. Biden said Hamas is not capable of another 10/7, which might be sufficient to meet that condition.
They're still firing rockets into Israel. I would suggest that means that Israel would consider them to be a threat. They're not doing it from inside of Gaza either.
And every baby the IDF kills creates more Hamas sympathizers and people willing to commit violence for Hamas.
You might consider rockets a threat, but that doesn't mean the Israeli government considers them a threat.
In other words, there some in Israel who likely believe the military capabilities of Hamas have already been destroyed (like Gantz), and some who likely believe they haven't (like Ben Gvir). So the government could officially take either position.
Israel considers them enough of a threat to have the Iron Dome.
Sure, but they could declare that partly because of the Iron Dome, the threat has been neutralized.
They could have claimed that a dozen or so years ago, yet for some reason they kept terrorizing Gazans while being almost entirely immune to any type of "conventional" (and proportionate.... Which lol because this isn't a word the Israeli government is familiar with) response. Also even "conventional" is a stretch given the apartheid reality makes it nearly impossible for Palestinians to even formulate a "proper" response.
It's almost like 10/7 was out of complete desperation for an untenable situation where these people see there friends and family murdered by the IDF for no reason, or have family in The West Bank where settlers from New Jersey who have never been out of the US are literally storming Palestinian villages with AR-15s in the middle of the night and forcing them to leave so they can literally steal their property.
I am by no means justifying the events of 10/7, just like I would never justify the events of 9/11. But I would be ignorant and foolish not to learn anything from the event about how decades of policy like this creates terrorists and they will fight back when you corner them for literal decades.
Anyone old enough to remember 9/11 and didn't just read Bin Laden's "manifesto" or whatever you want to call it last year, we remember when it happened and, to many of us it make complete sense. Shit, Obama almost lost in 08 because he was seen with some black preacher once or twice who had a recording of an old sermon where he (correctly) said 9/11 was our "chickens coming home to roost".
You mean apart from the missiles that still get through.
Presumably those will end during the temporary ceasefire, allowing Israel to claim that goal has been accomplished before the permanent ceasefire.
True, if the Israeli government has shown us anything, all they really want is peace, right? Not the land. Not complete control of the people in an open-air prison. They'll just stop all that if they, "no longer feel threatened."
You cannot be this naive.
I don't know what they want. I just think their current statements are not necessarily in conflict with the peace deal they proposed.
"They're not shooting at us now so they never will again?" Are you really saying they're that naive?
That's not a stated goal.
The goals is to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas, which arguably has been achieved.
"Gaza no longer poses a threat" does not mean "Gaza will never again pose a threat". I think the words were chosen carefully. The former requires an agreement with Gazans. The latter would require a crystal ball.
After all, I'm sure the Israeli government would agree that Egypt no longer poses a threat. Israel recently said Egypt is their friend. But that doesn't mean Egypt will never again pose a threat, because nobody knows the future.
Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated.
Thing is Hamas is not just its armed wing. It's also a political party, with that comes a government apparatus (as in bureaucrats), and it's also a charity. It is, after all, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot and, well, ask the Egyptians how hard it is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.
If with "total destruction of Hamas' capabilities" they mean the whole thing then that's just another way to say that they want to keep on going forever. Biden OTOH simply seems to have referred to military capability. Israel, also the more moderate factions, will likely insist on at least dismantling the government apparatus and TBH plenty of Palestinians feel the same. Things are murky because of the war but Hamas rule was not exactly popular, charity nonwithstanding.
and, well, ask the Egyptians how hard it is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.
You mean the Muslim Brotherhood whose presidential candidate got democratically elected by Egypt? The President who then got couped with the help of the US to install the Sisi regime that is worse than the Mubarak regime, which sparked the Arab spring in the first place?
The Egyptian military doesn't need US aid to launch a coup. Sure the military will have made sure that the US continues to consider Egypt as an ally but that's about it. Politically both are taking potshots at each other.
Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012, he issued a temporary constitutional declaration granting himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure. He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was "an Islamist coup". These issues — and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators; the continuation of military trials; and new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days, and impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities — brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012. During Morsi's year-long rule there were 9,000 protests and strikes.
Is Sisi a champion of democracy? No. But also he was elected, and he's legitimately popular. Morsi rode to power on an illusion about Brotherhood politics, once they unveiled their true colours Egyptians quickly decided that they'd rather have secular than religious authoritarians in power.
If with "total destruction of Hamas' capabilities" they mean
That's just my paraphrase.
The actual wording used by Israel is "destruction of the military and governing capabilities of Hamas". Both of which arguably have already been destroyed.
He has conveniently ensured that all the hostages can never be freed because a lot of them are have been killed by the IDF already. Probably a bunch of their bodies are buried under so much rubble they'll never be found in our lifetimes.
The proposal specifies return of "remaining hostages who are alive".
I think Netanyahu is choosing his words carefully to get the ceasefire through (which after all he proposed) without alienating the hard(er) right wing.
Here's what he actually said:
The thing is that all of those conditions, except for the hostages, are pretty subjective. Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated. Nothing stops Netanyahu from declaring the same tomorrow.
That leaves the hostages. But in the three phase plan, freeing the hostages comes before the permanent ceasefire. So again, the peace plan is not inconsistent with his latest statements. I think he is simply using a harder posture to help win support.
The only way that can be ensured is by driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza.
But this isn't genocide I'm told.
Not necessarily. If Israel no longer feels threatened by Gaza then for all practical purposes it no longer poses a threat. Which might even be the case right now.
And how would they no longer feel threatened without driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza?
Whether or not Israel feels threatened is up to Israel. Biden said Hamas is not capable of another 10/7, which might be sufficient to meet that condition.
They're still firing rockets into Israel. I would suggest that means that Israel would consider them to be a threat. They're not doing it from inside of Gaza either.
And every baby the IDF kills creates more Hamas sympathizers and people willing to commit violence for Hamas.
You might consider rockets a threat, but that doesn't mean the Israeli government considers them a threat.
In other words, there some in Israel who likely believe the military capabilities of Hamas have already been destroyed (like Gantz), and some who likely believe they haven't (like Ben Gvir). So the government could officially take either position.
Netanyahu just wants to remain in power. He still supports the deal which suggests he is in the first group and is counting on the support of people in the first group. That might include opposition leader Yair Lapid, who promised to support Netanyahu if Ben Gvir leaves the governing coalition.
Israel considers them enough of a threat to have the Iron Dome.
Sure, but they could declare that partly because of the Iron Dome, the threat has been neutralized.
They could have claimed that a dozen or so years ago, yet for some reason they kept terrorizing Gazans while being almost entirely immune to any type of "conventional" (and proportionate.... Which lol because this isn't a word the Israeli government is familiar with) response. Also even "conventional" is a stretch given the apartheid reality makes it nearly impossible for Palestinians to even formulate a "proper" response.
It's almost like 10/7 was out of complete desperation for an untenable situation where these people see there friends and family murdered by the IDF for no reason, or have family in The West Bank where settlers from New Jersey who have never been out of the US are literally storming Palestinian villages with AR-15s in the middle of the night and forcing them to leave so they can literally steal their property.
I am by no means justifying the events of 10/7, just like I would never justify the events of 9/11. But I would be ignorant and foolish not to learn anything from the event about how decades of policy like this creates terrorists and they will fight back when you corner them for literal decades.
Anyone old enough to remember 9/11 and didn't just read Bin Laden's "manifesto" or whatever you want to call it last year, we remember when it happened and, to many of us it make complete sense. Shit, Obama almost lost in 08 because he was seen with some black preacher once or twice who had a recording of an old sermon where he (correctly) said 9/11 was our "chickens coming home to roost".
You mean apart from the missiles that still get through.
Presumably those will end during the temporary ceasefire, allowing Israel to claim that goal has been accomplished before the permanent ceasefire.
True, if the Israeli government has shown us anything, all they really want is peace, right? Not the land. Not complete control of the people in an open-air prison. They'll just stop all that if they, "no longer feel threatened."
You cannot be this naive.
I don't know what they want. I just think their current statements are not necessarily in conflict with the peace deal they proposed.
"They're not shooting at us now so they never will again?" Are you really saying they're that naive?
That's not a stated goal.
The goals is to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas, which arguably has been achieved.
"Gaza no longer poses a threat" does not mean "Gaza will never again pose a threat". I think the words were chosen carefully. The former requires an agreement with Gazans. The latter would require a crystal ball.
After all, I'm sure the Israeli government would agree that Egypt no longer poses a threat. Israel recently said Egypt is their friend. But that doesn't mean Egypt will never again pose a threat, because nobody knows the future.
This has nothing to do with Israel feeling threatened.
Israel wants Palestine for themselves, and they'll kill everyone there to get it.
Thing is Hamas is not just its armed wing. It's also a political party, with that comes a government apparatus (as in bureaucrats), and it's also a charity. It is, after all, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot and, well, ask the Egyptians how hard it is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.
If with "total destruction of Hamas' capabilities" they mean the whole thing then that's just another way to say that they want to keep on going forever. Biden OTOH simply seems to have referred to military capability. Israel, also the more moderate factions, will likely insist on at least dismantling the government apparatus and TBH plenty of Palestinians feel the same. Things are murky because of the war but Hamas rule was not exactly popular, charity nonwithstanding.
You mean the Muslim Brotherhood whose presidential candidate got democratically elected by Egypt? The President who then got couped with the help of the US to install the Sisi regime that is worse than the Mubarak regime, which sparked the Arab spring in the first place?
The Egyptian military doesn't need US aid to launch a coup. Sure the military will have made sure that the US continues to consider Egypt as an ally but that's about it. Politically both are taking potshots at each other.
Mursi was democratically elected, yes. Quoting Wikipedia:
Is Sisi a champion of democracy? No. But also he was elected, and he's legitimately popular. Morsi rode to power on an illusion about Brotherhood politics, once they unveiled their true colours Egyptians quickly decided that they'd rather have secular than religious authoritarians in power.
That's just my paraphrase.
The actual wording used by Israel is "destruction of the military and governing capabilities of Hamas". Both of which arguably have already been destroyed.
He has conveniently ensured that all the hostages can never be freed because a lot of them are have been killed by the IDF already. Probably a bunch of their bodies are buried under so much rubble they'll never be found in our lifetimes.
The proposal specifies return of "remaining hostages who are alive".