War in Gaza

[Bootstrap]

I didn't say you were mocking Soloist's bear analogy. To me, your response seemed to be mocking my question, while implying a bunch of things that were simply not in my question at all and not addressing it.

Perhaps I misunderstood? How should I interpret your post as a response to the question I asked?

I was following the analogy to show that no matter what happened, the odds were against the hostages because they were in the hands of bad-faith actors.

Thanks, that's helpful. I misinterpreted what you were saying and I apologize. And I agree with you that Hamas is a bad faith actor.

[Bootstrap]

Do you have thoughts on how else to rescue the remaining 137 hostages beyond a nebulous "find a negotiating partner that isn't Hamas"?

For the hostages, another negotiating partner probably wouldn't mean much. Hamas has the hostages. I think you are taking a phrase from a rather different context.

[Ernie]

My question really was a purely secular strategy question: is there really a military scenario that amounts to rescuing the hostages? I assume they are scattered in various locations, some may no longer even be in Gaza.

How could they have gotten out of Gaza?????

[Soloist]

My question really was a purely secular strategy question: is there really a military scenario that amounts to rescuing the hostages? I assume they are scattered in various locations, some may no longer even be in Gaza.

How could they have gotten out of Gaza?????

Tunnels, smuggled in refugees under threat of death…

Possibly other ways. Don’t underestimate their ability to move them. Now doesn’t mean they did…

[HondurasKeiser]

Do you have thoughts on how else to rescue the remaining 137 hostages beyond a nebulous "find a negotiating partner that isn't Hamas"?

For the hostages, another negotiating partner probably wouldn't mean much. Hamas has the hostages. I think you are taking a phrase from a rather different context.

I was responding to what your suggested here:

I don’t think negotiations actually will result in anything substantial. You’re dealing with a group of people that very happily took hostages and have killed them. Any negotiations would be used as delaying tactics to kill more.

You are assuming that the negotiations would be with Hamas.

I doubt that they would. Finding or developing a negotiating partner is hard. But I'm not sure the alternative is any easier - or exactly what it is.

These two statements seem incongruous.

[Bootstrap]

Do you have thoughts on how else to rescue the remaining 137 hostages beyond a nebulous "find a negotiating partner that isn't Hamas"?

For the hostages, another negotiating partner probably wouldn't mean much. Hamas has the hostages. I think you are taking a phrase from a rather different context.

I was responding to what your suggested here:

I don’t think negotiations actually will result in anything substantial. You’re dealing with a group of people that very happily took hostages and have killed them. Any negotiations would be used as delaying tactics to kill more.

You are assuming that the negotiations would be with Hamas.

I doubt that they would. Finding or developing a negotiating partner is hard. But I'm not sure the alternative is any easier - or exactly what it is.

These two statements seem incongruous.

I think negotiations over hostages really do need to be with the people who have the hostages.

I think negotiations over the long term future of Palestine and Gaza need to be with a representative that is not Hamas. And that's what I was saying in the part you quoted here. That's the context that I thought was missing.

[HondurasKeiser]

For the hostages, another negotiating partner probably wouldn't mean much. Hamas has the hostages. I think you are taking a phrase from a rather different context.

I was responding to what your suggested here:

You are assuming that the negotiations would be with Hamas.

I doubt that they would. Finding or developing a negotiating partner is hard. But I'm not sure the alternative is any easier - or exactly what it is.

These two statements seem incongruous.

I think negotiations over hostages really do need to be with the people who have the hostages.

I think negotiations over the long term future of Palestine and Gaza need to be with a representative that is not Hamas. And that's what I was saying in the part you quoted here. That's the context that I thought was missing.

That's a good clarification...I agree with both points, though I do not think either are easily attainable either through violent or non-violent means.

1. To the first point: We both agree that Hamas is a bad-faith actor and we all just witnessed, these past few days, what results from good-faith efforts to negotiate with them. Thus, how then to free any hostages that are still alive?

2. To the second point: Finding a non-Hamas, Palestinian negotiating partner that is not knee-jerk intractable à la Arafat/PLO/Abbas, seems extraordinarily difficult without a Hamas presence in Gaza and nigh on impossible if Hamas is still in the background in any real way.

[Bootstrap]

Back to this:

I'm wondering if they are likely to just kill the hostages if they are attacked.

I'm skeptical of the "violence solves everything" philosophy. You know, "the real problem with the world is that people are too timid to use more violence, which would solve everything". Often, that violence just makes things worse. How likely is a surgical rescue of all the hostages?

This is something that happens frequently. I say something I would have thought was a point of agreement, and the response is something like this:

I don't ascribe to anything you wrote in the above paragraph. After more than 12 years on MN/MD I should think it unnecessary to have to prove to you or anyone else here my nonresistant bona fides or the fact that I don't believe that "Fighting is the way to solve problems".

Do you see anyone else on MN subscribing to what you wrote in the above paragraph?

This kind of response is pretty standard now. Especially for things that might sound Christian. Often with repeated requests to name people who disagree. First off, that would be against forum rules. And it's better to let each person speak for themselves. Agree, disagree, give whatever reasons, but please do not take offense that I say things that sound possibly Christian. And please don't ask me to name specific people who get something wrong in order to discuss what I think is right. We really must be able to discuss things that might sound Christian here.

Most of the time, I am responding to the subject and what I think salient considerations are. I am not mind-reading what each person here thinks and feels and taking them to court. I realize people sometimes feel that way. Sometimes I feel like people are mind-reading me, coming up with things that I don't think and would not say, sometimes attributing things others have said to me. In this thread, I really did misinterpret what you said to me earlier - there have been some pretty personal denunciations recently, I get sensitive sometimes, I misinterpreted that and overreacted. I really do think it's best to let each of us speak for ourselves. I got that wrong when I assumed you were mocking what I had said.

In this case, I don't think I was channeling Jesus as much as I was channeling very secular people like Henry Kissinger, who said that most wars are fought for reasons that turn out to be false, most wars do not achieve their stated objectives, and most wars cost much, much more than anyone predicted in both human lives and money. And I was channeling secular discussions I have listened to on hostage policy.

I don't think Jesus told us what the most effective military policy is, or the most effective way to rescue hostages. Of course, he did call us to be peacemakers, in ways that are not violent. And we should not glorify violence. I do think Romans 13 says God gave Caesar the sword. I think Caesar often seems to think that the sword solves problems that are best solved in other ways.

[Ernie]

I wouldn’t call Zionism “genocide” either, even though the movement has cost many Palestinians their lives. It seems prudent to separate political / ideological movements from calling them “genocides” when they aren’t.

The NYT has an excellent article out today on how Netanyahu funded and tolerated Hamas in order to discourage things he didn’t want such as a two state solution. Well worth a read.

Link please?

[HondurasKeiser]

I wouldn’t call Zionism “genocide” either, even though the movement has cost many Palestinians their lives. It seems prudent to separate political / ideological movements from calling them “genocides” when they aren’t.

The NYT has an excellent article out today on how Netanyahu funded and tolerated Hamas in order to discourage things he didn’t want such as a two state solution. Well worth a read.

Well as it turns out neither did/does Hamas...so they both got what they wanted until they didn't? I'm unconvinced by arguments that seek to place the blame of October 7th on Jews and Israel.