If Hamas surrenders and releases all hostages....

That's a step short of surrender, and yes they have. They have made multiple offers to release hostages in exchange for ceasefire. That's coming to the table to negotiate. It's just not agreement to Israel's terms.

Are you saying if they announced to surrender unconditionally, Israel would stop bombing and killing people in Gaza? Or would Israel say there are still Hamas despite this and keep going?

 

???

I mention that what Israel means by Hamas surrender is never defined, and your response to me is that I didn't define Hamas surrender? Yeah.... That's my question. If I had the answer I wouldn't have to ask...

And regarding your latter text, are you thereby agreeing that Israel's line that it will stop killing Palestinians when Hamas surrenders is empty nonsense rhetoric?

 

I was asking YOU to define what you think surrender means. If you can't define it, how do you expect Israel to define it?

 

I expect them to define it because they are stating they will base their actions on it.

Why would I define it? It isn't me saying I will stop doing something when it happens. It is them saying that. If they can't or won't define it, then they are speaking empty rhetoric. You appear to agree.

If I say that I will give you $100 when X happens, you would expect me to clarify what X means, would you not?

 

They must also surrender. They want a cease fire to reposition their dwindling forces and rearrange their human shields.

 

why?

 

But how do you define surrender? What exactly must Hamas do to surrender, and how will you know that they did it?

 

And how did we define surrender in WWII? You settle for the know upper level cadre. and as much of the rank and file as you can get. In jail or a POW camp if they bring the hostages with them so much the better.

 

They don't wear uniforms. How will you identify who they are? And what will satisfy Israel that they have the upper level cadre, enough to cease the attacks on Gaza? Without making this clear, the door would be open to keep redefining the term and keep on going with the killing of Gazans. As we have seen above, some think all Palestinians are Hamas.

"We will stop when Hamas surrenders" sounds good. It sounds reasonable. But it means very little when we don't know what will be accepted as "Hamas surrenders".

 

You're the one saying that if Hamas surrenders and releases all hostages that Israel should stop their campaign and yet you won't even define what surrender even means. Surrender could mean that Hezbollah just takes over where Hamas left off.

 

No. No, I'm not.

Israel and Israeli apologists have been saying they will stop their campaign if Hamas surrenders. I'm examining that statement.

The statement is empty rhetoric unless they define what they mean by such a surrender and what they would accept as being such a surrender.

Otherwise they are just saying "We will stop when X.". It isn't up to me to define what they mean by X when they say that. I'm no the one saying it.

 

I believe that if Hamas did those things, they would be internally (meaning the Palestinian people themselves) ripped apart. For caving to the Israelis. I would bet that Palestinians would do far more damage to Hamas than the IDF would.

 

I searched your posts to see if you have condemned Hamas' invasion, mass rape and murder of unarmed Jewish Women, and was unable to locate any such posts from you. Can you direct me to any?

 

Got it.

Canadians have problems with Sikhs using Canada as a sanctuary and place to continue the fight for an independent Khalistan in India. Bringing in people who are more concerned about their native country is tricky business.

 

Why are you obsessing with ad hominem? What I wrote stands on its own, regardless of who I am or what I think.

 

So just let the Japs continue their war from their islands and still occupy vast swathes of mainland Asia?

 

Darn right, the A-bomb gave the Japs a psychological way out, they could fight our conventional forces but not nuclear fission.

 

Command tunnels for hamas have been found under the main hospital and UN headquarters in Gaza.
Yes, the civilians will need to leave since they've allowed an avowed terrorist group who wants existential war to the knife with their neighbor to move in literally underneath them.
Anyone who doesn't leave is a human shield, and human shield use consequences fall on the one using the shield not the one breaking through it.

 

With naval blockades they would not have been able to conduct war in Asia. They were collapsing. Their Navy was done, they didn't have the resources or manpower to replace what they were using. Without effective trade routes, they were finished. There would have been no need to invade, and they wouldn't be able to conduct anything. Their armies would have simply ground to a halt. So yes. Think smarter, not harder.

 

Tit for tat things like releasing a few hostages is not a long term solution. It trades a FEW people for a FEW days of peace. "Peace negotiations" are aimed at permanent peace. If Israel gets CREDIBLE commitment by Hamas for permanent peace, and Israel gets CREDIBLE commitment for permanent peace... there will be peace. Until both sides come to the table with that commitment as the ultimate goal, they will never be able to knock out the details and have peace. But if they do BOTH commit to peace... there will be peace.

Hamas has the destruction of Israel in its defining charter. As long as that remains... the killing will continue. And that is what war is about. Ugly stuff. But its about survival.

 

If you're fine with Hamas invading a neighboring country and mass raping and murdering young Jewish women, I doubt that we will many areas of agreement.

 

I have never said anything like that.
I have consistently condemned Hamas.

 

Understand who these folks are.

SOME OF THE LEFT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH SEXUAL VIOLENCE INFLICTED ON THE CORRECT PEOPLE: She Can’t Even Condemn Rape.

“Yesterday, Rashida Tlaib took a clarifying vote in which she stood her ground alone, refusing to condemn the rape of women by Hamas.”

'The "Hamas Caucus" and other radical Left Democrats have spent their energy condemning Israel and often justifying Hamas' terror.'

'418-0-1: House approved a bipartisan resolution condemning rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas in its war against Israel. Tlaib (D-MI) voted Present.'



'Rashida Tlaib is a grotesque parody of a Social Justice Warrior. She can't find it in her heart to condemn sexual violence when it is aimed at Jews, just as she remains silent when her friends in the Middle East stone to death women or throw homosexuals off of buildings.'

'She is a hateful fraud.'

Gaza's invasion, rapes, and murders of young Jewish Women are 'state policy carried out as terror measures to get political results. Gaza 'is a criminal, terrorist organization that uses rape and murder as a matter of policy. Its leaders justify these actions and worse.'

'Tlaib is on the side of rapists and murderers, and her excuses are a dodge, not an explanation. She supports evil. Unfortunately, Tlaib is not alone. Not at all. She had one of the largest fundraising hauls for a Congresswoman after being censured by Congress. She is popular with' some of 'the Left, precisely because she supports terrorism.'

Do we need to refuted these clowns point by point, or do we need to simply let them show everyone who they are?

 

Would we have invaded or continue dropping atomic bombs on them? We could have dropped several on their army amassed to oppose our invasion.

 

The ball was in Japan's court... and they chose to surrender.