By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a government vote ratifying the U.S.-brokered ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced President-elect Trump’s unwavering support for resuming hostilities should Hamas violate the agreement. Trump also pledged to restore military supplies previously withheld. Netanyahu attributed the deal’s success to Israel’s military pressure, highlighting the impact of its actions against the Iranian axis in weakening Hamas. This agreement, therefore, hinges on Hamas’s adherence to its terms, with military action remaining a possibility.
Read the original article here
Netanyahu’s assertion that Trump fully supports Israel’s right to resume fighting if Hamas violates any agreement is a significant development, brimming with implications. The statement itself suggests a strong, unwavering backing from a former US president, providing Israel with a certain level of reassurance. This implies a belief that any agreement reached wouldn’t be a mere ceasefire, but rather a pact with considerable consequences for its breach.
The underlying sentiment appears to be that if Hamas violates the terms, the agreement ceases to exist. The notion that no one would fund Gaza’s rebuilding if Hamas remains uneliminated underscores a deeply pessimistic outlook on the conflict’s potential for lasting peace. This perspective suggests that any temporary calm is likely to be punctuated by sporadic outbursts of violence.
The idea that Trump instructed Netanyahu to “finish the job” before the former president’s departure from office hints at a more forceful approach, possibly indicating a willingness to provide Israel with significantly more support than might otherwise have been forthcoming. This aligns with the overall feeling that a long-term solution in Gaza is unlikely, given the continuing tensions and entrenched positions. The underlying rationale appears to be that as long as Hamas continues its hostile actions, conflict will persist. It’s a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship, devoid of much nuance.
The persistent question of why Israel is expected to hold back in situations that other nations wouldn’t tolerate is a significant point. The fact that Hamas serves as Gaza’s de facto leadership, perpetually waging war, is cited as a primary reason for the continuous conflict. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that any ceasefire violation inherently justifies a return to hostilities.
The suggested timeline for a potential resumption of conflict highlights the precariousness of the situation. The prediction that any agreement might fall apart within a month and a half after a hostage exchange reflects a lack of confidence in the durability of any agreements, given the historical context and the actions of Hamas. The argument that the Palestinian attacks against Kamala Harris were “useful idiots” for Republicans and Trump provides a cynical yet insightful political commentary.
The idea that violations of ceasefires are commonplace for Hamas isn’t novel. The sheer amount of international aid received by Gaza over the past few decades, and its ineffective use, suggests that this aid hasn’t fostered peace or genuine change. This suggests that the continued influx of funding, instead of encouraging development, might only bolster Hamas’s ability to continue its conflict. A plethora of countries might contribute to rebuilding Gaza, but the skepticism over whether the funds reach their intended destination is strong. The worry is that such aid may be diverted to further the group’s military capabilities rather than improving the lives of ordinary Gazans.
The discussion concerning the disproportionate civilian casualties during Israeli military actions is undeniable and critical. The stark difference between the number of casualties on both sides fuels international criticism of Israeli actions and emphasizes the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This disparity makes it difficult for many to support Israel’s approach, even if Hamas initiated the violence.
The peculiar position of Hamas as both a clandestine terrorist organization and Gaza’s closest equivalent to a government is noteworthy. It presents an extremely challenging situation for foreign intervention, further compounding the complexities of the conflict. The high casualty count significantly influences international perception, with many believing Israel, given its power and status, should act more responsibly and humanely.
The comments acknowledging that Hamas has suffered significant losses over the past year suggest that Israel’s military actions have been relatively effective in weakening Hamas’s capabilities. The suggestion that any future conflict might be an attempt to flush out remaining Hamas fighters from their underground tunnels highlights a strategic approach that prioritizes the elimination of Hamas’s military threat.
The discussion on the unique responsibilities of Israel during wartime, such as providing prior warning to civilians and supplying the people caught in the conflict with necessities, emphasizes the extraordinary burden borne by Israel and the double standards applied to the conflict. The assertion that if complete obliteration had been the goal, it would have happened long ago, underscores that the current approach is about weakening Hamas, not destroying Gaza. The acknowledgement that Hamas diverts aid and the final comment that regardless of its actions, Israel should always act in its best interest conclude the piece. The overall narrative suggests a complex and volatile situation with little chance of a swift, peaceful resolution.