A 6th day at 40% pay? Yeah, that’s a big “no.”

It’s 40% extra pay, like overtime in the US.

Imagine what would have happened if Soviet-made MiGs were used against Americans in Korea and Vietnam.

South Africa also failed to arrest Omar Al Bashir, who is charged with genocide by the ICC.

It was very clear from the beginning that South Africa would not only be breaking international law by allowing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to fly out of a military base but would be going against its own courts.

Israel, unlike the US, is a multiparty democracy. Likud, the biggest party, still only won 23% of the vote. So like nearly all Israeli PM’s, Netanyahu cannot remain in power without official support from other political parties. That means convincing other political leaders to support him is far more important than in the US.

Yes, if Netanyahu supports a peace proposal then he will lose the far right (Ben Gvir). But he could gain the support of other leaders (Yair Lapid). And if he doesn’t pivot, he could lose Gantz.

This is what I mean by political calculus, which I think at this point is at least as important to Netanyahu as ideology (in view of the risk of prosecution if he loses power).

He would pivot when he had enough backing from his political coalition to make it safe for him to do so.

I think that’s probably the only issue right now. He’s a politician who above all wants to remain in power. Crafting a consistent narrative is only a minor consideration. So he can imply whatever he wants, the bare minimum is to avoid saying two things that cannot later be reconciled logically.

It’s like asking “How does Nikki Haley pivot to supporting Trump after implying he was unfit to be president?” It took no effort at all, once she decided it was politically expedient.

The proposal specifies return of “remaining hostages who are alive”.

I don’t know what they want. I just think their current statements are not necessarily in conflict with the peace deal they proposed.

Not to me.

The US once went to war with England, but I think most Americans agree that “England no longer poses a threat to us.”

But is it possible that one day we will again be at war with England? I mean sure, anything is possible.

You really can’t say anyone will “never be a threat”. Just that they aren’t a threat now.

EDIT

Or to take a simple example, “I no longer live in California” does not mean “I will never again live in California”.

That’s not a stated goal.

The goals is to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas, which arguably has been achieved.

“Gaza no longer poses a threat” does not mean “Gaza will never again pose a threat”. I think the words were chosen carefully. The former requires an agreement with Gazans. The latter would require a crystal ball.

After all, I’m sure the Israeli government would agree that Egypt no longer poses a threat. Israel recently said Egypt is their friend. But that doesn’t mean Egypt will never again pose a threat, because nobody knows the future.

Presumably those will end during the temporary ceasefire, allowing Israel to claim that goal has been accomplished before the permanent ceasefire.

Sure, but they could declare that partly because of the Iron Dome, the threat has been neutralized.

You might consider rockets a threat, but that doesn’t mean the Israeli government considers them a threat.

In other words, there some in Israel who likely believe the military capabilities of Hamas have already been destroyed (like Gantz), and some who likely believe they haven’t (like Ben Gvir). So the government could officially take either position.

Netanyahu just wants to remain in power. He still supports the deal which suggests he is in the first group and is counting on the support of people in the first group. That might include opposition leader Yair Lapid, who promised to support Netanyahu if Ben Gvir leaves the governing coalition.

Whether or not Israel feels threatened is up to Israel. Biden said Hamas is not capable of another 10/7, which might be sufficient to meet that condition.

If with “total destruction of Hamas’ capabilities” they mean

That’s just my paraphrase.

The actual wording used by Israel is “destruction of the military and governing capabilities of Hamas”. Both of which arguably have already been destroyed.

Not necessarily. If Israel no longer feels threatened by Gaza then for all practical purposes it no longer poses a threat. Which might even be the case right now.

I think Netanyahu is choosing his words carefully to get the ceasefire through (which after all he proposed) without alienating the hard(er) right wing.

Here’s what he actually said:

Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel

Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter

The thing is that all of those conditions, except for the hostages, are pretty subjective. Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated. Nothing stops Netanyahu from declaring the same tomorrow.

That leaves the hostages. But in the three phase plan, freeing the hostages comes before the permanent ceasefire. So again, the peace plan is not inconsistent with his latest statements. I think he is simply using a harder posture to help win support.

I’m not sure that matters, since the majority of military casualties are caused by the same side.

So for example, when evaluating the Iraq War you would compare Iraqi civilian to Iraqi military casualties. There is little point in looking at American civilian casualties.

at best ~10K down to ~5K

I believe those are still from January, when the total number of deaths was 25,000. So if they are correct then that would result in a casualty ratio between 1.5:1 and 4:1

Israel seized one side of the crossing but they seized the Egyptian side

I don’t believe this is true.

All reporting I’ve seen says they seized the Palestinian side.

CNN:

Israeli military says it has captured Palestinian side of Rafah crossing

Guardian:

IDF claims control of Gaza side of Rafah crossing

BBC:

The Israeli military says its troops have taken “operational control” of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

Israel seized the Gazan side of the crossing from Hamas. That means the crossing used to be shared by Egypt and Hamas, and now it’s shared by Egypt and Israel.

This is not a “treaty violation”. The 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access was between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not Israel and Egypt. The PA, not Hamas, was authorized to administer the Gazan side of the crossing on behalf of Israel, provided they were supervised by the EU. Hamas has no rights at all under this agreement.

Egypt may prefer its old partner to its new one, but ultimately it has zero say over who administers the Gazan side of the crossing.

At no point did anyone take Egypt’s side of the crossing away from Egypt. And since crossing requires permission from both sides, Egypt can control what goes through the crossing now just as it did before.