Morch

More of your nonsense. Apparently Hamas's actions are not to be used to justify Israel's response, but it's quite alright justifying Hamas actions in the context of Israel's. Also, according to your 'informed' comment, it appears as if until 7/10 the Palestinians did not wrong, ever. Even for someone as far gone as yourself, that's way out of touch with reality. Also what are the 'Zionist factions in control of the IDF'? Another made up mumbo jumbo.

Here is the Guardian article mentioned in the link above: Hamas drew detailed attack plans for years with help of spies, documents suggest https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/04/hamas-drew-detailed-attack-plans-for-years-with-help-of-spies-idf-says?ref=upstract.com Some years back, there were reports about Hamas operatives posing as hot chicks on social media, trying to seduce Israeli soldiers, compromise them, get information etc. It got some headlines because of the sensational nature of the reports/warnings but don't think it was taken very seriously at the time. Could be some connection. Kinda doubt some serious 'spy' situation, undercover stuff and all that. But someone getting tricked into it, or compromised and blackmailed, yes. The other thing I can think of are either drones, of the small variety. Given the clips showing how surveillance measures were taken down using such, maybe managed to collect some intel before that the same way. Also, satellite images are widely available.

@Neeranam Well, the font is almost large enough for Erdogan's ego, at least. And here you go again, posting nonsense opinions from dodgy sources - not the channel, in case you try for this deflection again - but Erdogan himself. Probably could have found a more biased, vehement commentator, but it would take some digging.

I wasn't talking on Thailand either. I was pointing out that the Thai Prime Minister met with Putin abroad. Not too complicated. As for you assertions regarding 'core broker' (whatever you think this means), you'll have to support them with something other than your imagination. To date, BRICS was not a major factor in this, and there's little reason to expect this will change. Similarly, the involvement of Pan-Arab organizations was not a hallmark of related negotiations in the past. That you assert this will change, is good and well - just not substantive enough.

There was no 'distorted impression' given. The details in the link your provided are pretty similar to what was posted earlier. So far 'Israel occupying the Gaza Strip' doesn't seem to be a thing.

I'm sure you think you meant something by that.

Thanks, the Mrs. will appreciate it. Was what she worried about (had this sometime ago on a new road here).

Israel Weighs Plan to Flood Gaza Tunnels With Seawater https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-weighs-plan-to-flood-gaza-tunnels-with-seawater/ar-AA1kZZ0F I don't know what to make of that - which pretty much sums the article as well. A whole lot of different issues involved. My guess is that this would have been more effective before the bombing campaign, now maybe less so.

I really think that we have discussed this already. There was nothing said about Netanyahu being replaced currently, at present, or next week. Won't happen (though it would have been nice...). I don't think that as long as the fighting is on he'll be seriously challenged, even. It would be detrimental to Israel's security interests to have a major political crisis at this time - adding coalition partners in wartime is one thing, dissolving the parliament is another. But when the fighting is over, I expect the anti-government protests will resume - with a vengeance. Netanyahu himself, or the right wing politicians in his coalition will probably not step down or anything. Cannot afford to. But all it really takes are a few coalition members to cross the line, or even abstain. There are potential candidates for such a move, and I don't think it's that far-fetched. There's constant talk about that for months now - suppose it would be even more of a thing down the line. Again, maybe more to do with political self preservation. i said nothing about 'inevitable'.

No Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip.

As opposed to your 'in-depth' comment?

No deflection. Not the first such comment that you made. And you're oversimplifying things: Consider that as current Israeli politics go, a Center-Left government would almost certainly need to rely on the support of Arab parties (whether as part of government or not). This will be politically problematic for Arab politicians even as it is. The flip side is that such rifts would benefit Netanyahu's interests. Consider this as well - there are signs that Netanyahu's career is on the line (ratings, court cases resuming, international pariah when the war is over, image tarnished some even with the base). If he wants to walk away, cut a deal on his cases and so on, might be a tad problematic to have the ICC on his tale. Not something the psycho wife and son would appreciate. The same goes for the Centrist ad-hoc members of the War Cabinet. While they are (theoretically) poised well to replace Netanyahu if the opportunity arises, they still carry the responsibility for actions taken by Israel. This may effect their situation as well. None of this got a whole lot to do with feelings of remorse, empathy, goodwill, and so on.

Taking daft potshots is not point.

Whereas the Palestinian feel deeply about Israeli victims of the 7/10 attack, and rationally try their best to figure out an alternative strategy to the Hamas's.

Hamas wanted to 'change the equation'. It managed that, but maybe not the way intended. I don't know, exactly how things are decided regarding 'accepted' casualty rates, under the current War Cabinet. Ordinarily, the government would only be directing the IDF on a general level, based on reviews and projections presented by the IDF and intelligence bodies. This War Cabinet, though, includes two former IDF chiefs-of-staff and an-almost-chief-of-staff (the current Minister of Defense) - so in one way they might be more hands on (especially with the current IDF chief-of-staff position being compromised following the attack), while also being familiar with how the IDF works and what briefings actually mean. On the military level, there's quite a lot legal advisors hanging about, giving input as to how legit attacks are in terms of international law. Obviously, it is still early to know if the legal take applied would be acceptable in case things will be brought under inquiry and go to court. I don't think that, right now, there's a whole lot of goodwill, brotherly love or even empathy in the 'collateral damage' department. Some yes, but not the underlying sentiment, especially in light of 7/10. The motivation is more defensive - as in providing legal protection for IDF personnel, and the country as a whole. Latest maps I saw (a version from a week ago or so appears on these topics) demonstrate that 'no place untouched' is more of a catchphrase than reality. Even more so with regard to areas designated as safe-zones. That said, the destruction is certainly wide spread and the casualty lists are growing longer. As for the death ratio, see my previous post and the first line of this one. You are mostly correct with the 'day after' observation. There are no good solution for this, or a solution that could easily be acceptable to parties involved. Discussing it with the Israeli political system is problematic at the moment - as it may lead to the dissolution of the ad-hoc wartime government. As usual, right-wing hardliners either concentrate on what they do not want to happen, and/or air fantasy solutions which are unlikely to go anywhere. While it is not premature to discuss things, it is still to early to know how the situation in the Gaza Strip will pan out. Hence major issues like whether Hamas is present at the time, are yet to be decided. IMO, there's little for Israel to gain (under any situation) from prolonged military presence in the Gaza Strip after operations end. Israel should re-establish a no-go zone along the border (on the Gazan side), re-install surveillance systems etc. and pay more attention in the future. Ideally, the Gaza Strip would be administrated by the PA (but maybe with Abbas out, or Dahlan brought in from the cold), security by an international force with troops from non-silly countries. Longer term, there are more issues involved - how Israeli politics would shape up, whether things will heat up in the West Bank (or Southern Lebanon), how the PA will fare and what things will be like in the Gaza Strip. In an ideal world (again...), there would be some meaningful international sponsored drive toward reaching a permanent agreement. In reality, maybe not in the cards given the political situation within each of the involved parties or even globally.

No(nsense).

And the alternative....?

This attack was planned at least a year in advance. Maybe the original motivators were different back then, I don't know. But with regard to the actual attack happening when it did - I think that there were several reasons - support among Palestinians going down some, Sinwar's position being on the line, and yes - regional (especially SA) trends towards normalization of relations with Israel while sidelining the Palestinian issue. In terms of conditions in the Gaza Strip it was not a particularly bad time (relatively, obviously). And as this was planned ahead, most of the PR stuff (saving Al Aqsa etc.) were more handy recent stuff, rather than 'real' issues.

Maybe in your biased, warped version of things. Spin it as you may, Hamas did not 'snap', this was carefully planned quite a while ago. All this 'back yard' nonsense doesn't amount to anything much, just an oversimplification of things when one can't deal with complicated issues. Current events are a direct result of the Hamas 7/10 attack. Attempts to spin, minimize and justify it are vile.

Thank you.

@Neeranam Refer to my past posts on Netanyahu. You will not find many that aren't a negative take of the man, his policies and conduct. There is no actual way for him to be 'fired' over this, same goes for 'tried' - you got your answer already, stop trolling.

@Neeranam I'm not responsible for what you pretend not to see. I'm not responsible for who you put on 'ignore'. That's on you. The fact is that the issue was already discussed (probably on parallel topics as well), your silly games notwithstanding. I don't think that the USA takes it very seriously, because it knows the score. There is no love for Netanyahu in the White House. Politics do not always follow morals - as would be apparent from USA dealings with China, Saudi Arabia and so on. Pretty much the same for all countries. I'm sure you thought you had a point there. Maybe next time.

@Neeranam I'd say get in line - there are a whole lot of reasons already that would merit him leaving or being kicked out of office, and tried. In fact, his court cases just resumed, much to the chagrin of lick-spittle supporters.