Morch

You line seems to be that Gazans are oblivious to Hamas part in this.

I think that the Hamas attack did not quite go as planned. Evidence suggest that they were gearing for further 'achievements', possibly holding out within Israel's borders longer. Another element which I think they underestimated or weren't ready for was the mobs of Gazans following on their trail - as I see it now, this created a whole lot of confusion in Hamas ranks as well. But these issues aside - they were obviously expecting a strong response, maybe thinking it would not be as forceful, or not culminate in a massive ground operation. With regard to the latter, seems like they overestimated their ability to resist or slow it down.

@thaibeachlovers Air superiority operations, top gun style are sexier, but when it comes down to it, they are just a prelude to what an air force is really for - air-to-ground and ground-support operations. With regard to the example you highlighted, the air superiority element exemplifies comments made before about training, mentality and freedom afforded for pilots. Being restricted in terms of training, tactics and command didn't help the Syrians - and I think these are issues relevant to the Chinese example as well. The air-to-ground part is/was considered textbook example of how to effectively dismantle a multi-layered air defense system, innovative as far as tactics and some of the gear used. Since then, Israel carried out hundreds of air raids on targets in neighboring hostile countries. Several more broad scale altercations included. That's way more battle experience than most air forces possess.

@thaibeachlovers This was commented on almost at the start of these topics. They dynamics are well known, and expected. What is out of the ordinary is how long the support phase lasted, and how muted the lack of support was/is (I'll get to Biden's words, don't worry). To put things in perspective, this is a non-binding resolution, meaning it is of declarative value. As such countries are way more likely to vote for, because it doesn't mean a whole lot. Not the first or the last of these. Also, note that 23 other counties abstained or did not vote (among them such lightweights such as the UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands). Just another day on the UN. As for Biden words - one got to appreciate the dilemma you're faced with. On the one hand, topic after topic, you denigrate and ridicule the man as having no clue what he's talking about. Now he comes out and say something you like, can't really have a decent go at him. I do remember, however, that near the start of this war you were all over the place about Biden's comments regarding the atrocities (that thing with the pictures he claimed to have been shown and than retracted). Somehow, now - Biden is a perfectly credible source. Amusing, to say the least. I think Biden's main thrust is less about global support, and more about 'the day after' issue. The White House would like to see some progress on that front post-war, while Netanyahu and his right-wing allies broadcast a different tune. On this issue, what Biden said is diplomatically off the charts as far as relations between the countries go. But this is not so much against Israel, rather directed specifically at Netanyahu's coalition partners.

@thaibeachlovers I guess posting excuses and justifications for the 7/10 attack could give this impression. Same goes for constantly ignoring Hamas role in the current situation.

You are wrong, and have provided neither actual support for you assertion, nor presented a logical argument, even. Also, you don't get to decide what's credible or not. Not your job. As said, other links appear on this topic and others. Read the topic.

I'm on board with you stopping to twist what people say, allege things that weren't claimed and try to put words in other people's mouth.

Not interested in your silly semantics dodging games. I think @richard_smith237's comments were specific enough. You chose to deflect, that's all.

This appeared in the Haaretz. It's a left (sometimes hard left) leaning publication, the comments section it mostly sympathetic, often reflecting a more radical than presented in columns and reports. I think this is another example of you commenting on things you're not versed in (like the attempt to lump all Gazans as sharing the same position). This what makes the commentary stand out, it's not so much an all out support for the IDF and the government, but rather dissatisfaction with the quality of the article. The criticism is about comparing apples and orange. Nothing to do with cherry picking. And such comparisons would not 'reduce' the ratio, but put it context. As for you declaring 'war crimes' - I think we've been over that nonsense on your last visit (or the one before) to these topics.

Comments made by @richard_smith237 above seem focused on protests, not on media reports.

The Guardian report is essentially a rough version of the an article which appeared on Israeli media (in the Haaretz). The link included in the Guardian report is leads to Haaretz's English edition, with the article being behind a paywall (same for the Hebrew version). Given that the Guardian report is low on details, it's hard to judge how results were arrived at etc. The original article (in Hebrew) is being taken apart and crucified left and right on the readers' comments section. Points raised as to methodology, figures, calculations and whatnot. Such criticism (some of it pretty basic stuff) is not reflected in the Guardian's account. I will point out some things that stick out even from the Guardian's short-version offering The comparison should be vs. similar military operations, not military conflicts in general. Not all battles and wars are conducted in dense urban settings and against an insurgent/terrorist enemy. I think that such a comparison would be more relevant. Further, if the original article references only airstrikes, then the general comparison is all the more strained. When it comes to the bit referencing past instances of fighting between Hamas and Israel, it is not clear what data is being used (there are differences in casualty figures version). Considering the Hamas currently does not release detailed casualty reports, and the IDF figures are rough assessments, maybe premature to conclude things decisively. Then there's them failed rocket launches. Estimated at about 10% of the total (if memory serves, this was discussed in detail in context of the hospital incident) - but how many casualties? For that single incident, Hamas claimed 500 (!) casualties alone. Are they numbered among those killed by Israel as well? Who knows. Given there were thousands of rockets launched, 10% would be in the hundreds. IMO the ratio is probably correct, more or less - 2:1 civilians to combatants, including ground operations. I don't think that a direct comparison to similar campaigns, battles and wars would make it stand out in the manner presented, though. Here's a link to an article previously linked: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officials-2-civilian-deaths-for-every-1-hamas-fighter-killed-in-gaza/

IS were Sunni.

Of course they are. Unlike you I don't make up stuff. There's one posted just on the previous page. You could have looked it up by now, instead of trolling. Others posted as well, on this topic and others. Read the topic.

Yawn. Read the topic.

Links have been provided showing Gazans criticizing Hamas for bringing this calamity upon them, for stealing supplies, for living in luxury and safety while ordinary Gazans are dying. Obviously they were taken after the war started, many of them recent, as the war reached the south side of the Gaza Strip and conditions worsen.

You link did not support the 100% support claim. It cannot do that because there is no 100% support for Hamas. Links to clips in which Gazans criticize Hamas have been posted on this topic and others. I do not refer to my opinions, but to facts and reality. I am not in a position where I need to supply links (they have already been posted, and the underlying claim being trivial).

More like you cannot back up what you posted, so you go for some nonsense comment.

It was stated as fact, which is the norm for you posts. You do not tend to qualify, but favor statements. You opinion is not based on anything, let alone logic. Your link does not support your strong claim either. There are no countries with 100% support, most regimes that claim that are dictatorships of the worst kinds. There have been links to clips showing Palestinians tin he Gaza Strip criticizing Hamas. This was already pointed out. If you can't be bothered reading the topic, at least don't make bogus assertion that there were no such. What your comments do show is the low regard in which you hold Palestinians. As if they are some easy to control drones, with no mind of their own. Do you really think none of them are upset with Hamas for bringing about their current circumstances? Or for hiding in the safety of tunnels paid from monies rightly belonging to the people, but barring them out? Are they ok with Hamas robbing UN supplies meant for civilians? Or maybe you imagine they have no issues with Hamas leadership living in luxury at Qatar, while preaching them on 'needed sacrifices'. Again, you don't seem to understand how discussions work.

You made a strong claim about 100% support. You do not provide anything that shows this. You seem content to assert this as fact based on what you imagine how things should be. I did not make the claim, hence I do not need to provide any links. I question your claim, based on past figures, history and common sense. I don't think that are actually 100% support places, unless one counts North Korea. People have different opinions, links to Gazan/Palestinian voices against Hamas posted on this topic and others.

And....? How does this demonstrate or prove your 100% support assertion?

International would cover luggage getting lost, some airline issues, possibly flights back in case of medical emergency. Domestic would (as far as I'm aware) not include these elements. Probably other stuff, plus the total sums you're covered for might be different.

You can say a whole lot of things. You often do. That doesn't mean that they are factual, true, correct or reasonable. That you decide 100% support and anything but being 'irrational' does not rely on anything, and is, well...irrational. Surely now is what you say - not what Gazans are saying.

@thaibeachlovers You are, indeed, wrong. There was wars on 1973, 1982, and other more limited operations since. Long range strikes, reconnaissance missions and whatnot. Flying training missions with clear parameters, and much more regulated conditions is not the same as flying operational missions. And even training missions are not structured the same way for all air forces. Often, air forces of authoritarian/dictatorial countries are allowed much less freedom regarding training and operation, regime rightly suspecting the potential to become a danger to its own suitability. This tends to have a negative effect on capabilities and morale. The IAF heavily relies on reserve duty pilots, bolstering both numbers and experience. This featured on the protest movement against the government, with hundreds announcing they would suspend their (voluntary) service. From what I know about the Chinese Air force, it's tightly controlled by the party. There are signs of modernization in terms of training missions and so on, but still a ways to go. Their strong point would be numbers, and some of their new gear looks the job (but not battle tested - same as the pilots and supporting crews).

Maybe But it would mean the bombings, the fighting, the death and destruction being stopped. That's the context. Hamas seems to be willing to fight to the last Gazan. It's not like the Hamas does a whole lot of good for the Palestinian cause.