With its increased leverage in this round, Hamas is likely to push harder for concessions on key issues, such as easing the blockade and winning the release of prisoners held by Israel.
What idiot wrote this? What leverage does Hamas have? They will be destroyed in this war.
EDIT: Israel has officially decided to destroy Hamas for good. Article in hebrew: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bjso00d111t
Use google translate to read in English, sadly the direct link to translation does not work
Seriously, this person has no clue. They’re talking about this like it’s more of the same old conflict we are all used to. This is of a completely different character than anything we have seen. There will be no concessions, no ceasefire. Israel is fucking mad. And when they get mad they seriously fuck up whoever they are mad at in a very efficient and indisputable fashion. They might offer a ceasefire after they’ve exacted a very high cost in retaliation. The Gaza strip is royally fucked.
EDIT: Israel has officially decided to destroy Hamas for good.
Fun fact, if the GWOT taught us anything, it’s that you can’t eradicate an ideology through military force unless you do a genocide. Funner fact, Israel has been doing a slow genocide for a while and this is the excuse they have to speed the process up.
Hamas has huge support in palestine, killing them will result in (more) civilian deaths and increase support further.
“unprecedented”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…
Not a thing about this conflict is unprecedented.
When was the last time so many people died in a day? Or so many attackers crossed the border? Launched 5000 missiles? Kidnapped so many? These are all rather uncommon events; hence ‘unprecedented’.
This was preceded by something? Wut?
About 3000 years of constant bloodshed and conquering.
The territory that they invaded was previously Palestine, does anyone know how long ago?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567
This article has the maps showing the territory and who controlled it during certain time periods.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Hamas claimed its fighters took several Israelis captive in the enclave, releasing gruesome videos of militants dragging bloodied soldiers across the ground and standing over dead bodies, some of them stripped to their underwear.
Hamas officials cited long-simmering sources of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, including the dispute around the sensitive Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, which is is sacred to both Muslims and Jews and remains at the emotional heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In negotiations with Qatar, Egypt and the United Nations, Hamas has pushed for Israeli concessions that could loosen the 17-year blockade on the enclave and help halt a worsening financial crisis that has sharpened public criticism of its rule.
The eruption of violence comes at a difficult time for Israel, which is facing the biggest protests in its history over Netanyahu’s proposal to weaken the Supreme Court while he is on trial for corruption.
Israel and Hamas have fought four wars and exchanged fire numerous times since the Islamic militant group seized control of Gaza from forces loyal to the Palestinian Authority in 2007.
With its increased leverage in this round, Hamas is likely to push harder for concessions on key issues, such as easing the blockade and winning the release of prisoners held by Israel.
The original article contains 1,065 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
With its increased leverage in this round, Hamas is likely to push harder for concessions on key issues
Seems like they just threw away whatever leverage they had by “taking the low road”. Who’s going to listen to them now? Who’s going to agree to any of their demands?
The eruption of violence comes at a difficult time for Israel, which is facing the biggest protests in its history over Netanyahu’s proposal to weaken the Supreme Court while he is on trial for corruption.
The sentence that launched 1,000 podcasts
the dispute around the sensitive Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, which is is sacred to both Muslims and Jews and remains at the emotional heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
These two groups can’t stop fighting because of compounds that are sacred to both. Maybe you can take it away from both of them like children that can’t play nice with their toys, you take the toy away.
Blow this mosque up. Let them rebuild half of the property for Jewish, half for Muslim people or better yet build a community center aimed at joint Muslim Jewish peace.
Since Palestine has bitten back after decades of abuse and thousands of people killed, wiping them off the map is completely and utterly justified now! Three cheers for israel!
I’m not usually a both sides guy, but…
deleted by creator
Why are they called militant group? They have been and are terrorists.
I have to use the same title as the original article else it gets deleted
Hm okay-ish. Can you add some text below? How is that rule implemented? Do moderators check?
It’s the first rule in the community info section. Mods will check it if it’s reported for not following the guidelines.
This is AP, it’s not their job to have an opinion or adopt a particular nation’s stance on the news they report.
That doesn’t stop you or I from referring to them as a terrorist organisation if that’s what we believe.
Of course. But just because some news outlet is calling it a special operation does not mean that we should accept that. Such things need to be pointed out. Preferably in the TO.
(The other stuff were just genuine questions)
AP isn’t “some news outlet” though, they are the news outlet that other news outlets get their news from You’re implying a political slant that isn’t there. Their job is to report the literal and factual news. Other news outlets then use their articles to create or add political insight to their own articles should they wish to do so.
For example, AP didn’t report that Ukraine was a “special operation”. They did report that Putin was calling it that.
That’s the difference between impartiality and political alignment.
The headline says they are a militant group. Not that they call themselves that it what not.
I generally get your point and that is correct. But I don’t see that here, as per above.
They are a militant terrorist organisation. Putting the terms terrorist and militant at odds with each other is fruitless wordplay in the context of the news outlet reporting this and the rules of the sub.
We both agree that they are a terrorist organisation and we are free to talk about it here. That seems reasonable enough to me.
Some text below. Ok. Zionist nation gets attacked by terrorist group, people on both sides suffer.
They are not mutually exclusive.
We all wish “militants” described them better. Israel can wipe out an organized military that attacks them, with minimal impact on civilians. However these terrorists hide among the civilians, forcing the civilian population into the war, whether they want toor not
with minimal impact on civilians
Except when civilians are their target.
True, but while a terrorist is also someone who eats, one of the two is describing them better.
Peaceful terrorists struck several major city centers yesterday, according to their social media. Impact, if any, was not noticed.
Because militaries, or groups that act like militaries, can use terrorist activities to further their goals. They can be both.
When an organization is large, fixed in location, has ranks, news sources tend to call them militaries. Especially if it’s associated with an government.
When organizations are smaller, cell-based, less identifiable, they tend to be referred to as terrorists
The term has become pretty loose with climate activists being called terrorists and whatnot. Anyways, for me the defining characteristic of terror is:
The goal to strike fear in the civilian population. The goal is not to achieve military advantages like securing areas or destroying strategic assets.
As such, small units can be non terrorists (guerilla warfare), while nations can engage in terror (Russia prioritizing civilian targets over military).
Always bad when a definition depends on intent though, especially in controversial topics.
freedom fighters.
They fight freedom, yes.
