Morch

@Neeranam I think you are trying to deflect. The Gazans are reaping what Hamas sowed.

I would venture these aren't 'proper' Hamas men. At least not the 'elite' ones. No much semblance of uniforms, not all are armed, even (I think). Doesn't make the act any better, obviously. But yeah....kinda lame handling there, could have just tied her up and get going.

@Neeranam That is not so, and considering you put many on 'ignore', how would you know? As for bombshell, huge or otherwise - more like your opinion. Doesn't seem to get that much traction, actually.

@Neeranam I criticize posts which I feel merit criticism. Same goes for links. What you offer often fits the bill, so yes. One can always hope the quality will improve, even if evidence for this is thin. The Times of India is a rather mediocre newspaper, albeit with a history. The comment was not, however, about the Times of India, but specifically related to the author and his opinion piece. Try to improve your deflections, please, this is almost embarrassing. I did not say that the UN knows nothing - quite the opposite, I think the UN's relative silence regarding the 7/10 attack and related actions by Hamas is all the more vile because the information is out there, and because these bodies 'know'.

@Neeranam Already discussed and addressed on previous posts. Guess you don't bother to read the topic or even the links your provide, other than the headline.

@Neeranam Hamas obviously does not believe that - seeing as the Gazans reap what it sowed.

@Neeranam Guess desperate times call for desperate links. It an opinion column by a biased, Marxist South Indian politician with neither academic credentials nor global stature is the best you can come up with things might be dire indeed.

@thaibeachlovers The blockade on the Gaza Strip is in place due to Hamas actions and agenda. It is not that you are not aware of this. Considering Hamas managed to smuggle in quite a bit of arms etc., maybe it wasn't tight enough. Also, the blockade is maintained by Egypt as well, which you often neglect to acknowledge. Quite a twist there - admitting there was not occupation, but doing a full about turn and claiming there 'de-facto' was. Apparently, in your mind, Palestinians, Gazans, Hamas - they aren't accountable for anything whatsoever.

@thaibeachlovers A bit early how? You kept using that nonsense 'history will..." as a closing remarks for weeks when this started. You're doing it now.

@thaibeachlovers More of your co-opting nonsense. You do not speak for the global community, you do not decide who know what's going on.

@thaibeachlovers It is vile to see you (and others) try to minimize Hamas actions which directly led to this war. Same goes for the UN, and some governments.

@thaibeachlovers More of your standard issue misinformation. There were quite a few Hamas commanders and leaders (not top tier from the latter, obviously) killed. Reports on such were linked on these topics, Hamas did not deny, and even confirmed a couple.

@thaibeachlovers Interesting how you focus so much on Israeli politicians' comments, yet almost never mentioning Hamas leaders' expressed views on matters. Almost as if you were trying hard to paint things in a one-sided way.....odd.

You've cherry picked one line, and ignored the rest of the post, which goes toward answering your question. It's not a matter of 'enough', but of whether sides feel that goals were met etc. I differentiate between what Israeli politicians say and what is actually possible. Totally 'eliminating' Hamas will not happen. Dealing it enough of a blow to render it a none-threat, and to marginalize it - that's achievable, if not easy to do. Past cases from the region (AQ, IS, PLO for example) suggest that this is not an unreasonable strategy. Hamas trying to 'continue its business' from neighboring country (Syria? Lebanon?) is not the same as having it in Israel's back yard - and not sure said neighboring countries will welcome the extra attention from Israel. Denying terrorist organizations a safe haven to conduct their affairs seem to work pretty well, actually. Take a look at the ME - Israel is not loved, but the trend is for countries in the region to forge relations with it nevertheless, and even regardless of the Palestinian issue (paying lip service to that - sure). Even the current situation did not lead to any of them permanently breaking relations - and some among them will be quite content if Hamas either disappeared or its influence decimated. A peace agreement would require at least two parties willing and able to negotiate and go through with things. Currently, not much on offer from either side. I will point out that your post does not address the Hamas' part - there seems little accountability demanded there, no mention about Hamas goals being unachievable, no criticism of actions taken, nothing about Hamas's position vs. regional players, or even it's position regarding peace. People often seem to skip these, and focus almost entirely on Israel, maybe sometimes about the 'Palestinians' as a whole (which doesn't relate much to the political situation).

@thaibeachlovers I quote/reply to many of your inaccurate, inane and otherwise bogus comments on related issues. You pretend to 'ignore' my posts, but as obvious from the above, can't really help yourself from reading. That makes your usage of the 'ignore' function rather silly. Be that as it may.... As usual, you claim things without bothering to back them up. The UN was 'subverted'? How so? And only for the US's benefit? Russia and China seem perfectly at home shielding themselves and their global interests from UN scrutiny and interference - guess you 'ignore' that too, in the same selective way you 'ignore' posts on this forum. You do not bother explaining how things were better without the USNC - you reiterate that's your opinion (no support or explanation), and claim a 'waste of time'. If it wasn't your intention to address the post, why did you bother replying anyway? It seems that in your brave new UN vision all countries would be given an equal vote on all issues. So a couple of Islands in Micronesia would have the same influence as China, or the USA, or Germany etc. I doubt this makes a whole lot of sense, or is even remotely fair. What would be the motivation of developed/large countries to go for something like that? How would it tackle bad players from having more say in global and regional affairs? And would such a system not encourage vote buying? I don't think you actually thought this through. I don't know that there are more wars these days, relative to the past. I know that there's more media and global coverage of news, so we are certainly more aware of such. The same in terms of the lethality of ongoing wars - I do not know that they are more so, but information is more readily accessible, for sure. Your WWIII musings are of no interest, and got little to do with the topic - or even your 'ideas' regarding the UN. And no, I do not read all of your posts, my comment was with regard to current related topics. Given that you rarely seem to make coherent ones on such matters, I could certainly have skipped something you posted on this, as I didn't bother reading it through. If they were similar to the offering above, seems like the right call.

Wish the UN would have been as 'concerned' regarding the 7/10 attack. Or for that matter, not shy away from holding Hamas accountable, at least in part, to what's going on in the Gaza Strip.

@thaibeachlovers Coming from someone who uses a single, government-controlled media venue as his main source of information on related things, that's kinda rich. Of course, other than toss about allegations or cast generalized doubts, you provide little by way of support for whatever it is you're trying to claim.

@thaibeachlovers The comment was about Iran, though. Unless you think it's all the same, or that rules applied to foreigners and locals aren't different, doubt not sure what point you were trying to make. Also, I do no think you have lived in the Gaza Strip, West Bank or Israel - doesn't seem to stop you from posting a whole lot of strong comments regarding these.

@thaibeachlovers Hamas itself is not an existential threat to Israel as it is. Given 7/10, though, leaving it to his own devices until he gets there would have been a mistake. It is possible to envisage a lame reaction construed as weakness, leading to more Hamas attacks (and possibly other regional players getting the same idea). Given opportunity and time their capabilities would have improved. Regarding your ongoing attempts to minimize Hamas actions, threat - you routinely drop out anti-tank missiles, which are a thing, and somehow claim that not IED's were used (which is patently untrue). Also drones, and more like thousands of rockets rather than 'a few'. Even by your 'standards' these 'inaccuracies' are ridiculous.

Thanks for replies. I think they will do the one side worked on, one side clear thing, but not sure. Also, aware of how Thai's treat new laid roads - asked here after failing to get much on answer locally. The cement road along the nearby canal is already cracked (a couple of years after being laid) as they couldn't bother waiting for it to set (and go a couple of extra minutes from the other side) and drove trucks back and forth. I wouldn't mind leaving the road potholed, unmarked and slightly uneven - ugly for sure, but cars couldn't speed in front of the house, plus can hear them coming over the bend at night when walking the dog.

Funny. Don't recall seeing you that upset over antisemitic comments made on these topics. Considering the sentiment above, it is interesting that you do not express much issues with Hamas ideology, rhetoric.

The article, or rather the article its based on does a good job detailing some of the inner workings of the IDF operations centers. I would be careful accepting it as gospel (yeah...well), given the original sources political stance, and by extension the sort of people who would volunteer the information to it. To be clear, I do not argue against the details, but against the hyperbole presentation and use of loaded language. There is no doubt that a significant part of Israel's campaign is about shock and awe. This was broadcasted in various statements by politicians and generals. And unless mistaken, even the 'relaxing' of constraints in the targeting process was acknowledged. The mistake some people seem to make is to treat this is another iteration of previous rounds of fighting between Israel and the Hamas. It is not. The Hamas 7/10 attack 'broke the mold', and the Israeli response is in turn way more severe. The constant comparisons to past instances is irrelevant. I think highlighting the AI angle is more sensational than rational. Targets are decided according to sets of parameters and algorithms, which are controlled and can be adjusted. So as it stands now, it's a facilitating process, not one totally independent of human control. As far as I am aware, stuff like this (technologically speaking) was where things were heading for some years now, and it's not like the transition was a sharp one exactly - shifts as the technology matured and embedded. And here's one (of several, to be sure) outrageous comments - this will actually work well for Israel if and when things come to a head legally. The bonus of such a system is that everything is recorded, rational for decisions made, expected results and so on. It allows to present a rational for attack made, without need to go and pick the mind of some reserve duty officer on a specific decision made in day X of the war. This relates to my earlier comment on the reliability (IMO) of some of the people leaking the information - I would expect some of their takes to be effected by their politics (and that's ok, btw). Given it's a published fact that the IDF relies heavily on legal advice at command/operations/planning levels - I would also expect that issues raised, such as knowing expected civilian casualty rates for each target (as in 'collateral damage') would be found to fall within the legal acceptable parameters. That does not necessarily make such decisions the height of morality or anything (which seems to be what the some of the quoted comments focus on). In other words, the increase in target numbers, and targets attacked does not necessarily imply that there will be more legal issues, if and when such challenges will materialize. Again, it may sound crude, but that's the way all modern armies operate - assessing civilian casualties, deciding whether this justifies the attack and so on is part and parcel of how warfare is conducted these days. So the more information available, the better the rational could be supported, as needed. I will add something about 'proportionality'. This is an elusive concept at the best of times, all the more so under current circumstances. If going back to the shock and awe thing, then 'proportionality' can be interpreted not as tit-for-tat, but as a formula in which the scale is not balanced. Still a proportion, though. And this is not offered as mere word game. Consider the Hamas demanded/previously applied 'ratio of exchange' with regard to hostages. One Israeli for hundreds, a thousand, or even thousands of Palestinians. Not very 'proportional', is it? But somehow expected and accepted as a legit proposition. So, I think, it's not so much about balance - but more to do with perceptions. Who's the 'weak' side, who's the 'strong' and all that crap. But when it comes to casualties, somehow this 'exchange ratio' is not on, why? Using available figures, the current death toll ratio is more or less 10:1. That is ten dead Palestinian vs. each Israeli killed. Much lower than the hostage/prisoners 'exchange ratio'. What does it mean? And while on the subject of proportionality, ratios and perceptions - various figures presented on multiple links here imply that the number of sorties carried by the IAF, the number of bomb/munitions dropped on the Gaza Strip, and the total number of Palestinian casualties are roughly similar. That would imply one bomb/sortie per casualty. I don't know what people have in mind when they talk about 'genocide', 'ethnic cleansing', 'mass murder', or 'assassination factory' (and so on) - but what Israel is doing doesn't quite seem to conform with the notions of how one goes about these things. Even if the number are off some, its still not it. A lot of dead people yes, a lot of them civilians, no argument. The descriptions applied on these topics left and right - not so much.

I meant what I meant - Hamas is the government. There is no other, at least not in the Gaza Strip. There is no good answer for this, if Israel fails to respond it's a Hamas Win. If Israel responds, Hamas goes for the victim card, and Wins anyway. There is no way to effectively conduct this war without massive civilian casualties or collective punishment. Sometimes there are no good answers. As for who will 'win' - that relates to what's considered winning, and this seems to be a bit fluid. It also relates to how long the war goes on.