Israel has been at this for awhile. One problem with engaging an enemy is that you enter an interplay, a dialectic if you will, with them. As you shape them, so may they do the same to you. Certainly war has shaped Israeli society, and being able to accommodate the nature of their enemy has been not just something that would happen, but also a necessity of survival. Note that this also works in the other direction. By now, their enemy cannot be pure savage and them pure civilization, for this dialectic is a violent progression towards a (perhaps distant) barycenter.
So, those of us who look upon Isreal in their current state in moral arbitration should consider keeping this in mind. Their current state of being is not simply innate to themselves, rather some kind of dialectic sublation of them and the enemy. Even if you don't care much about this conflict, it's a model worth considering, since the rest of us here in the West also have a history of voluntarily entering into this cultural exchange of sorts with various middle eastern societies. In some ways, the barrier remains for us, hence our hapless bumbling in the region. Those misunderstandings result in expensive mistakes, of course, but perhaps it's better than full sublation, a violent dance of mutual becoming.
Why so complicated? Hamas "agreed" to disarm as a condition of the ceasefire, except they denied they agreed even when they announced the ceasefire. Didn't that tell everyone enough when it happened?
This was a ceasefire where both sides agreed to different conditions. Israel played along with the ceasefire because of the hostages and because ... well that's what Israel does. Try again and again and again to make peace.
Hamas, well, they lie. They knew phase 1, 2 and 3, which essentially meant they agreed to disarm and give up armed resistance (again, I might add), and give up all military control of the Gaza strip. They declared instead they agreed to a nonexistent deal, well read. They declared instead they agreed to a hostage exchange (20 hostages for >2000 "prisoners") and nothing else.
And the whole world played along. Same reasoning as Israel: to give them a chance, once again. Maybe they mean it this time, despite everything. And, of course, because of the hostages. Yet another new start. But was there really anyone who didn't understand that Hamas had no intention of respecting the peace treaty? Not now, not ever?
On and remember? Hamas used the ceasefire, immediately, to massacre Palestinians. In case denying the content of the peace treaty in the very press release didn't make things clear.
This is the same completely obvious trap every previous president has managed to avoid. Bibi has been asking for a US proxy war with Iran since the Regan administration and now he has it. The US is trapped.
Israel has been at this for awhile. One problem with engaging an enemy is that you enter an interplay, a dialectic if you will, with them. As you shape them, so may they do the same to you. Certainly war has shaped Israeli society, and being able to accommodate the nature of their enemy has been not just something that would happen, but also a necessity of survival. Note that this also works in the other direction. By now, their enemy cannot be pure savage and them pure civilization, for this dialectic is a violent progression towards a (perhaps distant) barycenter.
So, those of us who look upon Isreal in their current state in moral arbitration should consider keeping this in mind. Their current state of being is not simply innate to themselves, rather some kind of dialectic sublation of them and the enemy. Even if you don't care much about this conflict, it's a model worth considering, since the rest of us here in the West also have a history of voluntarily entering into this cultural exchange of sorts with various middle eastern societies. In some ways, the barrier remains for us, hence our hapless bumbling in the region. Those misunderstandings result in expensive mistakes, of course, but perhaps it's better than full sublation, a violent dance of mutual becoming.
Spousal abuse is often explained in similar fashion, if a bit less eloquently, by the abuser.
Why so complicated? Hamas "agreed" to disarm as a condition of the ceasefire, except they denied they agreed even when they announced the ceasefire. Didn't that tell everyone enough when it happened?
This was a ceasefire where both sides agreed to different conditions. Israel played along with the ceasefire because of the hostages and because ... well that's what Israel does. Try again and again and again to make peace.
Hamas, well, they lie. They knew phase 1, 2 and 3, which essentially meant they agreed to disarm and give up armed resistance (again, I might add), and give up all military control of the Gaza strip. They declared instead they agreed to a nonexistent deal, well read. They declared instead they agreed to a hostage exchange (20 hostages for >2000 "prisoners") and nothing else.
And the whole world played along. Same reasoning as Israel: to give them a chance, once again. Maybe they mean it this time, despite everything. And, of course, because of the hostages. Yet another new start. But was there really anyone who didn't understand that Hamas had no intention of respecting the peace treaty? Not now, not ever?
Discussion:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/10/9/will-hamas-agre...
Hamas statement:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/response-by-hamas-...
On and remember? Hamas used the ceasefire, immediately, to massacre Palestinians. In case denying the content of the peace treaty in the very press release didn't make things clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Hamas_executions?utm_sour...
This is the same completely obvious trap every previous president has managed to avoid. Bibi has been asking for a US proxy war with Iran since the Regan administration and now he has it. The US is trapped.
To the surprise of… crickets.