IDF: NETANYAHU’S GOAL OF ELIMINATING HAMAS IS UNACHIEVABLE

The Libertarian Institute ^ | 6/20/24 | Kyle Anzalone

[hardspunned]

The spokesman for the Israeli military explained that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s goal of eradicating Hamas is not achievable. The statement comes amid a growing rift between the Israeli leader and the military. In remarks to Israel’s Channel 13 News on Wednesday, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the military spokesperson, explained that the PM’s stated objective in Gaza is an insult to the Israeli people. “This business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear – it’s simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public,” he said. “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It’s rooted in the hearts of the people – whoever thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.” The statement from Hagari reflects assessments from US intelligence and military officials that destroying Hamas is not something that can be accomplished. The US intelligence community’s threat assessment released in March said that Israel would likely be fighting Hamas for years to come.

[Gene Eric]

>> to make them forswear war.

At its roots, Islam is a war plan.

[AndyJackson]

Except for Trump and his Brownshirt MAGA brigade.

[cowboyusa]

I understand who globalists are and what they do. No hard evidence, but thier wouldn’t be.

[Dr. Sivana]

Netanyahu did not state that his goal is to “eradicate Hamas”, but rather to distroy its military and governing capability.

Sometimes he DID say "destroy Hamas" as shorthand, but people like me assumed he meant the predicate of your statement, even when saying "destroy Hamas."

[Sarah Barracuda]

You can destroy Hamas as an organization but you can’t destroy the ideology unless you kill every Palestinian because they all hate the Jews

[logi_cal869]

Prove it.

[logi_cal869]

Yup. But the most astonishing thing is what has NOT happened...

[Angelino97]

Curtis LeMay had it right.

"Kill enough of them and they will stop fighting."

Is that statement original to LeMay?

I heard a similar statement attributed to some Vietnamese leader regarding the French in the early 1950s. "If we keep killing their soldiers, eventually France will stop sending soldiers."

[The Duke]

My grandfather used to have a favorite saying ... "Can't never could do nothin'!"

[Governor Dinwiddie]

#6: 200,000 - 400,000 people in Gaza Strip would have to be "liquidated".

Git 'er Done.

[magooey]

‘Do you have any evidence that October 7th was “permitted to occur”?’

I am very sorry to say that the recent video report from Caroline Glick speaks to the intention of IDF head Halevi. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_mwqmEvKTc. Caroline Glick “In Focus: IDF Announces Pause in Fighting ...”.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. There may still be a few ideological Nazis in Germany. But they have zero influence on the government.

Unless you want to count leftist climate Nazis.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Goal is to provide long term security for Israel. How they choose to do that is up to them.

[Daveinyork]

Judaism at its finest. Get ten of us in a room, and you get eleven different opinions.

[lightman]

ONLY eleven opinions?

[IAGeezer912]

Take the General Pershing approach...

---

That is a great story. IIRC...Pershing had 10 Muslim terrorists in the Philippines face a firing squad and had the bullets dipped in pig fat. The shot 9 of them and let the 10th one go. He spread the word and the terrorist activity settled down.

[old school]

These people have resisted civilization for thousands of years! Only God can tame them!

[Uncle Miltie]

Yup.

Again, you have no proof.

Ever.

You made it up.

[logi_cal869]

smh

[Uncle Miltie]

“I understand who globalists are and what they do. No hard evidence, but thier wouldn’t be.”

A person may have conjecture based on circumstance. That’s reasonable. I disagree with you based on all the facts that I have seen, but I could be wrong.

The logi_cal869 dude states as unequivocal FACT that Israel knew about the attacks in advance, and “permitted them to occur”. He does so without evidence continuously.

There’s conjecture, which is fair without conclusive evidence, and there is certainty without proof, which is idiocy. Indeed, given the subject at hand, certainty without proof veers mighty close to the “Evil Jew” trope.

So I’m kinda thingy about the distinction

Thanks for your clarification.