Are you communist left? Or socialist left? Or cryptoanarchist left?

Are you republican right? Or fascist right? Or tankie right? Or cryptocapitalist right?

If it’s off by one (center left instead of center, mixed instead of high) then just chill. It’s close enough. The point is to highlight the extremes, especially for when someone went headline shopping and posted some relatively unknown source.

I needed a laugh. Thank you.

Deif is dead. Haniyeh is dead. Something like 40% of all the senior leadership is dead.

The hostages aren’t keeping them alive, they’re putting them in the crosshairs.

Do you have a copy of the bridging proposal? I haven’t seen any actual text.

I have to say that this is the most color I’ve seen in months on the actual reasons why. On first read, it gives an understanding that both sides are willing to approach a deal - but lack trust in the process and the mediators ability to coerce the other side to actually commit and follow through.

A more cynical read (my second one) through this is that Hamas is still viewing civilian hostages as an asset and leverage. They are hesitant to get a six week ceasefire because they think they should get more than that for civilian hostages. Recent reports are making it clear that Hamas is executing the hostages. Whether as part of their negotiations, a breakdown in discipline, or just simple evil - the mediators have failed to impress upon Hamas the depth of their strategic mistake.

I wonder if this was some concession by Hamas as part of the negotiations

You got me. I was trying to bait you into saying that ethnic cleansing is obviously a bad thing and we should apply a consistent standard to avoid dehumanizing rhetoric.

So perhaps they can allow Israel to exist within US

It sounds like you’re suggesting ethnically cleansing Jews from the region. How is that any better than suggesting that all Palestinians be moved to Qatar or Iran?

The polling data also shows they overwhelming don’t consider what Hamas did on October 7th to be atrocities. They have demonized Israel so much that they dont consider Israelis human. People like you just spread that same dehumanizing message outwards.

Seriously. Stop and think for a few minutes about what you just wrote and flip the word Israel with Palestine.

There are no economic or diplomatic ties to cut. Saudi Arabia does not recognize the existence of Israel.

Considering 63% of Gazans support terrorism, there is a very real risk that refugees could be Hamas supporters

You mean like Hamas not even showing up?

Because Iran says they’ll attack if the talks don’t work, and Sinwar wants that so this is the easiest way for him to cause it

Thank you for explaining your rationale.

I think you are dangerously wrong. How do you suggest to prevent violence? some of the issues you are facing are historically Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem launching terror attacks against settlers living there who purchased the land their grandparents were forced from (the actual situation is even more complicated than this one sentence explanation). Now imagine needing to solve that, but on a very large scale.

If you suddenly grant Palestinians full rights and movement, there is nothing preventing them from launching a genocidal campaign against Jewish Israelis. Hamas, PIJ, and other Palestinian groups have declared they will not stop until all Jews within Israel are dead.

Your rationale for wanting a one state solution is idealistic, but ultimately naive. It fails to capture the complexity of the conflict and serves to further violent interests while screaming their slogan.

So for the people who think like you do, it’s an explicit rejection of a two state solution, and publicly declaring that the only path to peace is one state shared by everyone.

I’d like to understand why you think a one state solution is the most viable path to peace?

No reasonable person would hear “destroy Mexico” and think “oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico”. They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.

if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.

Yes.

“From the river to the sea” on the other hand is a call for the destruction of one or the other. Neither is ok.

So by your logic calling for the destruction of Gaza or Palestine should be allowed as non-hate speech as well. Because it’s only referring to “the dissolution of a state apparatus”.

Based on your comments elsewhere, you’d automatically color those as the calls to violence they quite clearly are, yet you’re willing to go to great length to argue that somehow calling for the destruction of Israel isn’t.

Countries are not just lines on a map. They are people. Calling for their destruction is calling for the death of those people and their culture.

You cannot decide after saying it that calling for the “destruction” of a country means merely changing the borders or system of government. The word implies violence.

calling for the destruction of a country is never ok, and is always a problem

This is a syndicated article from mondoweiss.

A process that has been criticized by many specifically because it ignores and undermines Israeli efforts to prosecute war crimes committed by its own. It violates the principle of complementarity, so there’s a decent chance the request for warrants will be dismissed without prejudice on those grounds alone.

I personally believe the request was made to appease the Muslim world as the others in that request are Deif, Haniyeh, and Sinwar. Those warrants will likely be granted, given that the State of Palestine (signatory to the Rome Statutes and the reason for jurisdiction) clearly lacks the ability or willingness to hold them or their organization responsible for their actions.