Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday total victory in Gaza was within reach, rejecting the latest offer from Hamas for a ceasefire to ensure the return of hostages still held in the besieged enclave.

DOHA, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday total victory in Gaza was within reach, rejecting the latest offer from Hamas for a ceasefire to ensure the return of hostages still held in the besieged enclave.

Netanyahu renewed a pledge to destroy the Palestinian Islamist movement, saying there was no alternative for Israel but bringing about the collapse of Hamas.

“The day after is the day after Hamas. All of Hamas,” he told a press conference, insisting that total victory against Hamas was the only solution to the Gaza war.

  • Arete@lemmy.worldEnglish
    512·
    2 years ago

    Would America have accepted a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and truce with Al-Qaeda 4 months after 9/11 in exchange for ~3000 American hostages?

    Some certainly would, but I think the majority would take a “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” stance.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      91·
      2 years ago

      You’re talking like Afghanistan was a massive success and not part of how ISIS became what it was at its peak.

      • Arete@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        2 years ago

        Ignoring for the moment that ISIS is from Iraq and Syria, I was purely commenting on what would have popular support in Israel. I did not advocate for anything.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          31·
          2 years ago

          Ignoring for the moment that ISIS is from Iraq and Syria,

          They absorbed militants from the weakened Al Qaeda.

          • Arete@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            2 years ago

            Yes, but those are from AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq). We’re talking about Afghanistan, which is like 2000km away from where ISIS operates.

            And again, whether you think the American response to 9/11 was good or not is irrelevant to my original comment.

    • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      94·
      2 years ago

      Except in your scenario, Al Qaeda was funded by Bush and rose out of a population that was bombed, abused, relocated and killed for decades before.

      These two situations aren’t comparable.

      • Arete@lemmy.worldEnglish
        94·
        2 years ago

        … The CIA funded Al-Qaeda, which rose out of a population bombed, abused, relocated, and killed for decades before.

        It’s like, exactly comparable.

        • ralphio@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          2 years ago

          Close. The CIA is thought to have funded the Mujahideen, funneling money and arms through Pakistan. Some of them would become the Taliban later.

          As for Al Queda, it’s possible that they did as well, but generally thought to be unlikely. The reason being is that Bin Laden had more than enough money personally since his dad was a wealthy construction magnate with ties to the KSA royal family.

          As a side note, the push by the US and KSA to put religious extremists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets undoubtedly played a role in the strength of the Taliban and Al Queda in the 90’s.

          • Arete@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            Agreed completely, I was oversimplifying and largely not drawing a clean distinction between the various groups.