Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevo
You're being absurd and arguing in bad faith by misrepresenting what I said. I never said Israel shouldn't agree to one, I said Hamas needs to release the hostages first and stop firing missiles.
And obviously I didn't single you out for any other reason than I was replying to you. Seemed obvious enough that I shouldn't have to clarify that but here we are.
You can reply if you like but I said my piece and am out for now.
|
No, what is absurd is the level of double speak you’re using.
“Why should Israel agree to a ceasefire.”
“Hamas needs to release the hostages first and stop firing missiles.”
“I never said Israel shouldn’t agree to one.”
Except, you know, exactly where you say they shouldn’t.
And of course you have to clarify why you single someone out as someone who demanded a ceasefire when they didn’t demand a ceasefire. Why would that come as an even slight surprise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beninho
A ceasefire now would save Hamas in the face of an imminent total defeat. No other country would agree to a ceasefire under the present conditions, Israel has essentially got Hamas on deaths door but the world wants to give Hamas a lifeline. Fighting would stop if Hamas releases the hostages and surrenders. If Israel lets Hamas live the potential for a two front war with Hezbollah/Iran in the future remains. IDF has Hamas pinned in the North and will do the same in the South, there is zero benefit for Israel to have a ceasefire. Maybe if Hamas was posing a hardened resistance, but they are not. Hamas has two choices, surrender and allow a new chapter for the Palestinians in Gaza to begin or fight till the last terrorist standing. It’s that simple.
If you truly want peace I don’t understand why you also would want to allow Hamas to survive. There is no future for Palestinians with Hamas at the negotiating table. Only more war and more deaths.
|
Saying “the fighting would stop if one side surrenders” is kind of meaningless. That’s how fighting works.