No one is doing much to stop Israel. Indeed, Netanyahu will no doubt get a standing ovation at his speech to Congress. Truly a disgusting event.

Hamas is at the wheel and can stop all this.

even if the hostages are released. Likewise some of the Ministers.

but he has said it before over the last several months.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/netanyahu-says-israel-will-continue-war-against-hamas-after-cease-fire#:~:text=JERUSALEM%20%28AP%29%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Benjamin%20Netanyahu%20says,with%20the%20Islamic%20militant%20group%20to%20release%20hostages.

. “We will continue until we achieve all our goals.”


Thanks for the reminder.

to know. He has been consistent in saying it but the negotiators seem to think they can parse a deal of some sort. Maybe so.

saying. He has been consistently saying that they have to go even if the hostages are released and there is a ceasefire. He has clearly said he will not accept them remaining no matter what. I'm just clarifying that he has been consistent on saying it over and over from the beginning. The coalition keeping him in power has been adamant also. So I don't politically seeing him coming down from that stance. It could be the political end for him. Now having said that the negotiators keep saying they think they can fashion something that is ceasefire, hostage release, continuing ceasefire but that last part is problematic for him if it leaves Hamas in any control of anything. As I said we don't know if somehow this is going to go into a "remote" run resistance/urban resistance/attacks that carry on for who knows how long no matter what an interim control situation looks like. Much could happen yet.

If the hostages remain in Gaza, this means Hamas broke the cease fire. The two are completely interdependent: no hostages, no cease fire.

You may have missed something in translation.

that the negotiators, if the public statements are to be believed, have been talking about a ceasefire in order to release the hostages and then once released the ceasefire would continue on. But the problem as I said is that last part because he has said he will not accept Hamas being in place for any role when the dust settles. That's what I'm talking about is/has been the stumbling block for negotiators is to try and figure out that last part with something acceptable to everyone. I'm also pointing out the real possibility that it won't really be over if Hamas just withdraws to Qatar for example because they may try to wage an urban/guerilla resistance commanded remotely. People should be prepared to find that even once we think it's over it might not be over.

"He has been consistently saying that they have to go even if the hostages are released and there is a ceasefire." doesn't make sense. It goes against "have been talking about a ceasefire in order to release the hostages and then once released the ceasefire would continue on".

Not accepting Hamas in any role doesn't mean there will not be a cease fire. It's one of the conditions of the cease fire, which leaves no political or military role for Hamas in Gaza. Hamas must go, but it doesn't mean it must be eradicated by force. However, getting back full circle to my original point: "If all refugees are home and Hamas keeps attacking, you bet he is not going to stop!.

as a scenario where a ceasefire happens in order to release the hostages and then once Hamas would do that then the ceasefire would continue as long as conditions are met and during that continuance of the ceasefire the "governing" portion is created. You can't release hostages into a full fledged fire-fight. Just like the last time. That is the scenario that the negotiators have been discussing. By your own statement you say "if Hamas keeps attacking, you bet he is not going to stop!" and my point is he is not saying that but rather is saying they must go period. So if Hamas stops all fighting but remains in Gaza is the scenario and he is consistent in saying he will not stop until they are gone not just until they stop fighting. That has been one of the major stumbling blocks in negotiations as to what that status of Hamas looks like. Remember that in the end the reality is the negotiation is between Israel and Hamas and what is the demand on one side is for the other to accept elimination from the area.

This is why I pointed out the real possibility of the "guerilla war from remote command" even if they are displaced to Qatar etc. That is one reason why that end phase negotiation after the hostages are released is so difficult. In order to have things completely end there cannot be a constant barrage of "pot shots" orchestrated from abroad. So in other words if Hamas leaves then what does anybody think they are going to do? Turn into a social club? If they physically remain in Gaza but with no military or political role does anybody really think they won't be working to do attacks etc. in the future? So the problem is how to structure a peace plan that is acceptable to the sides because it is not as simple as "just release the hostages and stop fighting". The PM has been on record many times saying they must go and he will not stop until they do. He was asked this specifically with regard to military operations.

Nearly every one of the negotiator statements has talked about the ceasefire as a multi-part matter. Different phases. Refer back to what Biden had said about a framework.

First, the fighting stops in order for hostages to be returned to Israel. By the virtue of this condition, this cease fire is conditional on releasing all hostages. It holds for as long as the hostages are being released. With the last hostage being released, the cease fire ends.

Now, very important: the release of hostages does not obligate Israel to maintain the cease fire beyond this timeframe. There is no such thing as "even if the hostages are released and there is a ceasefire.". Those things are mutually exclusive by the virtue of the conditions set for this first timeframe. The ceasefire is in effect only until all hostages are released or until the ceasefire is broken. And, of course, there will be no hostages to release beyond the first timeframe, so the issue becomes moot past this point.

In either event, "even if the hostages are released and there is a ceasefire" being used in reference to the first timeframe is an oxymoron. Like I said before, something must have been lost in translation.

It is only during the second timeframe that the fate of Hamas is to be determined, as it is up to all parties involved in negotiating the future of Gaza to come to consensus on this matter. The source you previously cited clearly states: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel will continue its war against Hamas, even if a temporary cease-fire is reached with the Islamic militant group to release hostages." A temporary ceasefire is by no means the end of the war. And the state of war is maintained past all temporary ceasefires, usually until the enemy sues for peace and surrenders or is eliminated.

The coalition of the countries that mediates the negotiations makes it easier for hamas to choose the former, under more favorable terms for Hamas. And it is conceivable that a cease fire would be negotiated to give time for Hamas to contemplate the two options. It could be about how, not whether, Hamas exits Gaza.

So I see nothing inconsistent in what Netanyahu said and the scenario that the negotiators have been discussing.

periods and like I was saying to the post I was first responding to it would be incorrect to say or feel the military action would stop going forward after the hostage release because there is that phase after the release which would have conditions also and those, according to the negotiators, would involve quite a bit more than just a cessation of attacks. I emphasized that the position of the PM has been consistent on this and although the link I gave is older he was on record again in an official release just a month or so ago. Basically they can't get the first pause and the hostages all released, Hamas knows the leverage, without firming up the details of that second phase ceasefire. Here is a link that is from May of this year that covers what we both have been saying about the negotiations and phases and also about the consistent position of the PM.

It has been long, long past time for this to end and the hostages released. But as I pointed out what will really be the new reality?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-ending-war-as-part-of-hostage-deal-would-keep-hamas-as-threat-to-israel/

the phrase "He has been consistently saying that they have to go even if the hostages are released and there is a ceasefire." doesn't make sense.

And you don't seem do disagree that war will continue irrespective of ceasefires, until Hamas, as an Iran proxy and a militant Islamic terrorist organization bent on destruction of Israel, is driven out of Gaza, one way or another.

Good enough for me!

They aren’t intelligent enough, and have no place to keep them realistically safe.
Look at Gaza, it’s a rubble heap!

There's an awful lot of them around nowadays...

Doesn't he know he is a legitimate military target and he puts everybody around him at risk?

Heartless bastard.

Doesn't justify hamas attacking the city with rockets...

There are guys with guns in Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, but they are not shooting at Israelis, are they?

Ever winder why Israel is not bombing Palestinian babies in Jordan?

This is what it did say.
The Israeli military declined to comment on the father's remarks. It has said it launched the strike to target militants who were operating in the area of the school, and took precautions including using precise munitions to reduce civilian casualties.
The article does not say if they were armed or not does it?
It wasn't very precise if it hit the school was it?

What are you going to make of THAT?

Too funny.

based on what the article DIDN"T say.

Wasn't that sufficiently obvious?

and then when called out on it you doubled down on absurdity. Sounds like a politician I know.

UNRWA facilities?

Do the terrorists have any pity for their own children?

Careful, that is a violation of the DU rules!

But by your standards, neither do you.

"The Israeli military declined to comment on the father's remarks. It has said it launched the strike to target militants who were operating in the area of the school, and took precautions including using precise munitions to reduce civilian casualties."
In the area of the school, not in the school.

Are you suggesting that legitimate Hamas military targets are not routinely hidden in schools and UNRWA facilities?

Or are you suggesting that hamas terrorists have ever shown pity for their own children?

And how the hell does anything of what you quoted have any relevance to what I posted?

"[The Israeli military] has said it launched the strike to target militants who were operating in the area of the school"

And since my question is not specific to any particular article but rather a reply to a made up allegation,, you can find plenty of examples of Hamas military targets hiding in schools and UNRWA facilities... if only you were in the least bit inclined to google the subject.

And with that, I wish you the best of luck trying to find sense in your ridiculous accusations. I have grown tired of enabling you in this rather peculiar pastime.

Good night.

"No you did not at all"...what? What is this even referring to? No I did not make the article say exactly what it said? How does this make any sense?

Just stop. You have already posted enough stuff to make yourself laugh tomorrow morning when you re-read it.

Good night.

"What aree legitimate Hamas military targets doing in schools that shelter refugees and UNRWA facilities?"
That is what I am addressing. Post #9 by you. You did not quote them.