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.
"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.
“Gaza no longer poses a threat” does not mean “Gaza will never again pose a threat”.
They sound like the same thing to me... "no longer" and "never again" mean the same thing in my experience.
Not to me.
The US once went to war with England, but I think most Americans agree that "England no longer poses a threat to us."
But is it possible that one day we will again be at war with England? I mean sure, anything is possible.
You really can't say anyone will "never be a threat". Just that they aren't a threat now.
EDIT
Or to take a simple example, "I no longer live in California" does not mean "I will never again live in California".
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.
Hypothetically, let's say that he is secretly game for the cease fire. How does he pivot from implying that the conditions are not met as things stand today to suddenly adopting a stance that is consistent with your proposed interpretation?
If what you said was true, that he is willing to consider the threat eliminated, then he would have said it already. Since he implies otherwise means he is requiring something more than the current situation. There's no path to just abandon his stated position without something actually changing.
He would pivot when he had enough backing from his political coalition to make it safe for him to do so.
I think that's probably the only issue right now. He's a politician who above all wants to remain in power. Crafting a consistent narrative is only a minor consideration. So he can imply whatever he wants, the bare minimum is to avoid saying two things that cannot later be reconciled logically.
It's like asking "How does Nikki Haley pivot to supporting Trump after implying he was unfit to be president?" It took no effort at all, once she decided it was politically expedient.
The analogy about Nikki Haley is apt, to 'pivot' is trivial, to credibly pivot is another. I promise not a single Trump supporter suddenly believed Nikki's change and it didn't buy her any clout. If anything, it undermined her previous bet of 'party will move beyond Trump soon'.
Similarly, Netanyahu pivoting won't appease any of his hard core supporters. Also, this presumes that Netanyahu is some secret moderate trying to appease extremists rather than actually being a key proponent/leader of the extremist agenda. This would be like saying "Trump is looking for an opportunity to pivot toward a pro-immigration stance, but his party just won't let him".
Israel, unlike the US, is a multiparty democracy. Likud, the biggest party, still only won 23% of the vote. So like nearly all Israeli PM's, Netanyahu cannot remain in power without official support from other political parties. That means convincing other political leaders to support him is far more important than in the US.
Yes, if Netanyahu supports a peace proposal then he will lose the far right (Ben Gvir). But he could gain the support of other leaders (Yair Lapid). And if he doesn't pivot, he could lose Gantz.
This is what I mean by political calculus, which I think at this point is at least as important to Netanyahu as ideology (in view of the risk of prosecution if he loses power).
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.
"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.
They sound like the same thing to me... "no longer" and "never again" mean the same thing in my experience.
Not to me.
The US once went to war with England, but I think most Americans agree that "England no longer poses a threat to us."
But is it possible that one day we will again be at war with England? I mean sure, anything is possible.
You really can't say anyone will "never be a threat". Just that they aren't a threat now.
EDIT
Or to take a simple example, "I no longer live in California" does not mean "I will never again live in California".
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.
Hypothetically, let's say that he is secretly game for the cease fire. How does he pivot from implying that the conditions are not met as things stand today to suddenly adopting a stance that is consistent with your proposed interpretation?
If what you said was true, that he is willing to consider the threat eliminated, then he would have said it already. Since he implies otherwise means he is requiring something more than the current situation. There's no path to just abandon his stated position without something actually changing.
He would pivot when he had enough backing from his political coalition to make it safe for him to do so.
I think that's probably the only issue right now. He's a politician who above all wants to remain in power. Crafting a consistent narrative is only a minor consideration. So he can imply whatever he wants, the bare minimum is to avoid saying two things that cannot later be reconciled logically.
It's like asking "How does Nikki Haley pivot to supporting Trump after implying he was unfit to be president?" It took no effort at all, once she decided it was politically expedient.
The analogy about Nikki Haley is apt, to 'pivot' is trivial, to credibly pivot is another. I promise not a single Trump supporter suddenly believed Nikki's change and it didn't buy her any clout. If anything, it undermined her previous bet of 'party will move beyond Trump soon'.
Similarly, Netanyahu pivoting won't appease any of his hard core supporters. Also, this presumes that Netanyahu is some secret moderate trying to appease extremists rather than actually being a key proponent/leader of the extremist agenda. This would be like saying "Trump is looking for an opportunity to pivot toward a pro-immigration stance, but his party just won't let him".
Israel, unlike the US, is a multiparty democracy. Likud, the biggest party, still only won 23% of the vote. So like nearly all Israeli PM's, Netanyahu cannot remain in power without official support from other political parties. That means convincing other political leaders to support him is far more important than in the US.
Yes, if Netanyahu supports a peace proposal then he will lose the far right (Ben Gvir). But he could gain the support of other leaders (Yair Lapid). And if he doesn't pivot, he could lose Gantz.
This is what I mean by political calculus, which I think at this point is at least as important to Netanyahu as ideology (in view of the risk of prosecution if he loses power).