Israel / Palestine

[Pblakeney]

Wondering about Hamas laying down their arms and my thoughts (without considering rights and wrongs committed by different parties) is that were Hamas to lay down their arms today they'd be dead as the clans & militias move in and take their vengeance (noting that some of those "clans & militias" are funded, armed and supported by Israel).

If Hamas are to lay down their arms seems to me there has to be some independent security force prepared to enter firefights as well as those different clans & militias laying down their arms as well.

Telling a Hamas fighter to give up their arms today would mean imminent death so they'd be less likely to agree to it.

Yet another reason why the "deal" is doomed to failure.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Wondering about Hamas laying down their arms and my thoughts (without considering rights and wrongs committed by different parties) is that were Hamas to lay down their arms today they'd be dead as the clans & militias move in and take their vengeance (noting that some of those "clans & militias" are funded, armed and supported by Israel).

If Hamas are to lay down their arms seems to me there has to be some independent security force prepared to enter firefights as well as those different clans & militias laying down their arms as well.

Telling a Hamas fighter to give up their arms today would mean imminent death so they'd be less likely to agree to it.

There is some more context here, and that i that it might have been implied multiple times that Hamas needed to put down their weapons, and they claimed to have agreed to do so, but they have recently publicly said that despite earlier agreeing to disarm, they will not do so. Leading to Trump saying they will be forced military if needed.

Extra context is that it was not only ''Hamas shall disarm(and some other fraction) that was reportedly agreed upon, there is also some new to be formed ''security forces'' with an interim government where Blair all of the sudden would have popped up(thankfully it's widely reported he is out of the picture), the agreement was these forces where to replace Hamas, and Hamas agreed to dismantle their terror tunnels, lay down their arms etc.
And thus the idea that Hamas would disarm and then other clans/dynasty's/etc. can attack now unarmed Hamas is wrong, at least according to what we heard from the media is in the agreed peace plan. We heard from Hamas directly they don't intend to keep their part of the deal that says they would be disarming.

But other than that, it's still very vague about timescales who these forces would be whom supplies them etc. etc.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Yet another reason why the "deal" is doomed to failure.

It seems to me slowness is an key issue, that, and if you suggest ''security forces'' better have them ready, so that Isreal would just pull all his troops build a giant ass wall and leave them the F*ck alone.
And Hamas wouldn't have had the change to regroup but would just be forced to disarm and not been allowed time to say ''nah, we where only kidding''

But that's all in the past opportunities gone..

 

[Psamathe]

Extra context is that it was not only ''Hamas shall disarm(and some other fraction) that was reportedly agreed upon, there is also some new to be formed ''security forces'' with an interim government where Blair all of the sudden would have popped up(thankfully it's widely reported he is out of the picture), the agreement was these forces where to replace Hamas, and Hamas agreed to dismantle their terror tunnels, lay down their arms etc.

The Peacekeeping Force and Governance is taking time (it never is a quick process) and faces particular challenges in this situation.

There needs to be a legal basis. 3rd party countries are never going to send in troops without some legal authorisation and rules of engagement. That means the UN who Israel reject (and UN would need UNWRA which Israel rejects).

Rules of Engagement become crucial eg would these Peacekeepers fire on IDF troups when they start killing civillians trying to get to the ruins of their houses? or would the Peacekeepers only be allowed to fire on Palestinians (effectively taking the role filled by the IDF in the West Bank)?

And then you've got to coordinate loads of troops from different countries who use different kit and don't speak a common language as well as feed and equip them when Israel is blockading the area.

Israel is already getting fussy rejecting offers eg Turkey has offered but Israel is rejecting them as Erdogan has been critical of their behaviour.

And the Governance again needs a legal basis, Trump & Blair cannot unilatterally appoint themselves to govern the region and command these 3rd country troops. Needs the UN and US/Israel at best despise the UN.

Given Israel has no intention to pay anything towards all the civilian damage they have caused, no other country is going to start contributing for rebuilding unless there is a solid legal basis for a stable long term governance. They'll need a lot more than a vague uncertain ceasefire document without timescales. And they'll need confidence Natanyahu won't just ignore Trump tomorrow or that Trump won't completely U-turn after watching Fox News this evening.