The IDF has described the ceasefire as an “operational pause”, in line with comments overnight from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – a clear attempt to hint that bombing could resume after the hostage exchange is completed. “Our terminology is not ceasefire, our terminology is an operational pause,” Hecht said.

So yeah, they will keep bombing. Not could resume, will resume.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is how ceasefires (or in this case operational pauses) with Israel look like. Or, to rephrase, this is why ceasefires with Israel don't hold for long.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They think ceasefires means to stop shooting so they can reload their weapon.

[–] buh@hexbear.net 28 points 9 months ago

bUt wHaT If hAmAs dOeSn't oBeY ThE CeAsFiRe

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is clear and indisputable that Israel’s bloodlust is greater than its desire to get the hostages back.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Or even settle on a solution other that their own

[–] mycatiskai@lemmy.one 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Just a reminder. Israel knew about the tunnel system under al-Shifa hospital because they built it themselves. Their own former prime Minister admitted that they built the tunnels when being interviewed by Christiane Amanpour.

https://youtu.be/cVG7duZ-u2U?si=lvrW6xjeqnoMiVVa

[–] colourednumbers@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago

Please post the source

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You mean the tunnel system that human rights organizations confirmed never existed? Get the fuck out of here, fascist.

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean? Is the argument on the word "system" or? There is a tunnel there apparently (on the hospital grounds), according to many websites (e.g., Reuters but it is partly blocked by rubble so they're not sure where it ends.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

"we were justified in bombing the hospital because there was a Hamas tunnel there" is genocide colonialist propaganda to justify a war crime.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

That wasn't what was being said. The point he was making was that Israel thought that they could make that accusation safely because they thought that they knew there would be tunnels they could show off because they built them.

No source for this, so grain of salt, but I've heard that the deal with the US for backing their attack on the hospital was that if no tunnels were found, Israel would have to agree to a ceasefire.

A lot of political capital was burned in America with the outcome of that attack on Al-Shifa.

Finally, just to be clear, fuck white supremacist apartheid ethno-states.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I read the comments as the opposite. There is no hamas tunnels, only an Israeli built tunnel and IDF is going to use that to justify bombing a hospital because it's an easy excuse to war crime.

[–] xerazal@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago

Israel do love them some war crimes

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So did some human rights organization say that there are no tunnels or what? I have no idea how your comment relates to my question.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There was a thread here like a week ago about how there was evidence against tunnels being under the hospital.

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

They seem to be on the hospital grounds (or so the reports I've read seem ro indicate), which sounds to me that it not directly under the hospital building, though it is still partly under rubble so dunno really. Which ties up to my original question that what report is this that op is talking about and what is the argument.

[–] mycatiskai@lemmy.one 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I guess the democratically elected former Israeli PM Ehud Barak saying it means nothing then?

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

"democratically elected"

shut the

fuck

up, cracker

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago

I, for one, am shocked that people committing a genocide aren't respecting a ceasefire.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

I wish every country neighboring the Illegal Occupation of Palestine a very very "ceasefire"

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

More than 100 Palestinians in Gaza – including 50 from one family – were reported killed on Wednesday as Israeli forces continued to attack across the strip from land, sea and air hours after agreement was reached for a ceasefire to begin on Thursday.

Abass distributed a message from Dr Essay Nabhan, the head of the nursing department, who said: “The hospital was transformed from a centre providing medical services into a mass grave.

The IDF released black and white footage showing bombing from air and sea, plus a video of Israeli soldiers operating in a shattered urban landscape, clearing buildings at gunpoint and calling in airstrikes to attack nearby compounds.

The IDF has described the ceasefire as an “operational pause”, in line with comments overnight from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – a clear attempt to hint that bombing could resume after the hostage exchange is completed.

The IDF showed a group of reporters a reinforced shaft linked to a bathroom, kitchen and an air-conditioned meeting room that it said was part of an underground network of Hamas tunnels beneath al-Shifa.

Aid agencies meanwhile warned that the humanitarian crisis was so catastrophic as a result of the fighting that a four-day pause in hostilities would do little to alleviate the situation, and called for a permanent ceasefire.

The original article contains 984 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] xerazal@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why is everyone calling this a ceasefire deal? It's only for like, 4 days. It's a pause.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because a ceasefire is just a temporary stop to fighting.

Why do people think ceasefire means some sort of permanent truce and end to war?

In world war one they had a ceasefire for Christmas. That lasted one day. Doesn't matter how long it is, if it's a temporary mutual agreement to stop fighting for whatever reason, it's a ceasefire.

If it's a permanent mutual agreement to stop, it's a peace treaty.

[–] xerazal@lemmy.zip -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I get that, but ceasefire to me has always meant a stop to the fighting, indefinitely. Basically, the fighting stops without any stated end. If it does end, it ends. But the time limit aspect, at least from my understanding, isn't specified.

I do get your meaning tho, and in that context it is considered a ceasefire. Thanks for the insight, I had actually forgotten about that WW1 reference.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's an armistice.