> open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire.

Israeli government already very clearly and explicitly said that this window doesn't exist; that was my entire point. If he had said "we MAY still invade" or anything even slightly more qualified, then sure. But he didn't. Unless something went spectacularly wrong in translation, what I read is that he said in very clear terms that Israel will absolutely invade.

Whether that's just empty threads or not is a judgement call, but it's certainly not the language of good faith.

> But he didn't. Unless something went spectacularly wrong in translation, what I read is that he said in very clear terms that Israel will absolutely invade.

A temporary ceasefire also creates room for the opposition to create pressure to call for elections. That’s difficult to do while a war is ongoing.

I think what you're getting at - and which is the critical thing that seems to keep getting forgotten is the critical situation of the hostages. Everything from both sides is rotating around the hostages and we are still not yet in a classical war so much as an extreme hostage negotiation with many layers of force including jets, tanks, and infantry driving the negotiations.

Well I'm not really "getting at" anything per se, other than point out that the diplomatic behaviour of Netanyahu is not especially brilliant and is kind of sabotaging the negotiations.

I think it is much easier to understand the situation if we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a ceasefire.

The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way.

No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful.

In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.

I agree with most of your comment, but I'll push back on a couple of things:

> No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one.

All the things you wrote before that are things that Israel explicitly says, that it won't agree to a permanent ceasefire. But this statement is your personal opinion, and I don't think it's necessarily justified.

> In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.

I think your phrasing on this is misleading, since it implies that Netanyahu's words are that he wants to "continue a genocide" and "ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians". That is incorrect. Are words are that he will invade Rafah, the "continue the genocide/ethnic cleansing" thing are your words, not his. (I highly disagree with using those words, but either way, my point stands.)

You are right, actually. It is too late for me to edit, but from the second paragraph onward I needed to prefix with “I think”.

Rereading it I can see how this is misleading, that was not my intention.

Thank you, and for what it's worth, I didn't think you were being intentionally misleading (just came out misleading in the phrasing).