You didn’t answer the question. Why won’t Israel commit to a permanent ceasefire if “the war ends when the hostages are released”? Why do they insist on being able to start the war again in 60 days if the hostages are all they want?
The hostages aren't all they want. from wikipedia:
>Israel's campaign has four
stated goals: to destroy Hamas, to free the hostages, to ensure Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel, and to
return displaced residents of Northern Israel.
Pretty clear and i never suggested otherwise. I'm not sure where you got that idea from
Please, I really don’t think you’re discussing this in good faith.
“And the fact is that the people of Gaza could end the conflict whenever they want. All they need to do is surrender and hand over the hostages”
So no, Israel decides how and when the killing ends and apparently that’s when “Gaza no longer poses a threat”. Who knows what that means but apparently it involves mass starvation, firing tank rounds into crowds, and destroying every hospital.
I can't comment on specific actions, but it would definitely mean the destruction of hamas and islamic jihad as well as systematically removing all weapons from the gaza strip and the destruction of all tunnels and terror infrastructure. If they surrender the process can happen without loss of life (even the death of all militants can be avoided with a negotiated surrender)
Gaza was a pretty enormous threat, so neutralising it takes an enormous amount of effort. If you cared about the death and destruction of gaza you would be calling for the end of Hamas. It's not like Israel wants to be stuck in an endless conflict in Gaza i think it has shown many times in the recent past that it is prefers peace to war.
The word surrender is carrying quite a lot of meaning but it's still good faith on my part.
