Ok.
If the peace talks weren’t happening at all, would the situation be any different? This is at least an attempt. The bigger issue? That Hamas has every belief that the US is not impartial, for obvious reasons, meanwhile Netanyahu is also acting in bad faith and changing terms randomly.
The argument that “the war continues during peace talks” is objectively true, but misses the point of how peace talks work in any circumstance, much less one as muddy as this.
I’m for Gaza’s independence and have been for a long time, most likely before many people commenting on similar threads like this have known it existed. But to claim that these talks are nothing more than a red herring is disingenuous at best.
Israel doesn’t need any excuse to continue their aggression, as it has been doing off and on for the better part of a century. Anthony Blinken isn’t going to magically solve a longstanding international crisis and get to diametrically opposed parties to agree on a treaty more than he’s going to have them agree on where to go to dinner.
Also we can get into the whole “Netanyahu is funding Hamas secretly” argument but that’s for another time.
I think the hardest part of all these is that people are looking for simple answers in a situation that is very, VERY complex.
It’s so tempting and appealing to say “if x would happen this would stop”. No, it wouldn’t. It would change but would not stop.
I would argue that these talks, from what I’ve heard, are being held in good faith but with bad-faith actors on either side. It’s impossible to reach a deal when both sides are diametrically opposed to the others existence.
I’m by no means saying the US is an angel here - I mean, look at the hundreds of “peace treaties” we’ve negotiated with banana republics and dictators throughout time. But this is a lose-lose-lose and they’re desperately trying for any kind of a win. I don’t fault them for that, for once.