Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Nothing. The dead are dead regardless of whatever distinction without a difference you want to make.

The takeaway from this is that you don't see a distinction between violent terrorists or attacking soldiers and their victims. They are all dead?
Tom

I don’t see that it matters what percentage of the dead children are “combatants”. Also I doubt the IDF knows which children in any bomb site are combatants.

I do see the distinction between cogent analysis and your posts.

It does matter because the percentage of women and "children" killed is being used as evidence of supposed Israeli misdeeds. We do not have current demographics but in past conflicts the number of dead "children" that were 16+ is a substantial percent of the total. (And also, in past situations a substantial number of the civilian casualties were actually Hamas misfires. They always blame Israel when a rocket falls short.)

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody's applauding what's happening. We are saying that Israel has the right to defend itself and that an attacker who suffers badly from attacking doesn't get protection.

But that isn't what has been said. There have been multiple posters who have attributed some level of blame for the October 7th atrocity on the civilians in Gaza. This has been done after people have asked about the collateral damage of IDF attacks.

The context provided is that while they aren't in (vocal) support of directly targeting the civilians, they don't feel the civilians deserve any protection.

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

Can you please describe for me what the consequence should be for this stated culpability? Displacement, arrest, unintended death, indiscriminate death?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestinian self-rule does not mean Hamas is free to operate in Gaza. That is a ridiculous excluded middle fallacy.

Palestinian self rule means Palestinian police go after terrorists and other criminals in the State of Palestine. It means The Palestinian government can seek assistance from foreign governments if it so desires.

And seven days are nowhere near a week!

(The Palestinians have chosen and continue to choose the path of violence--10/7 polls higher than Hamas. Thus Palestinian self rule means the war continues.)

Its illogic like the above that supports bigotry and ethnic cleansing.

If the logic is wrong show how. When you just post stuff like this is basically an admission you have no actual flaw to point to.

I'd say the biggest flaw is that of the idea that war is ever going to stop. Especially when people keep pointing to past losses to justify future ones. Here is the biggest problem. If Palestinians can't rule themselves, and Israel won't rule them... what is the alternative?

The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.

Peace only comes after the funding stops.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Palestinian self-rule does not mean Hamas is free to operate in Gaza. That is a ridiculous excluded middle fallacy.

Palestinian self rule means Palestinian police go after terrorists and other criminals in the State of Palestine. It means The Palestinian government can seek assistance from foreign governments if it so desires.

And seven days are nowhere near a week!

(The Palestinians have chosen and continue to choose the path of violence--10/7 polls higher than Hamas. Thus Palestinian self rule means the war continues.)

Its illogic like the above that supports bigotry and ethnic cleansing.

If the logic is wrong show how. When you just post stuff like this is basically an admission you have no actual flaw to point to.

I'd say the biggest flaw is that of the idea that war is ever going to stop. Especially when people keep pointing to past losses to justify future ones. Here is the biggest problem. If Palestinians can't rule themselves, and Israel won't rule them... what is the alternative?

The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.

Peace only comes after the funding stops.

I can only take your response to indicate you don't think the Gazans are culpable, but are quite irrelevant, as you hit on the main cause... and quite unintentionally indicate how peace actually starts... and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians, but the Iranian radical extremists funding the chaos exclusively for chaos' sake. Turning off the tap there is a major step in stopping the killing.

 

[Tigers!]

An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.

That was me a lot of posts ago.

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-Palestinians

Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?

By all means. Lead on MacDuff.

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal? Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

It will be very messy.

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing. The dead are dead regardless of whatever distinction without a difference you want to make.

The takeaway from this is that you don't see a distinction between violent terrorists or attacking soldiers and their victims. They are all dead?
Tom

I don’t see that it matters what percentage of the dead children are “combatants”. Also I doubt the IDF knows which children in any bomb site are combatants.

I do see the distinction between cogent analysis and your posts.

It does matter because the percentage of women and "children" killed is being used as evidence of supposed Israeli misdeeds. We do not have current demographics but in past conflicts the number of dead "children" that were 16+ is a substantial percent of the total. (And also, in past situations a substantial number of the civilian casualties were actually Hamas misfires. They always blame Israel when a rocket falls short.)

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

I strongly suspect that if Hamas offered that explanation "in war civilians die" when they kill Israeli civilians, the outrage would be non-stop.

And, of course, just because something occurs, does not make it right.

 

[laughing dog]

The IDF will attack anywhere where hostages are suspected to be held. It would be wrong of Israel not to do everything in their power to free the civilians. It's the primary job of the Israeli government to protect it's own citizens. If Hamas gave a shit about the Palestinian people, they'd move the hostages away from civilians, and inform the IDF where they are. If they do anything else it's on Hamas that Palestinian civilians are dying now. What makes this so barbaric, is that Rafah is filled to the brim with refugees from the rest of Gaza. They're already weakened and starving. If Hamas gave a shit about the Palestinian people they'd of course do what they can not to give Israel a reason to attack Rafah.

Or even better, just return them. They had no right to take them to begin with. But Hamas has never had a working moral compass.

Your applaue and approval of the displacement of millions of people, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians from bombs and bullets, and the resulting malnutrition and disease( which hits the very young and the very old the worst) makes your comments about "giving a shit about the Palestrinian people" epically ironic.

Nobody's applauding what's happening. We are saying that Israel has the right to defend itself and that an attacker who suffers badly from attacking doesn't get protection.

But that isn't what has been said. There have been multiple posters who have attributed some level of blame for the October 7th atrocity on the civilians in Gaza. This has been done after people have asked about the collateral damage of IDF attacks.

The context provided is that while they aren't in (vocal) support of directly targeting the civilians, they don't feel the civilians deserve any protection.

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal? Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.

The attack and subsequent kidnapping has pretty much made a peace deal between them and Israel all but impossible. The trouble is that IDF's response isn't what appears to be a defensive act aimed at protecting the Israeli people, but cover for failure and annexing Gaza. Nearing 700 Israeli soldiers killed in action in this response.

Peace quite possibly died when Netanyahu and the radicals fanned the flames that got Rabin assassinated.

 

[laughing dog]

Palestinian self-rule does not mean Hamas is free to operate in Gaza. That is a ridiculous excluded middle fallacy.

Palestinian self rule means Palestinian police go after terrorists and other criminals in the State of Palestine. It means The Palestinian government can seek assistance from foreign governments if it so desires.

And seven days are nowhere near a week!

(The Palestinians have chosen and continue to choose the path of violence--10/7 polls higher than Hamas. Thus Palestinian self rule means the war continues.)

Its illogic like the above that supports bigotry and ethnic cleansing.

If the logic is wrong show how. When you just post stuff like this is basically an admission you have no actual flaw to point to.

I'd say the biggest flaw is that of the idea that war is ever going to stop. Especially when people keep pointing to past losses to justify future ones. Here is the biggest problem. If Palestinians can't rule themselves, and Israel won't rule them... what is the alternative?

The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.

Then the IDF's operations will not accomplish all of their goals. If you actually thought about it, you are undermining your defense of the IDF's destruction of Gaza and their killing of thousands of civilians.

 

[Arctish]

An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.

That was me a lot of posts ago.

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-Palestinians

Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?

By all means. Lead on MacDuff.

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

It will be very messy.

 

[Tigers!]

An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.

That was me a lot of posts ago.

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-Palestinians

Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?

By all means. Lead on MacDuff.

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

No argument from me on that score

Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

It will be very messy.

 

[Arctish]

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.

When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

Donitz was later charged with committing war crimes, convicted on two counts, and served time in prison.

If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems to me that as a general rule excluding a principal combatant from peace negotiations makes no sense. If a principal combatant us excluded, they have no chance to agree to peace.

 

[Arctish]

If you want peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. - Desmond Tutu

 

[repoman]

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.

When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

Donitz was later charged with committing war crimes, convicted on two counts, and served time in prison.

If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.

Tigers thought he scored a point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.

When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

Donitz was later charged with committing war crimes, convicted on two counts, and served time in prison.

If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.

The little poblem here that Gaza is led by the PA (led by Fatah) and has the official power, but Hamas has the de facto power. This war is fought on land under PA jurisdiction, so they should negotiate peace. But they're not part of this war. Hamas has no official recognition by anyone. They're operating completely outside international law. Hamas is deemed a terrorist organisation by some countries, and not by others. If Hamas loses they will evaporate into thin air and there's no one who can speak for them. That's what happens with terror organisations. Terror organisations are typically indipendent operators using a common name. Calling these "organisations" is being very generous. In regions with a power vacuum (like Gaza) we can get quite intricate informal organisational structures. But because there's very little apart from a vague shared ideology holding it together, any minor push makes it all instantly fall apart. There's many examples in history. The ONLY thing that keeps Hamas relevant in Gaza is the constant influx of Iranian money. The moment that stops Hamas will be no more.

There's very little about the Palestinian peace negotiations that will be straight forward. Hamas isn't so much a fighting force, as a force that continually throws sand into the workings of the Israeli nation. Whatever does that is what Iran will keep giving money.

 

[Arctish]

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.

When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

Donitz was later charged with committing war crimes, convicted on two counts, and served time in prison.

If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.

The little poblem here that Gaza is led by the PA (led by Fatah) and has the official power, but Hamas has the de facto power.

The Battle of Gaza:

The Battle of Gaza was a military conflict between Fatah and Hamas that took place in the Gaza Strip from 10 to 15 June 2007. It was a prominent event in the Fatah–Hamas conflict, centered on the struggle for power after Fatah lost the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. The battle resulted in the dissolution of the unity government[3] and the de facto division of the Palestinian territories into two entities: the West Bank governed by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the Gaza Strip governed by Hamas. Hamas fighters took control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah officials were either taken as prisoners, executed, or expelled.[3][4] The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported that at least 161 people were killed and more than 700 were wounded during the fighting.[1]

The Palestinian Authority does not lead Gaza. It has no official power and very little influence there. Hamas is in charge. Like it or not, any negotiations regarding Gaza will have to include Hamas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

 

[TomC]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I agree, sorta, but I think it's worse than that.
Hamas is doing the bidding of wealthy supporters which includes Iran. They've no official power, but they control the money and guns. Which they get from those wealthy Islamic supporters.
But those supporters are not only Iranian. There's plenty of other super rich Islamic theocrats. You might not know their names, but if Iran were to agree to a permanent peace deal with Israel* other supporters would undoubtedly step in and prop up Islamic terrorists like Hamas. Hamas might be forced out, but they'd undoubtedly regroup under another name and continue more or less the same.

Neither Israelis nor Gazan civilians have any good options.
Tom

ETA * yeah, as if that's gonna happen