Do you still hold the view that Hamas needs to be destroyed AT ANY COST?

I'm just curious.

No insofar as "at any cost" was probably a poor choice of words brought on by the heat of the moment and discussion...

Yes insofar as I think they DO need to be destroyed/removed from power for any hope of a lasting peace.

If it comes to a *4th* Israeli/Hamas war, then at that point I would refer back to my reasoning with the late SYnapse, wherein I stated that I'd rather an end to the conflict, even with an unfortunate death rate, rather than a continuance that sees that death rate continue to climb and climb into 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. wars, until it would surpass the "one-time cost" of a Hamas-ending operation (which WOULD be devastating in terms of the structural and humanitarian toll--that's a mighty huge evil, but I'd argue it's one that's surpassed by the evil and loss of fighting this war to infinity.)

So, while I would concede "at any cost" was a bad choice of words on my part--mea culpa--that's more for the connotation than the stance itself, that is, I remain convinced that Hamas must be either destroyed forcibly or otherwise removed from power for any realistic shot at peace in the region to take place.

That's not to say that's the *only* change of power that needs to happen--Israel *does* need a better leader than Netanyahu, one more open to peace--but it *is* nevertheless one that must happen, and so I still stand 100% against those who see Hamas as a being part of a long-term solution, or defend Hamas' prolongation of this war.

Recent Israeli leaders that were open to peace got assassinated or had a stroke and went into a coma. Begin was the last one that made peace and survived.

To get peace you need a leader that will convince Hamas that war will only lead to the destruction of Hamas.

Hasn't it already been demonstrated time and again that war between Israel and Hamas = destruction of Hamas? Yet the indefinite peace now between Hamas and Israel is only supported by Hamas because they need time to restock their cruddy missiles :/

Obi your a shit human being.

While you rake in your inevitable +1s, Lando, answer me--

Which part makes me a shitty human being--

Arguing against an internationally-recognized terror organization that is on record as wanting to destroy Israel and the Jewish people,

Arguing that a realistic peace is impossible with such a party at the table,

Thinking that ending this conflict, even at the cost of life, is preferable to an infinite loss over an infinite period of time,

Or citing the fact the Palestinians' own president is of the opinion that terrorist organization was responsible for senselessly prolonging the conflict and thus leading to the needless deaths of hundreds of Palestinians?

Tell me--which point Lando, in particular, do you find so reprehensible?

"To get peace you need a leader that will convince Hamas that war will only lead to the destruction of Hamas."

That's not exactly an effective strategy when dealing with a party that revels in the prospect of "martyrdom."

I have said from the start Hamas does not care about loss of life, and that loss of life in fact strengthens its cause, and to this point I have been backed up on both accounts by the events and reactions as they have unfolded.

Hamas is not a legitimate party of peace in the Middle East...and now, the Palestinian President *himself* is blaming them for the prolongation of this conflict.

Because you keep talking about this same shit, because you are basically celebrating in the forums right now and because you literally can't formulate your own opinions on the issue.

1. If we're going to start complaining about people talking about the same shit, all of us are fucking awful...or is the "Last One to Post Wins" thread wholly original?

2. I'm celebrating? I'm sorry, what part of that was celebratory?

3. I've stated time and again why I have my view...so because it doesn't mesh with yours, I can't formulate my own opinion?