Hacker News Reader

Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

> The UN doesn't speak for the world, regardless of what they may claim.

That might be true for Guterres but not for the GA. The delegations that voted were not directed by the UN but by their respective countries. No one forced them to vote for this.

Israel itself gets its legitimacy from the UN resolution in 1949.

> But why would anyone ask them to cease fire against an enemy that won't return the favour?

My understanding of the term "ceasefire" is that it always applies to both sides - so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well.

View on HN

> so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well.

But it is an absurd request, like calling for a ceasefire between Britain and Germany at the height of World War 2. Like "legitimacy" and "international law", the concept makes no sense when thought about clearly.

It is war. Wars end with a believable long term peace, most commonly due to the absolute destruction of one side's ability to fight. A peace is meant to be lasting, which means people have to believe in its durability. But there is no way to believe it in the case of Hamas short of a complete Israeli victory (i.e. occupation and total disarmament), because they have demonstrated that they are always engaged in preparation for the next attack. Any pause in the fighting would obviously only be temporary and adopted for military advantage.

> But it is an absurd request, like calling for a ceasefire between Britain and Germany at the height of World War 2.

Except, al-Qassam is not a regular military with weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. An overwhelming casualties have been civilians.

> A peace is meant to be lasting, which means people have to believe in its durability.

Just now I see Israelis calling for a war on Qatar, Iran, and Lebanon. Where does one find solution for this obsession with violence, if not in Tel Aviv? By dismantling the settlements in the West Bank and immediately moving to secure a state for the Palestinians?

"Ceasefire" only applies to civilized parties than can actually uphold agreements, to which Hamas do not belong.

Either way, for the parent post being flagged, it is absolutely correct in its assessment and its flagged status is just a small glimpse on why the collective west faces the existential threat and does as much work at dismantling itself as its enemies (which too do so in the open).

The actual winning move would be strengthening sanctions against Iran and its proxies, quick eradication of any actual and perceived threats in the middle east and the lift of unofficial ban by the West to Ukraine to conduct military operations on the territory of ruskieland as well as supply of all long-range standoff munitions that are scheduled for a decommission in the next three to five years so that we can actually save money for US by being more efficient at doing so with immediate and second-order strategic benefits to everyone involved.

> so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well

During which Hamas would regroup, recover, and then be impossible to defeat and then would go on to commit another October 7th

What should in fact happen is another humanitarian pause allowing more hostages to be released but relief for civilians in conflict.

Hamas is now demanding all Palestinian prisoners, i.e. those who have committed attrocities in the past to be released which will never happen as it would incentivize further attacks against Israelis

Reply on news.ycombinator.com