An Israeli military spokesperson confirmed that there were “hostage situations” in the southern city of Ofakim and the nearby kibbutz of Beeri.

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.

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    1·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      11·
      9 months ago

      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.

      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:

      The Israeli negotiators proposed that Israel be allowed to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border. Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River, and that it dismantle terrorist groups.[26] One of Israel’s strongest demands was that Arafat declare the conflict over, and make no further demands. Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.

      I mean would any self-respecting state really approve these demands?

      • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
        1·
        9 months ago

        “neither side” was is the only part of your post that was relevant to anything but grievance seeking.