>I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate.
So how exactly do you negotiate with genocidal terrorists that refuse to surrender despite having clearly lost a war? There certainly isn't an easy solution here.
> The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.
It actually doesn't have to be negotiated, one side can simply make a demand for surrender with their terms and then apply military pressure until capitulation. This is largely what happened with Germany/Japan in WW2.
> By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.
If it's clear the current negotiators/leaders will never surrender then there is arguably no benefit in keeping those particular negotiators/leaders alive. Once an organizations leadership tree is wiped out a few levels deep there's a decent chance you will get negotiators/leaders that will eventually capitulate to the demands(i.e. like what happened with Hezbollah).
> Well Israel's current solution is to impose famine and genocide on the civilian population.
There is no credible evidence that there is famine or genocide occurring in Gaza. Obviously the situation in Gaza is bad but that's to be expected for a war.
> This thread is literally about an article in which it is outlined that there is indeed a famine in Gaza.
It's not credible however[0]. There have been many claims without appropriate evidence for a while[1] and those involved tend to be antisemitic individuals interested only in pushing a specific narrative regardless of the facts on the ground.
As opposed to the first source you posted which is the text of a sky news interview with Hillel Neuer
From wiki
"Neuer was selected as one of the "top 100 most influential Jewish people in the world" by Israeli newspaper Maariv,[9] and by the Algemeiner Journal in 2017. He is an outspoken defender of Israel[10][11] and critic of the UN's human rights councils' actions.[12]"
So he's not pushing a pro-Israel view? How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
I don't think I ever claimed his view was neutral. Groups on both sides putting out analysis papers will likely have some degree of bias.
> How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I mostly consider them unreliable because they have a history of putting out reports that push a narrative that simply isn't in line with reality and tend to have major methodological issues. They also have a history of putting out wildly inaccurate future projections.
> I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
There's two aspects, one is the history of methodologically problematic analysis put out by these organization like those involved in the IPC report along with other UN organizations.
The other is that individuals involved in the reports tend to hold extremist viewpoints that point to a clear motivation for pushing narratives regardless of the reality on the ground.
UN officials in particular have a rather common habit of straight up lying about facts(and even what their own UN reports say in regards to starvation risk) and when caught they simply try and justify their lies[0] because those lies supposedly help their cause.
The most detailed responses/rebuttals to these IPC reports would generally be reports that COGAT is involved in producing[1][2]. While COGAT is arguably biased they do put out sufficient data/references for one to validate their analysis, groups like UN Watch do likely source from these reports. Keep in mind there's not many organizations that have access to data on the ground, COGAT likely has the most complete view while humanitarian organizations likely only have data specific to their own operations. By cherry picking data(often non-public data), ignoring counterfactual data and largely excluding COGAT data the IPC report authors can paint a false narrative more easily.
Claims of famine citing the UN/IPC are normally appeals to authority, whose convincingness depends on the credibility of the authority.
The UNWatch article isn't that - you can easy verify their points yourself. I.e. by IPC's own definition and Hamas' own casualty data, we're about three orders of magnitude short of meeting one of the requirements of a famine. IPC is just ignoring their own definition and declaring a famine anyway.
That wasn't me. I would say the question of how often UN officials lie is rather moot. If it follows from plain facts and basic math that the famine claim is false, we don't really need to argue about the credibility of those making the claims.
> If Israel believes they are genocidal terrorists that won't surrender why are they even negotiating?
One reason would be to try and get back as many hostages as possible, regardless of whether or not the terrorists surrender.
> You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both
One can still attack an enemy while negotiating with them, I see no reason one would have to pick one option over the other.
It's not at all uncommon to negotiate with ones enemies while you attack them(including trying to kill them). If Israel explicitly gave the enemy representatives they were negotiating with diplomatic immunity then one might have a better argument against attacking those with immunity, but that was AFAIU not the case here.
That's insane and not how you negotiate.