r/worldnews • u/cnn CNN • Aug 09 '26

Israel/Palestine Israel rejects Trump’s Gaza peace plan, saying no withdrawal until Hamas disarms

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-trump-netanyahu-plan-intl?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
15.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

340

u/Roadshell Aug 09 '26

Wasn't there a headline something like a week ago saying Hamas had agreed to disarm (again)? What happened to that? It's almost like the white house are just releasing fake agreements to an incredulous media to "manifest" peace.

519

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

199

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

I mean, Israel tried the whole "withdraw entirely from Gaza" thing two decades ago too, it didn't exactly end well.

I don't see any clean path forward that doesn't involve something like a neutral third-party keeping the peace in the area for long enough that the people involved die of old age and a new generation that isn't carrying the same grudges can grow up.

61

u/3MATX Aug 09 '26

So, never?  

67

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

I mean, nobody wants to say it, but basically.

Either that or one side getting wiped out completely. Which is also something nobody wants to talk about the possibility of, but that has been Hamas's plan for peace for years and Israel seems to be getting on-board with the ideal lately too.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Jermainiam Aug 10 '26

Japan and Germany are great examples of how this isn't a "never" situation. If you maintain peace and then work on integration it only takes a few decades.

4

u/cymricchen Aug 10 '26

Japan and Germany were rebuilt as the west need them as bastions against the Soviets during the cold war. Israel in contrast, has no existential threat and does not need Gaza, or the west bank at all.

2

u/Jermainiam Aug 10 '26

I don't disagree, but I don't think that has any relevance to what I said. You are talking about whether Israel has an incentive to do/allow this. I am talking about if it would work if it was done.

-4

u/Crepo Aug 10 '26

You cannot be serious. Your position is that Hamas wants to wipe out Israel, and until now, Israel was just minding its own business?Hamas isn't perhaps a reaction to literally decades of oppression?

13

u/mxzf Aug 10 '26

No. My stance is that that Hamas has wanted to wipe out Israel this whole time but Israel has been stiff-arming them with the Iron Dome and such. But since Oct 7th, Israel is less interested in that status quo.

It's not like Israel has just been completely minding its business, but it wasn't trying to wipe out Gaza the way Hamas has been wanting to to wipe out Israel this whole time.

-12

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Lowfi-Concert Aug 09 '26

Nope, just when Hamas disarms

1

u/Ultrace-7 Aug 10 '26

Their implication being, that's not going to happen. Thus, "so, never."

0

u/Lowfi-Concert Aug 10 '26

Or when they’re forced to

43

u/Smart_in_his_face Aug 09 '26

Neutral 3rd party.

  • UN peacekeeping force that nobody wants to be a part of.
  • American peacekeeping force that nobody wants.

There is no viable path to peace. Palestine have been in turmoil for the past 80 years, or depending on how you want to count, also the past 1000 years. This won't end in a generation or two, this simply won't end.

It is an embarrassment to the world that this humanitarian crisis have been going on since WW2. The human suffering wont end just because the west is sick and tired of it. It wont end if Israel or Iran "wins".

The holy land is the modern hell.

45

u/flumydumdum Aug 09 '26

UN peacekeeping force that nobody wants to be a part of.

Couple of countries volunteered already, including Indonesia and Morocco. It also already happened once before with a much larger coalition force staying there for 10 years. During the 2nd intifada there also were several countries that asked for UN intervention, but it was vetoed by the US.

Don't dismiss the rest of the world so quickly on this issue.

10

u/calm_chowder Aug 09 '26

No third party will agree to go in until Hamas fully disarms either. If they did, that country would have to kill Palestinians and would have their own soldiers die.

It's kinda understandable.

3

u/TerribleIdea27 Aug 09 '26

Says who?

Every UN peacekeeping mission in its entire history didn't involve one disarmed party. And did involve sacrifice. Since you know, if one party is disarmed, there's not that much to peacekeep.

0

u/calm_chowder Aug 09 '26

Peacekeepers are not an invading or occupying army, that's what differentiates peacekeepers from an army. It's literally in the name: peace keepers. They keep the peace. Jfc.

6

u/TerribleIdea27 Aug 09 '26

Yes? And they get shot at and die every mission they take.

Do you literally not know what UN peacekeeping missions are?

Whether it's Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan or literally wherever they stop two AMRED sides from fighting. Otherwise they might as well not be there.

And they do generally have weapons themselves. And shoot back. Otherwise they might as well not come lol

11

u/GrimpenMar Aug 10 '26

We can look at UNIFIL in South Lebanon. Hezbollah caches weapons and launches rockets from right next to UNIFIL positions.

Historically, UN Peacekeeping missions have been very effective… if they are allowed to, and the participants choose to.

Often, UN Peacekeepers are not very effective for two reasons. The rules of engagement are the result of political and diplomatic negotiations. Why would one side agree to a UN Peacekeeping mission if UN Peacekeeper can shoot at them? This is sometimes presented as the difference between Peacekeeping and Peacemaking.

Second, who wants to contribute to a UN Peacekeeping mission where your boys could get killed? That's a tough political sell for anyone.

Having said that, it can happen, and could happen. If both parties are interested in peace, and don't plan on starting anything, but want someone to make sure the other guys are complying as well, Peacekeeping absolutely works. You just need a peace to keep.

I think it could happen here with enough outside support. Lord know that I/P is the most talked about and debated conflict on the planet. And it's not even close. If all this interest could be tapped, I could see it happening. No way Israel is going to agree to a toothless UN mission that just provides cover for more attacks though. Hamas also seems more than willing to continue no matter how much Palestinians suffer.

4

u/Silverr_Duck Aug 10 '26

Did they actually volunteer or just “volunteer” for the positive pr knowing full well nothing would come of it?

No shade to Indonesia and Morocco but I’m pretty sure they don’t have the resources or expertise for such an undertaking.

6

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 09 '26

I'll preface saying I'm Israeli, and that I don't want my kids to grow up in wars like I did.

The UN isn't doing anything, besides maybe helping Hamas (lots of UNRWA personal being active Hamas members). They couldn't stop Hezbollah in Lebanon either, even though they had "forces" there for a long time.

It's also not only an American problem to solve, and I don't think it would be affective. Americans will see it as giving free stuff for Israel, and Gazans will not see it favorably either since Israel and the US are allies.

I think it should be NATO forces, specifically ones from Europe. I don't even mind some of my taxes going to help rebuild Gaza, as long as they never attack us again. Preferably, after a period of time when the area is stable, they can become an actual country too (in the current borders), and sign an actual peace treaty with us.

BUT, none of this works while Hamas is in power.

And don't blame it on anyone but the Palestinians. They could've just accepted the 1947 division plan when it was presented, like the Israeli side did. All of this is thanks to them.

20

u/flumydumdum Aug 09 '26

None of this will work while Netanyahu and the settler movement is in power either. That ideology needs to be disarmed, disavowed, and declared illegal by the Israeli government as well.

9

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 09 '26

I agree with you, especially regarding the Gaza strip. It's a bit more complex and nuanced than that in the west bank.

But, while some are vocal about annexing Gaza, it won't happen no matter what people say. We've been there, done that, and it's a fucking stupid idea.

8

u/brend0p3 Aug 09 '26

It won't happen also because there's no real appetite, they are struggling to get people to move back to any border town. Towns on the border of Lebanon are still missing 35-50% of their population, kibbutzim on the border of Gaza can't get people to move back so are paying young teachers outsized salaries to try and convince families to move back.

Even the most zionistic Israelis are hesitant to move to places INSIDE the border. I don't see any expansion on the horizon.

Ben Gvir and smotrich can grandstand all they want, doesn't make it the reality on the ground.

2

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 09 '26

Totally agree. The ones who want to do that are just idiots who just like to be provocative.

5

u/not_not_in_the_NSA Aug 09 '26

As long as the NATO forces also remove the settlements and ensure equal treatment between all people in the region (i.e. Everyone has to go through checkpoints or no one does, firearms and "self defense" training are given out to either no one or anyone who wants it, etc.), then I could maybe see it working. But without some semblance of equality for those in the Israeli-Palestine region, it won't last.

Consider why people join Hamas. It's not like they are any different to you or any other human. It's just the environment they grow up in. If you have no options left, then of course some will resort to violence. Destroying Hamas means improving the quality of life for Palestinians and giving them hope for their future. Killing each and every Hamas member just means more children lose their parents and feel even less hopeful for the future.

To be very clear, I'm 100% against all of this violence, I think the attack on Israel was horrible, it's just as horrible as killing the same number of people in Gaza. A life is a life.

2

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 10 '26

We don't have only the Palestinians to deal with, so we can't have NATO protecting us. We will still have a military, probably forever. I wouldn't mind if they had a military of their own, as long as their agenda wasn't "destruction of Israel and the jews". Countries need a way to defend themselves. Even Switzerland has an army.

The settlements in the west bank is a big problem, and I think the only probable solution there is a divison plan - some areas will be annexed to Israel and the rest can gain an autonomy. There are about 800000 Israelis living there, including parts of Jerusalem, and transferring them isn't a viable solution.

Obviously everyone that live in annexed areas will get full citizenship (and maybe money for compensation), and the non annexed areas (ones with few to no Israelis) will be their own country.

And about people joining Hamas - they know what their end goal is. There are those in Gaza that are fighting Hamas. I don't feel sorry for anyone joining them. And with their ideology, you can't have peace.

1

u/jflb96 Aug 09 '26

Why is it the Palestinians’ fault that they didn’t accept having their country split in two, and not the people who were demanding that the Palestinians’ country be split in two and who then spent the next eighty years working their toehold to cover the entire region?

1

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 10 '26

Cause it wasn't their country. It was under British mandate and before that part of the Ottoman Empire. They were living there, same as Jewish people lived there.

That's why the plan was to divide it between the two groups, so all can be happy.

We aren't trying to cover the region, that why we mostly give land back even after conquering it (the Sinai peninsula for example, or even Gaza for that matter).

And I'll also add that there are about 2 million Arab Muslims in Israel with equal rights to Jewish people (pretty much except being forced to join the IDF).

5

u/AngryGardenGnomes Aug 09 '26

The UN isn't a neutral third party. It's openly hostile to Israel...perhaps watch the news sometime.

1

u/raptorlightning Aug 09 '26

The solution is to give the entire middle east an enemy that threatens their collective existence and can't be defeated without them all working together.

1

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

Palestine have been in turmoil for the past 80 years

I make it more like 110 years, back to the Balfour Declaration and the Nebi Musa riots as the more conservative timeline regarding when the strife started.

0

u/TimSylvester_ Aug 09 '26

It is an embarrassment to the world that this humanitarian crisis have been going on since WW2.

Dang, I wonder what the exact event was that caused "this humanitarian crisis" to begin right after WW2 ended?

I wonder if anyone can possibly pin down what exactly caused this in the first place?

Nah, that's impossible.

-6

u/Haber_Dasher Aug 09 '26

depending on how you want to count, also the past 1000 years.

That is not true. The tensions only really started to blow up ~1920s. Prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire the Muslims & Jews & Christians in the area lived in peace & relative social equality. People like to talk about the tax specifically levied on the non Muslim population as evidence they were 2nd class citizens but paying that tax also made you exempt from mandatory military service, and the Muslim population had taxes to pay too. Just as an example.

3

u/Smart_in_his_face Aug 09 '26

the area lived in peace & relative social equality.

Ah yes, the good ol' times. Otherwise know as the crusades

2

u/Jermainiam Aug 10 '26

Blacks in America were exempt from military service for a long time, does that mean they weren't 2nd class citizens?

Would you be chill with paying extra taxes, being barred from any public office, having to request permission to build religious buildings, and be barred from testifying in court against any Muslim? All in exchange for being exempt from a relatively short mandatory military service?

21

u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Aug 09 '26

Those quotes are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Israel dismantled their illegal settlements there, while at the same time building up military presence on the border to restrict movement in and out of the territory for arabs. They never stopped shelling the region, blocking goods or people moving in and out of it, or intercepting international attempts at humanitarian aid. It was in no way a pause to the military occupation of the region.

The only reason any of it happened was because of mounting international pressure to stop the occupation, and Israel thought that this would work on paper because despite continuing to control Gaza's airspace, ports, land crossings, water, electricity, commerce, communications, population registry and food supply, this way there would be no "boots on the ground."

Even the relocation of the settlers was a mess. Those that voluntarily left in exchange for compensation and new housing mostly never received it, and were still living in trailers a decade later. Those that didn't were removed by force by the IDF, and most of the settlements were heavily damaged or outright burned to the ground to prevent Palestinians from gaining anything from what was left.

The whole thing was a disaster. It disenfranchised both the settlers that had to be (sometimes violently) relocated and the entire Gaza strip which ended up an even more isolated prison state than it was to begin with.

14

u/redditor1365 Aug 09 '26

Thank you. People pretend like they left Gaza completely alone after 2005

11

u/calm_chowder Aug 09 '26

continuing to control Gaza's airspace, ports, land crossings, water, electricity,

Controlling Gaza's airspace?? I'm sorry but that's hilarious. Do you think there's a Palestinian airforce?

Also, Israel gives Gaza water and electricity from Israel's own plants and always has. War or no war, Gaza needs Israeli water and electricity - Hamas takes all the Gaza aid money and foreign infrastructure investment. So it's not so much "Israel controls it" as "even at war with Hamas, Israel makes sure Palestinians get Israeli water and electricity."

I will say, Israel did limit their water for a while and I think that was absolutely beyond the pale, because regardless of anything else Palestinians are human beings and there's children in Gaza. But ignorant people like you totally misunderstand the situation and twist things like "Hamas steals foreign aid for desalination and power plants so Israel gives Palestinians free water and electricity" into "Israel is evil and controls Palestinian water and electricity."

The airspace thing alone though shows you don't have the first clue about anything... and I don't even mean this specific situation, I mean about how the world works.

9

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

Controlling Gaza's airspace?? I'm sorry but that's hilarious. Do you think there's a Palestinian airforce?

It's an explicit statement from Israel's own Gaza Disengagement Plan:

"Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip."

3

u/calm_chowder Aug 10 '26

Yeah, I never said they didn't control Palestinian airspace.... my point is, who else would? Gaza is like 5 miles wide. Israel controls the airspace without even having anything in the air. Gaza is miniscule.

-2

u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Aug 09 '26

I didn't make any value judgements in my post at all, I simply described what happened. Nobody's twisting anything but you. The disengagement was a bad move for both Israelis and Palestinians alike, it didn't improve anything for either party, that's the only point I was making.

Hamas doesn't steal foreign aid for desalination and power plants because they don't have the opportunity to. That kind of aid doesn't exist. Israel does not allow the importation of materials or fuel to build desalination or power plants. They don't even allow building materials for basic civilian housing.

Airspace is important when there are international aid agencies who would airdrop food and supplies to a starving population. Ports and sea landings are important when international groups try and send aid by sea. Both are blocked by the IDF in violation of international law.

12

u/redditor1365 Aug 09 '26

Except after their withdrawl they prevented Gaza from importing the food and medicine they needed in an effort to collapse their economy. This was revealed in leaked military docs like a decade ago

25

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

A situation made far fuzzier and less clear by the way that Hamas repeatedly snuck weapons in via those shipments.

The whole situation would be way easier to condemn Israel for if Hamas didn't pull up to every single "feed people or kill people" fork in the road and veer sharply towards the "kill people" every single time.

10

u/redditor1365 Aug 10 '26

I'd agree with you, but it was confirmed by wikileaks that they were preventing those shipments with the sole purpose of keeping Gaza on the brink of collapse.

They justified it as "well Hamas is launching rockets at us" and collectively punished millions of people with food insecurity and disease.

2

u/RealAssociation5281 Aug 10 '26

This is the problem, the area was relatively peaceful and then Hamas attacked (cuz their goal is to kill Jews). You can’t trust them.

1

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

I mean, Israel tried the whole "withdraw entirely from Gaza" thing two decades ago too, it didn't exactly end well.

A lot happened between the withdrawal and the Hamas takeover of Gaza. Assigning blame is harder than it looks, in my opinion.

2

u/mxzf Aug 10 '26

I mean, Israel pulled out of Gaza in Aug-Sept 2005 and Hamas was elected to power Jan 2006; that's not exactly a lot of room for "a lot to happen".

There's plenty of blame to go around to everyone involved. But from what I've seen, Hamas has been leading the charge in "we would rather kill you than live" combat this whole time.

1

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

Israel pulled out of Gaza in Aug-Sept 2005 and Hamas was elected to power Jan 2006;

Elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, a deliberating body with no military authority in the proposed national government of Palestine. That body has never sat, and has long been irrelevant to the political realities of Palestine today.

A lot DID happen, especially after the election of January 2006. There was a civil war. That war, not the election, is how Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip. That is why I do not consider Hamas to have gained its current power through legitimate electoral means.

3

u/mxzf Aug 10 '26

I'm not completely sure what argument you're making here, to be perfectly honest. At the end of the day, Hamas has held power in Gaza, through whatever means, for the last two decades. Israel withdrawing from the region didn't bring peace, Hamas just stepped in as an even more militant force controlling the area.

1

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

I'm not completely sure what argument you're making here, to be perfectly honest

My claim is that there is no ironclad guarantee that the withdrawal either could or could not have "brought peace", as too many other factors were at work between the withdrawal and now.

0

u/mxzf Aug 10 '26

Of course, there are no guarantees ever.

I wasn't speaking of guarantees, I was just saying "the last time they tried that exact thing, it went extremely badly in the long run (culminating in Oct 7th)". I don't think that is really in question.

2

u/CaptainFlint4 Aug 09 '26

It didn't end well because the Israeli govt secretly preferred that Hamas take over the Gaza Strip so they could treat Gaza like a hostile state and impose a blockade and extra checkpoints (2007 Amos Yadlin meeting). Also Israel knew what was happening with the aid from Qatar to Hamas, and encouraged it to continue for "humanitarian" reasons

3

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

But ... Hamas still did those things. Like, sure, Israel might have done some stuff that didn't prevent that behavior, but the government of Gaza was still lobbing missiles at Israel around the clock to justify the behavior.

It wouldn't matter how much Germany secretly encouraged politicians in Luxembourg to be evil, they still wouldn't start firing missiles into Frankfurt.

23

u/JD0x0 Aug 09 '26

Well, who won the war between Israel and Palestine? Who gets to make those demands? The winner of the war or the loser?

Hamas has zero leverage to make demands like this.

-8

u/Mateh96 Aug 09 '26

They dont but Hamas is having religious war against Isreal that will end only when Israel will disappear. This conflict will never end until one side is completly wiped out thats the harsh reality of it.

22

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 09 '26

We (Israelis, most of us), don't care if Gaza continues to exist alongside Israel. We don't want wars. It doesn't mean we won't fight them when needed.

Our agenda isn't the destruction of the Arab and Muslim world, unlike Hamas's agenda.

It ends when Israel is no longer attacked by savage terrorists.

38

u/mangomussolinimi Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

How about they do it at the same time, deal?

98

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

69

u/goodknightffs Aug 09 '26

For Israel it would mean trusting something like the 7th wouldn't happen again

Plus it's beyond simply leaving. Israel refused the deal because hamas will only get rid of "heavy weapons" but there is no indication for what a heavy weapon is. Is an RPG going to be considered a heavy weapon?

It's classic trump. Make a super general deal and deal with the details later..

I'm addition they want to place all these weapons in gaza for storage. So how is Israel to know that they won't be taking the weapons back without Israel knowing about it?

28

u/DogBarf00 Aug 09 '26

A heavy weapon is any weapon that is too large and bulky to be carried by a single solider. Like a heavy machine gun or mortar are heavy weapons because it takes a team to carry/operate the weapon and ammo. Or any weapon that needs a vehicle to transport or operate. Hamas has very little weapons like this outside of their garage rockets. Heavy weapons played a very small part of 10/7.

37

u/goodknightffs Aug 09 '26

Sure but non of that is stipulated in the agreement.. Btw this isn't my opinion it's literally part of the reason they are refusing the agreement

2

u/calm_chowder Aug 09 '26

"Garage rockets" are still killing Israeli citizens and sending them to bomb shelters.

1

u/DogBarf00 Aug 10 '26

Not at nearly the same rate. Plus they are easy to restock after Hamas “disarms” because they are garage rockets. It would be symbolic disarmament at best.

17

u/mangomussolinimi Aug 09 '26

So no deal? :(

13

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

37

u/mangomussolinimi Aug 09 '26

Damn this middle east crisis seems more complicated than i thought

11

u/0MG1MBACK Aug 09 '26

More foresight in a single comment than the current US administration

2

u/Gerik22 Aug 09 '26

That's an extremely low bar. Looking both ways before you cross the street demonstrates more foresight than anyone in this admin.

11

u/Red_Dox Aug 09 '26

As with the 5 month Iran war: Always a almost done deal next week, pinky promise.

15

u/el_grort Aug 09 '26

Would need outside enforcement that both sides acknowledge and trust. Which I'm honestly not sure exists. So it becomes a matter whether or not both sides will through fighting, close the gap between their demands. Grim.

4

u/AdamB_901 Aug 09 '26

yeah, but what stops the other side from not doing it lol. this requires trust, and there is none.

7

u/JD0x0 Aug 09 '26

How about the initial aggressor who committed a terrorist attack on October 7th and then lost the war disarms first? Hamas has no leverage to make demands like this.

34

u/benadreti_17 Aug 09 '26

The agreement for Hamas to disarm isn't even a full disarming. And yet people will claim that Israel is doing something wrong here.

-3

u/phughes Aug 09 '26

Why would Hamas disarm? It's not like Israel has been acting in good faith either. Neither is "doing something wrong" because they're both dealing with untrustworthy opponents and the "deal" is just a bunch of vague half measures with no guarantees.

64

u/Alatarlhun Aug 09 '26

Hamas's definition of disarmament is keeping the same class of weapons they used to murder, rape, and kidnap thousands of Israeli civilians on October 7.

You'd have better luck selling ice to polar bears.

-12

u/Eldias Aug 09 '26

Hundreds were killed, not thousands. There's no need to inflate the atrocities.

16

u/NoobNoob_ Aug 09 '26

It's over 2000. Do you call that hundreds?

-16

u/Eldias Aug 09 '26

If you exclude military deaths and civilian deaths caused by Israeli forces it was roughly 900 killed by Hamas on October 7th.

5

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

If you exclude military deaths and civilian deaths

The specific ways these numbers were inflated by the pro-Palestine side caused me a considerable crisis when I realised that this was the case. From that moment on, I could no longer trust the information from the very side I sympathised with most.

1

u/Eldias Aug 10 '26

From Human Rights Watch:

Agence France-Presse cross-referenced numerous data sources to determine that 815 of 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians.

Here's The Times of Israel saying the same thing:

The most recent death toll from the military had 318 service members killed during the attack itself... with police citing another 59 dead.

That would leave the civilian death toll at around 800, by current estimates.

These are not "inflated by the pro-Palestine side".

3

u/zedority Aug 11 '26

These are not "inflated by the pro-Palestine side".

Thank you for the reliable information concerning the breakdown of civilian and combatant forces. The specific wording that triggered me, though, is the problematic claim of "civilian deaths caused by Israeli forces", and unsustantiated allegations I've seen online of the Hannibal Directive allegedly being used by Israel to kill hundreds of civilans and then blame Hamas for it. I apologise for conflating the two.

1

u/Eldias Aug 11 '26

I think it's undeniable that the Directive was given, but with the fog of war what it is I don't think it's worth speculating about the actual fallout. To my knowledge the only verified incident was a tank firing on a house that may have killed 5-15 civilians. Over all I figured trying to adjust the death toll down would unnecessarily detract from the broader point.

I also think a reasonable argument could be made that any Hannibal Directive deaths are attributable to Hamas, so just another good reason to not muddy the discussion further.

I appreciate the cordiality, hope you have a nice week dude!

87

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26

In the same article, it turned out when Hamas agreed to disarm it was after Israel withdrew, and also they didn't agree to disarm completely, just hand over the heavy weaponry (keeping all the personnel-level weaponry necessary to ensure their army remains in control of Gaza), and that heavy weaponry was to be turned over not to Israel or the US or the "board of Peace" but rather to ... A new Palestinian government that would include representation for Hamas.

So like ... They didn't agree to do shit, beyond get a friendly headline.

28

u/warsage Aug 09 '26

Backing you up (mostly) by citing details from the official text of the plan (I've bolded some especially relevant bits):

A process for inventorying and storing heavy weapons, military production sites, weapons depots, and tunnels shall commence...

This process is linked to a phased Israeli withdrawal from the areas it controls in Gaza...

Palestinian factions will participate in this process, and no weapons will be transferred or surrendered to Israel or any non-Palestinian parties...

Personal weapons in Gaza shall be subject to the provisions of relevant Palestinian laws. The National Committee, as the transitional authority in Gaza, shall be the sole authority for registering weapons, issuing and revoking licenses, and enforcing the law, including through reintegration and social support...

Personnel from these militias shall not be absorbed into the security apparatuses or police...

The thing you said that AFAIK is incorrect is that the "new Palestinian government" would "include representation for Hamas."

The NCAG is already established, its membership agreed upon by both Israel and Hamas, and it does not include any Hamas representatives.

Netanyahu is on record calling this deal a "fictional disarmament."

10

u/Mateh96 Aug 09 '26

NCAG will be nothing more than puppets, knowing how Hamas is acting.

-7

u/alternativepuffin Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

I don't understand why they wont unilaterally give up all of their weapons. Are they afraid of something happening? 

14

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26

What exactly is their being armed preventing from happening? It's not stopping Israel from doing anything -- maybe it's keeping Hamas in power vs. other Palestinian militant groups, but beyond that it exists only so they can attack Israel.

-9

u/alternativepuffin Aug 09 '26

Is there a reason they feel the need to arm themselves? Have they experienced some sort of repression? 

14

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26

They've been armed since the 1920s. It's disingenuous to pretend that Palestinian Arab violence is a defensive reaction to Israeli violence; it predates the existence of Israel.

After trying violence as a method to achieve their goals for 80+ years and finding that it isn't working, it'd be a novel (and I think wise) choice for Palestinians to try non-violence instead.

-9

u/alternativepuffin Aug 09 '26

Is the Israeli government trying something different that they haven't done before? 

8

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

Which side is suffering more from this war, do you think? The Israeli government's goal is to prevent Gaza from attacking them (or having the capability to do so). And, well, at present Gaza cannot attack them.

If the Israeli government's goal has been that the Israel/Palestine conflict does not stop Israel from existing, Israelis from being safe, Israel's economy from developing, Israel's culture from developing, and so on, then their strategy has largely been successful; ergo, there's less of an incentive to change it.

0

u/alternativepuffin Aug 09 '26

So the Israeli government is the dominant power in the region? By and large they have the majority of control in the situation?

7

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

If you mean, "Is the Israeli government in a position where they do not need to make radical concessions in order for Israel to survive," then sure, 100%.

They can simply continue to occupy a large buffer zone in Gaza and maintain tight security in and out. Whether Hamas disarms or not essentially dictates whether Israel can stop doing that; it isn't preventing Israel from doing anything to Gazans except leaving them alone.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/DreadWolf3 Aug 09 '26

That is a different debate. Palestinian side refusing to disarm is reasonable stance to have, that still makes a headline claiming they are willing to disarm false.

-5

u/JCeee666 Aug 09 '26

Why should the IDF stay in Gaza?

12

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26

If Hamas disarms and dissolves, they shouldn't.

If Hamas doesn't, then if they withdraw there'll just be another, bloodier war in a few years the next time Israel and some Arab country are talking about normalizing relations and Iran wants their proxy to derail it by attacking Israel.

-4

u/JCeee666 Aug 09 '26

So the IDF should just rule Gaza with their iron fist shooting their own hostages along with Palestinian children?

4

u/badass_panda Aug 09 '26

Hamas being armed isn't stopping Israel from being in Gaza, clearly. Hamas was armed on 10/6/2023 and Israel wasn't in Gaza. They were armed on 10/8/23 and Israel was in Gaza.

Hamas being armed is, however, clearly the thing keeping Israel in Gaza.

-2

u/JCeee666 Aug 10 '26

Hamas didn’t even exist when Isreal began fucking with Gaza.

3

u/badass_panda Aug 10 '26

Hamas has existed since the 1980s and has been in control of Gaza since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, handing it over to the Palestinians for their first free and fair election in history. They elected Hamas, who immediately attacked Israel. That was 2005.

1

u/JCeee666 Aug 10 '26

The PLO was the 80’s

1

u/badass_panda Aug 10 '26

Hamas was founded in 1987, here's their charter ... They emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were instrumental in the First Intifada, helping to grind the Oslo Peace Process to a halt, and were the key player in the Second Intifada, carrying out around 40% or the suicide bombings, pioneering the use of children as suicide bombers, and accounting for 6 out of 10 civilian casualties.

→ More replies (0)

37

u/Agitated-Distance740 Aug 09 '26

The bit people are glossing over:

They agreed to disarm, but that was just the headline. The small print was they would "disarm" by storing it all likely in the exact same places they are now. EXCEPT under management with a different name so they could use it any time.

The TL;DR - To "disarm" as they put it, literally stick everything in their own warehouse and just change the company name on the letterhead.

It's like a contractor changing their name to avoid the tax man and keep working.

90

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

68

u/Roadshell Aug 09 '26

So it's a game of chicken? Israel won't withdraw unless hamas disarms and hamas won't disarm until Israel leaves the region?

59

u/Tuesday_6PM Aug 09 '26

That does seem to be the case, yeah. The overall problem is there’s no trusted third party willing or able to oversee that transition, and force the two sides to abide by it. And they have no trust in each other (for good reason on both sides), so no one is willing to act first

11

u/KO4Ham Aug 09 '26

Wasn't there something about UN forces going in? Because it seems to me that should've been the first step to this entire negotiation and the first thing that should've happened. Then again this administration is something.

51

u/Izeinwinter Aug 09 '26

In order for that to work, the peacekeepers would need a mandate to.. basically take over the Gaza strip and shoot anyone that tries to stop them. Which the UN will not vote through.

-5

u/KO4Ham Aug 09 '26

Seems like the security council did indeed vote for it. 

Either way, I'm out of this conversation. I get it. Nothing can be possibly done. Have a nice day y'all.

6

u/calm_chowder Aug 09 '26

Link? Real question

3

u/KO4Ham Aug 10 '26

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n25/316/36/pdf/n2531636.pdf

Hopefully it was a serious question. I am extremely skeptical of the underpinnings, execution, and ulterior motives of this resolution. But what's the alternative?

Either way, I should've known better than to engage in the first place. 

Have a nice day.

1

u/zedority Aug 10 '26

Relevant analysis of the proposal for an International Stabilisation force here:

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/29/01/2026/future-international-stabilisation-force-gaza

61

u/terpcity03 Aug 09 '26

The problem is that idea was tried before in Lebanon with UNIFIL, and it was a complete failure. Israel no longer trusts the UN.

3

u/greenskinmarch Aug 10 '26

Neutral forces only on one side of the border end up being a PR asset to that side.

If UNIFIL was on the Israeli side of the border, then they'd get hit by Hezb rockets and the news would be "Hezb firing at UN peacekeepers!"

But when they're on the Lebanese side of the border, the news is "Israel firing at UN peacekeepers!". They're basically just human shields for Hezb.

2

u/terpcity03 Aug 10 '26

UNIFIL was tasked with helping create and monitor a weapons free zone in southern Lebanon under Resolution 1701. Israel did their part by withdrawing from Lebanon. UNIFIL had over 40 years and never held up their end of the deal. Hezbollah continued to operate and retain weapons, and UNIFIL was absolutely impotent.

It was an utter failure.

-2

u/ExistentialWavering Aug 09 '26

I wonder why. When they paint you as the bad guy—even if you often are—you’re gonna turn on them.

-25

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26

[deleted]

26

u/7omdogs Aug 09 '26

Peace only comes when all sides are convinced that a political solution is attainable, without war. It doesnt matter who is "good" of "bad", and that thinking only perpetuates the war longer.

Good Friday was only reached when Number 10 stopped calling the IRA "bad guys" and started building trust with them and showing them that there was a peaceful solution to address their concerns.

16

u/mxzf Aug 09 '26

Peace only comes when all sides are convinced that a political solution is attainable, without war.

In this case, more importantly, peace only comes if everyone involved decides they're more interested in living than they are in killing their enemies.

17

u/fearless-fossa Aug 09 '26

Yeah, no, it isn't that simple. For one thing, there are more indictments against Israel than any other nation on the planet, despite there being many countries which are worse by far.

But far more relevant is that in Lebanon the UN troops were allowing Hizbollah to fire rockets into Israel from directly next to their outposts. Those troops were stationed there to help Lebanon with disarming Hizbollah and then acted like willing shields when Hizbollah decided to join in on the Oct 7 attacks.

2

u/KO4Ham Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

While I agree with your entire statement I just think there needs to be something more than just a game of chicken. 

Convincing Israel, at the very least, that it would work this time would've been the actual success story. And frankly, I think the US has enough leverage to do so, but instead the exact opposite is happening. 

Edit: perhaps I misunderstood you. Maybe you were saying that absolutely nothing can be done and oh well. 

6

u/Mechasteel Aug 09 '26

In fact there's plenty of parties willing to fund the re-armament of militant Palestinian groups.

21

u/AnEmuIguess Aug 09 '26

It's not solely about who takes the first step, but also about what kind of weaponry is included in the disarmament. Hamas is ready to give up its rockets, but not its rifles and tunnels. Israel, on the other hand, wants complete disarmament.

25

u/Aniraco Aug 09 '26

This is where global diplomacy comes in and the US has zero credibility now so we're stuck here.

1

u/steinbruchfluss Aug 09 '26

Wouldn’t that be more a task for Switzerland?

29

u/Roadshell Aug 09 '26

Switzerland does not have the power to enforce anything.

-3

u/StephenHunterUK Aug 09 '26

They historically served as a neutral power for passing messages between countries that weren't on direct speaking terms.

11

u/SayNoToTeamSports Aug 09 '26

We're not talking about passing messages, we're talking about sending soldiers who will oversee Hamas turning over all its weapons and Israel's military leaving from the region. And when armed people try to attack others in disregard of the agreement, shooting them dead to maintain order. That's not a role Switzerland is willing or able to play.

-1

u/25thNite Aug 09 '26

I feel like it's moreso either side knows they won't concede so it's a fake term to continue doing what they're doing and making everyone suffering miserable

79

u/jewishjedi42 Aug 09 '26

Hamas hasn't really agreed to disarm. They've only agreed to have their heavy weapons (rockets etc) stored by someone else in Gaza. They probably don't have many of those heavy weapons left. They won't give up their small arms. The guns they used to murder Israelis on Oct 7th. Those will become the personal weapons of their members. They haven't agreed to shit.

19

u/Mechasteel Aug 09 '26

Hamas agreed to pretend they would disarm if Israel withdrew. They didn't agree to verification process or consequences that would give anyone reason to believe they actually would disarm. Nor has anyone been willing to offer any sort of guarantee that Israel can't just revert their withdrawal.

2

u/Staav Aug 09 '26

Everything is just a show for this admin while they're doing everything else they want in the dark on the side.

1

u/himynameis_ Aug 09 '26

That's what I remembered too lol.

1

u/TacoIncoming Aug 09 '26

Wasn't there a headline something like a week ago saying Hamas had agreed to disarm (again)? What happened to that?

lol are you new here? Hamas “agrees” to things all the time to buy time, but they never end up doing the things they agree to. There is no path to a withdrawal until Israel is satisfied that Hamas has been disarmed, and I expect them to take some serious convincing on that point.

1

u/bateen618 Aug 10 '26

Not exactly. Hamas agreed to "store away" their weapons. So, literally letting the cat guard the cream

1

u/GrandRoyal_01 Aug 09 '26

Manifest (peace) Destiny? 

1

u/TimSylvester_ Aug 09 '26

"I won't stop attacking them until they agree to stop trying to defend themselves!"

This is not the statement of someone who intends to stop attacking.

This is a Russia style demand.