Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,898
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Certainly the term "ceasefire" carries a lot of baggage. Hamas wasn't exactly on level terms before October 7th. After October 7th, they should be viewed as nothing but a terror cell pretending to be a quasi governing body. They don't deserve or warrant a ceasefire. They warrant justice being paid against them. I would say sieges need to end, but the active targeting of Hamas isn't something the world needs to end.That's kind of those polls that find that majority of Americans are in favor of this or that lofty goal without considering how to get there or any downsides.A majority of Americans now favor a ceasefire.
What would "ceasefire" mean concretely? Hamas refuses a ceasefire without a long laundry list of demands (as if they were winning the war on the ground) that includes release of >1000 terrorists from Israeli prisons. Including many serving life sentences.
Any ceasefire with Hamas would last only as long as they don't decide to renege and attack Israel again. There was a ceasefire in effect on 10/6/2023 after all. What good did it do anybody?
That said, "what good did it do anybody" is very bothersome language as well. I see lots of language like this from yourself and others, which seems to imply the justification for ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Israel, or maybe more liberally, the an apartheid set up. You don't say it out loud (type it?), but I don't see any possible alternative to the "what good did it do anybody" rhetoric.
So, could you and others please describe what the solution is in your mind, if I'm wrong, regarding the location of Muslims in Israel.