Morch

Netanyahu has been Israel's PM for years. How is works, how he thinks, whom he listens to, how he reacts - there's enough material to assess such things. Nothing of what I posted is particularly ground-breaking in this regard, and not very different from much of the commentary appearing on various Israeli media venues (never mind foreign ones). Ganz is neither the PM, nor the Minister of Defense. His current role in unclear, and same goes for the level of influence he wields over decision making. What I can assess about Ganz (again, same comments as above regarding where this comes from) is that he's politically naive, certainly in comparison to Netanyahu.

What 'people'? On his current cabinet, there's a mediocre ex-general as Defense Minister, and a couple of former IDF chiefs turned politicians belonging to an opposition party who joined government as an emergency measure. Again, given past instances, you can count on Netanyahu picking whatever action he feels would be most beneficial for his personal political interests. The other version regarding his decision making capabilities was referenced by a long term political ally - to the effect that Netanyahu's decisions are governed by the last person he speaks to. All the confident baritone voice bravado is a facade. About half of the Israelis would probably say bottom line it's his wife and eldest son who call the shots.

And then what? Sacrifice all the rest? I think people underestimate how 'soft' Israel is when it comes to captives, hostages and the like. Other places, a soldier dies and people treat it more like sad-but-it's-his-duty. Israelis often react to soldier's deaths as if they are innocent kids. I'm not putting this forth as criticism, different people, different notions - just how it is. There's no precedent for an Israeli government saying 'oh well...' in a situation like that. To put it in a more relevant context for Netanyahu - his elder 'hero' brother died leading 'the' mission to release Israeli hostages (Entebbe Raid ). I kinda doubt this will not be floated if the decision would be to ditch the hostages - and it would shatter any illusions he might have regarding returning to power. On the flip side, how would going back to the war go? The campaign in the northern Gaza Strip was conducted with most of the civilian population evacuated. There is no such option when it comes to south. Leaving them in place would mean way higher civilian casualties, operations going an snail pace, and more opportunities for Hamas to use them as human shields. Can't evacuate them back north, as there's not enough facilities to support them, and then the IDF will be fighting with a hostile population on the rear - plus requiring more troops to act as border guards. Evacuating them to Egypt? Egypt won't accept it, as will the international community - while it will certainly be used as a propaganda meme ('Nakba 2024' or something).

And I'll repeat - you assume that there is a coherent plan. That there's an agreed upon, clear and reasonable end game goal. There is nothing to suggest this is the case - while ongoing statements and past instances support the notion that it's a mess.

The military law system is subordinate to the the Supreme Court as well. So long as Palestinians have a path to appeal military law verdicts, there's not likely to be much actual international action taken, other than criticism. You deciding the outcome of a case (by labeling it 'murder') is on par with much of what you post - a confusion between what you think and what is. As for jurisdiction - even if the ICC declares so, it's meaningless if it cannot be acted upon. Considering the ICC cannot do so without Israel's consent, not sure where you're going with this argument.

More nonsense, inaccuracies and lies from you. If you cannot work out how and why this was referenced, try reading the topic again. The UK did not 'claim ownership' of Palestine. Try looking up 'Mandate' in reference to that, and figure out what it means. Jews were present in the land (granted, in small numbers) well before the British appeared on the scene. The Arabs, at the time, were not even much into defining themselves as 'Palestinians', by the way. The resolution was voted on by the UN. You have issues with that, than take it up with the UN. Otherwise, what you basically seem opposed to is not Israeli policy, but the existence of Israel. That's up to you , but it does not offer much room for discussion, or consideration. The division of the land, as it appears on the map is misleading - the southern mass of land allotted as part of the upcoming Jewish State was mostly an arid desert, sparsely populated.

You keep implying things I have not claimed. That's dishonest. Not too complicated. There is no 'more accurate meaning'. Practically no one uses it other than for referencing Jews. The origins of the terms are specifically tied with Jew hatred. Just lame trolling, again.

You're roundabout description of the Israeli proposal at the time is inaccurate. The issue was not so much with the offer on hand being a 'Swiss cheese' thing, but rather the West Bank area to be retained by the Palestinians being effectively split into 2-3 'cantons' (with territorial congruity within each such land parcel) - this was one major point of contention, the other being the haggling over exact scale of territorial land swaps. Under the Israeli offer (at the time) many Israeli settlements (especially the smaller one spread about the West Bank) would have been dismantled. Arafat's rejection was, I think, more to do with his personal inability to let go of the 'struggle', opposition within the Palestinian side, and perceived lack of support for the offer on the Israeli side. One thing to take away from this is that the rejection did nothing to improve the situation of the Palestinians. In effect, it made things worse. As for your 'diffuse' assertion, I think more like wishful thinking on your part - even if there was a possibility for such a workable two-state solution acceptable to both sides, and not sabotaged by their respective extremists.

In relevant provinces, it's very much present as a conversation topic.

@thaibeachlovers Hamas men which will surrender will be imprisoned. While there is talk about asking death penalties for those directly involved in the 7/10 attack, this seems to be legally problematic and would probably not come about. The calls are mostly from extreme right wing elements, as usual. Your idolizing of Hamas terrorists is dully noted.

@thaibeachlovers Why would it be up to SA to pick up the tab? And yes, I think it's clear you object to Israel's existence, while trying to claim you're objective.

@thaibeachlovers What 'senior Israeli officials' would these be? What comments are you referring to? What you broadcast as Israel's goals are mostly notions spewed by yourself, without ever providing support. And even if that was so - what responsibility does Hamas carry for this? Apparently none, from your biased point of view. And here we go again with you co-opting 'western citizens', as if all of them were identifying with your warped notions and agenda. I don't think that as a sustained thing, this is foremost on Western citizens minds. Not all, or even most, for sure. Is the death toll anywhere near your hysterical figures? It is not. Do current figures include numerous Hamas men killed? They are.

@thaibeachlovers And yet you constantly make predictions about what's to come, regarding many political and geo-pollitical issues.

No, that would be you deflecting again. The reference to the 1948 war was in connection with the 1947 UN resolution - which one side accepted and the other rejected. If you want to claim all wars are the same, or that the context does not matter - good luck with that.

There was no 'finally did agree', I did not contest that there are no such extreme elements. You're making things up. The same dishonesty from you on the other count - you do not demonstrate the existence of moderate Hamas supporters willing to accept a two state solution, a one state solution and so on. What you do is move the goal posts to include all Palestinians view (vs. previous Hamas supporters comment). So once again, I did not claim all Palestinians subscribe to Hamas's extreme views either. Just something you imply, but wasn't there. Almost no one uses Antisemitism in the context of Arabs. Give it a rest. Been done to death on these sort of topics.

This report exemplifies how complicated it is to deal, or negotiate with the Hamas. Even given the chaos in the Gaza Strip, the various statements which were offered create a sense of either the organization not being in full control, or some kind of game is being played. Usually, Hamas holds on to bodies of Israels, seeking to trade them for prisoners anyway. Hard to imagine them letting go of the option in this case. As for transferring hostages to the PIJ....I get it that they made the comment, just can't recall a previous instance in which this happened or figure out what the motivation would be, especially in this case. Sounds dodgy. Then the supposed death by Israeli bombing - sure enough that Hamas will claim that, but it's not like all those abducted on 7/10 made it even to the 8/10 once in the Gaza Strip. So no way to know for sure. A whole lot could have gone wrong by Hamas handling of the hostages, regardless of Israel's attacks. And then there's the last bit (and probably negotiators' worry) - say there's a ceasefire negotiated, or otherwise, Hamas leadership cornered and need a way out - and the supposedly dead baby is 'found' again. How to handle that? Trust is not very high as such things go.

The issue, now, seems to be one of making a choice - either bringing back the hostages, or trying to 'destroy' Hamas. I don't see how both could be managed under current circumstances. Either option got it's share of problems and potential setbacks, and any choice made would imply some serious negatives as well. This is where spokesmen commentary is neither here nor there - they are not the decision makers, and especially when Netanyahu and/or Hamas leadership are concerned, underlings are not always in the loop at this phase.

I don't know how well popular Saudi public opinion trends can be ascertained or gauged, so not sure what you base your strong comments on. There seem to be three different issues involved: (a) SA-Israel relations, (b) SA-Palestinian relations and (c) SA-Iran relations. Generally speaking, an apart from 'seasonal' peaks (such as now) following extreme events, attitudes toward Palestinians seem to be pretty much as in many other places in the ME - contempt mixed with boredom. Not sure which 'masses' you're on about. I think that's one reason SA felt it could (cautiously) move forward on normalizing relations with Israel. There were some indications already given (linked way earlier on these topics) that SA signaled the process could be put back on track when things calm down some (no doubt with some extra concessions from Israel involved). But the driving force of SA diplomacy is the threat Iran represents - so how SA moves on the other two issues relates to how it intends to tackle things Iran. As to that....I think there's no clear answer.

I think it depends - the more information is revealed about the Hamas attack, the more chances support for Israel's actions would grow. But on the other hand, the same goes for more details on Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, and the destruction meted. So maybe balances out, sort of. I do think that the more ardent Palestinian supporters on the progressive 'wing' of the Democrat party are less popular (in general, not their constituencies) with their colleagues and general democratic voter base. Again, more of an impression than a researched view. Since it's hard to see any of, say the 'squad' members losing seats, maybe not a major issue/point anyway.

You are assuming that Netanyhu got a coherent, realistic plan to fall back on. Nothing in his career recommends this is the case. Most of the time he just wings it. One of the things Israel failed to do under Netanyahu's rule was to formulate a workable plan or vision as to its relations with the Palestinians. In lieu of an overall strategy, what's on offer are ad-hoc concessions to coalition partners, off the cuff reactions to emerging situations, and pushing things forward (aka managing the conflict) without seriously discussing goals and means to get there. The current situation is not all that different in this regard. What makes you think Netanyahu is 'the right person'? He's notoriously indecisive, over-invested in his own political survival, and lack any semblance of credibility.

Show yours?

Netanyahu says a whole lot of things. Back when suited his campaign slogan was 'dismantle Hamas rule', some years later he let Qatar bring suitcases full of money to the Gaza Strip. Bottom line, it's not up to him. Can't see the USA supporting the war indefinably, without clearly defined achievable goals, and an exit plan. Similarly, Centrist emergency coalition partners will not be supportive of ongoing operations if it implies a rift with the USA or things dragging on just to suit Netanyahu's political survival. The problem now is that no one got a workable plan to solve things. And not too many reliable parties to deal with even if this was on.

Notorious. I like the sound of that. Noticed you haven't bothered to support all of what you claimed, as usual, but expect it to be treated seriously.

And you have an established reputation for posting lies, propaganda and over the top commentary. Pretty much what you're doing now.

Sick puppy.