An Israeli military spokesperson confirmed that there were “hostage situations” in the southern city of Ofakim and the nearby kibbutz of Beeri.
Hamas said it had taken “dozens” of Israeli soldiers hostage and moved them to the Gaza Strip as footage emerged appearing to show gunmen in military fatigues leading a group of mostly barefoot women down a street in Israel.
The announcement and video verified by NBC News came hours after Hamas launched a deadly land, air and sea attack and fired a huge barrage of rockets at Israel.
Hamas can’t disappear until Israel’s stance changes. Remember: Hamas came to power because Israel wasn’t willing to advance a peaceful solution.
And their actions make that harder to accomplish just as the actions taken by Israel can’t disappear until the Palestinians’ stance changes. It is a circle.
No no. Hamas’s philosophy, and what won them the 2006 elections (they had never won before that), was the idea that peace was clearly not working. For example, what got Israel to pull out of Gaza was not the Oslo peace process, but the second Intifada after the peace process had failed. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s not like Palestinians are fighting because they want to; it’s that Israel is creating a situation where there’s no way but to fight or accept your fate as the oppressed. Usually the oppressor needs to stop their oppression before the oppressed stop fighting back.
Now I’m not saying if Israel gave Palestinians their demands terror attacks would stop completely, but a population living in peace greatly reduces terrorist organizations’ recruitment pool. See: The IRA during the troubles vs now. There’s just no world where Hamas can maintain power without a belligerent Israel…
Your first paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the discussion as this isn’t about reasons for grievance. That said, you are mostly wrong about the cause and effect involved.
The IRA then VS now was also via Peace Process being a two way street and not one side doing something. You should study what happened to see that it was in fact both sides realizing the only way forward. Unlike you myopic “It is up to the greater power to stop fighting first!”, both sides had to. And while your supposition that Hamas relies upon the oppression for their continued existence, they would cause the process to fail by an attack, much as the current one. And the only result is those that are also reliant upon the conflict for power in Israel are using the attack to increase support for more oppression.
In this case what’s happening is that neither side is pursuing that way, so nothing gets done. It’s up to Israel to provide an avenue for a sensible peace if they want Palestinians to take it. Remember: Palestinians tried that path (see: The Oslo accords) but their philosophies on the matter are just different. Palestinians view the peace process as a way to take back part of what’s theirs, while Israel is just giving them the bare minimum so they stop terror attacks. Until one of these changes (preferably Israel’s) there’ll never be peace.
For example this was part of the Israeli peace offer in the Camp David summit in 2000:
I mean would any self-respecting state really approve these demands?
“neither side” was is the only part of your post that was relevant to anything but grievance seeking.
What should Israel’s stance be with regards to people who want them dead?
Not do things that put people who want them did into power. There’s a reason Palestinians flocked behind Hamas and that was because peaceful solutions were not working.
Give Gaza autonomy in exchange for disbanding Hamas and turning in their leaders. Have a third party both sides trust provide security guarantees to Palestine so they can trust the bargin will hold
Are you sure? Maybe the Palestinian people should vote on that. Oh wait they can’t, Hamas won’t allow a vote. Instead they threaten “their own” citizens to make sure they’re more afraid of them than of Israel.
Of course, Hamas also can’t exist without Israel, otherwise who would they have to murder “from the Jordan River to the sea” as stated in their charter.
Yes, without the oppressor the oppressed wouldn’t have rallied behind a group who want to violently expel the oppressors. That’s part of the anti-zionist argument.