Nothing will come of this like every other time
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
10 points (81.2% liked)
politics
30615 readers
1609 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Why would Hamas ever trust Israel enough to disarm given the history of failed ceasefires and Israel’s support of settlers and pro-Israel terrorists.
Trust isn't really the point. Everyone knows Israel and Hamas don't trust each other. I'm more concerned with whether the violent conflict can be reduced, and a stable peace achieved.
Are Hamas's arms doing Gaza any favours? Not that I can see.
AFAICT, if Hamas disarmed:
- Israel's only(?) excuse for mass military action in Gaza would disappear.
- International support (already shaky) for Israeli military presence in Gaza would decrease.
- One or more of Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, the United States, or the European Union might end their designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, which could in turn increase the aid and other international support available to Gaza.
If you think I'm wrong, I'd be glad to know why.
Why would Hamas need to be disarmed? To leave Palestinians unarmed next to aggressive imperialist nation?
Terrorism arises in defense to oppression.
No, Israel is the one who needs to be disarmed and return the stolen land to the Palestinians.
Terrorism arises in defense to oppression.
Technical point: that isn't exhaustively true. Terrorism can be, and sometimes is, committed against vulnerable parties by more privileged ones.
You are right. It did need to be spelled out who the privileged ones and the vulnerable ones are.
I’m not familiar with "Trump’s comprehensive plan" which is referenced a lot.
A lot of restrictions on Palestine and nothing about Israel outside of withdrawal.
I think it's moot bc Israel would never agree to it.