Morch

I think that you are desperate to shift all responsibility from the Hamas.

@thaibeachlovers The Palestinians rejected the two-state solution for decades. They did not seriously push for a Palestinian state before the West Bank and the Gaza were taken by Israel (as in, before the Israeli 'oppression'). You're making up history now as well?

@thaibeachlovers That would be you either watching too much AJ, or just spewing one of your 'opinions'. So yes, the conditions for a two-state solution are bad, but to say it's impossible? That's a choice. Considering the many fantastic things you believe, shouldn't be a problem to accommodate this one as well. A two-state solution will also require the Palestinians to drop the claim embodied by the 'river-to-the-sea' chants. Do you see that happening? Or, do you see Hamas laying down it's weapons, recognizing Israel and it's right to exist, while embracing a peaceful path? You ignore what's uncomfortable. You don't know what Hamas wants? How come? Hamas leadership is often on AJ, and if that's not enough, it's been discussed on here numerous times. Nice that you justify them, again - guess you'll deny doing so in a future post.

The world did no such thing, other than in your imagination. There's a whole UN agency dedicated for Palestinian 'refugees'. Israel's transgressions are regular discussion material in the UN, and as far as I recall, the only issue which is a permanent item on the human rights elements of the UN. The world is not 'opposed' to Israel in the way that you hope for. There is no breaking of ties, commerce, boycotts, embargoes, sanctions or anything. There is no international unconditional embrace of the Palestinian cause, Hamas or anything else related to this. Crimes against humanity, no less. Well, well....if you say so, it must be true.

There was actually a USA arms embargo on Israel in the country's early years. USA Aid to Israel became a thing in the Mid-60's or so. Regardless, most of the funds allocated are designated to purchasing stuff from American firms.

@thaibeachlovers Palestinians have no issue rising up against the much-stronger-than-Hamas Israeli army. So it's not so much a matter of 'cannot' but rather of 'won't'. On many of your posts you go on and on about how Palestinians are ready to fight forever, sacrifice their lives, endure whatever - if you believe your own rhetoric, then what you posted above is at odds with this sentiment. Further, you also refer to Hamas as a resistance movement and as representing the Palestinians (at least on posts where it suits your 'point'). The above description makes them sound like some tyrannical, dictatorial rulers. Again, at odds with views aired earlier.

That's a generic comment often made on these topics, and by politicians as well. What's missing from these statements is a clearer, realistic explanation of what this actually implies and how it could be realistically achieved.

@thaibeachlovers Well, I'm assuming you read you own posts, so that would surely increase the number of 'divorced from reality' ones. You seem to believe that there is some sort of 'same same' requirement, some legal equivalency. There is no sound reasoning to it - it's merely a reflection of your biased opinion. Your grasp of the 'war crimes' issue and legalities involved is rather shaky. Maybe too many hours watching AJ.

Austin: I’m not dictating timelines or terms; Gallant: Israel won’t control Gaza in any civilian way https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/austin-im-not-dictating-timelines-or-terms-gallant-israel-wont-control-gaza-in-any-civilian-way/ While I'm sure Austin had a lot to say behind closed doors, he doesn't seem keen on airing it in public. As long as the USA doesn't put it's foot down, and if Israel (somewhat) heeds USA calls for lowering civilian casualty figures, this could last a long time. If the past is something to go on, then the international objections would slowly dissipate (unless rekindled by specific incidents), and the world will move on. Regarding Gallant's comment about controlling the Gaza Strip - that's yet another unclear statement, which I think reflects the inability of the current government to even discuss the options. Netanyahu apparently locked himself into a rejectionist position vs. the possibility of the PA taking charge, but I think this has more to do with his domestic political machinations - he's already on the campaign trail, or at least on the shift-the-blame-deflect-away trail. Not sure how the Israeli minister envisages this 'security control' without 'civilian control' bit. Then again, it was not a very well thought out position, more like a political necessity - and one which would differentiate him from Netanyahu, as a possible future contender.

Why all the trolling and lying? There was no 'yelling', there was no 'screaming'. This war started on 7/10. The conflict started years and decades ago. This topic is about current events. It's not a history class. You seem unable to grasp this.

IDF says terrorist who took part in Oct. 7 attack nabbed at Gaza school alongside other Hamas members https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-terrorist-who-took-part-in-oct-7-attack-nabbed-at-gaza-school-alongside-other-hamas-members/ Slowly but surely....

That's exactly what I dd.

I'll give you this - look up how many people were killed in all the years of IRA insurgency. Then compare it to that 7/10 attack. It was already discussed here, links, figures and all.

Again, I do not pretend anything such as you claim. Why do you insist on blatantly lying?

I believe you, Jeff. Who wouldn't....?

Comments about these this being a current events topic, not a history class. Not sure why you bother pretending not being aware of this.

No, that would be you trolling over and over again. There were comments about his by the moderation team.

You are not allowed to troll, though. And jumping in on a topic, claiming things people said or haven't said, demanding 'proof' and so on - that qualifies. I am not nitpicking - you're doing this on a regular basis. It's how you roll. You do not know much on the subject matter, so what you offer instead is hot air, bogus claims and an attitude.

I do not 'admit', this is not a court. Not sure what is it with you and ignoring post made. This conflict did not start on the 7/10. This war was. Not too complicated. Even for you.

Precisely? Read the topics. Read past topics. Why do you think you are entitled to jump into discussions and demand things be spoon-fed to you? BS? That's all you've got on offer. Making claims you can't back up, lying about other posters positions or what was posted. That's how you roll.

Again, what is it with your lies? Do you have to? This has been discussed, explained, and yet you pretend that it's a new thing. I did not insist or deny what you claim. I acknowledged that there's a history. This topic is not a history class. It's a current events topics. On a news section.

No, more like you just found out about stuff, and you're a little excited.

As said - you do not read topics. This was discussed before. It was mentioned on topic years ago.

Yes...and? This has been linked and discussed already, you know? Oh, forgot - you don't read topics.

What is up with your lies? I did condemn him in posts on here, and it's not exactly news even. Not for anyone who's been following things. You act like you've got some 'a-ha' moment, you don't.