• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Presumably those will end during the temporary ceasefire, allowing Israel to claim that goal has been accomplished before the permanent ceasefire.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, if the Israeli government has shown us anything, all they really want is peace, right? Not the land. Not complete control of the people in an open-air prison. They’ll just stop all that if they, “no longer feel threatened.”

        You cannot be this naive.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know what they want. I just think their current statements are not necessarily in conflict with the peace deal they proposed.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “They’re not shooting at us now so they never will again?” Are you really saying they’re that naive?

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not a stated goal.

          The goals is to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas, which arguably has been achieved.

          “Gaza no longer poses a threat” does not mean “Gaza will never again pose a threat”. I think the words were chosen carefully. The former requires an agreement with Gazans. The latter would require a crystal ball.

          After all, I’m sure the Israeli government would agree that Egypt no longer poses a threat. Israel recently said Egypt is their friend. But that doesn’t mean Egypt will never again pose a threat, because nobody knows the future.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Gaza no longer poses a threat” does not mean “Gaza will never again pose a threat”.

            They sound like the same thing to me… “no longer” and “never again” mean the same thing in my experience.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not to me.

              The US once went to war with England, but I think most Americans agree that “England no longer poses a threat to us.”

              But is it possible that one day we will again be at war with England? I mean sure, anything is possible.

              You really can’t say anyone will “never be a threat”. Just that they aren’t a threat now.

              EDIT

              Or to take a simple example, “I no longer live in California” does not mean “I will never again live in California”.