Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
The statement from Netanyahu’s office came a day after Biden outlined the plan, and as families of Israeli hostages held by Hamas called for all parties to immediately accept the proposal.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
"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).