Morch

Netanyahu says a lot of things. Then backtracks, ignores them, or claims he meant something else. This is reflected by how his statements are received at home and abroad. Just to remind (again) - back in 2008, Netanyahu ran for office under the slogan of dismantling Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. It was good stuff for his voter base. In effect, the opposite happened. What's happening now is that Netanyahu is already gearing up for the post-war aftermath - part of it is bolstering a 'strong leader' image, part already framing things so that he could claim future backtracking a result of unavoidable pressures by other parties and outside powers. While it's obvious any post-war arrangements would include enhanced means to support Israel's security - it's way to early to assess how things will pan out. Another angle from which his words could be considered is setting up a bargaining position for future talks on these matters.

@thaibeachlovers Disregarding your standard issue nonsense about Israel's actions - do you see Hamas as in any way responsible for anything? In your hyper biased mind, is there a small corner where this is considered? Seems like all you can go on about is Israel, as if there's adversary in this conflict. Hardly a reasonable position.

Macron calls Herzog, says he didn’t mean to accuse Israel of intentionally bombing civilians https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/macron-calls-herzog-says-he-didnt-mean-to-accuse-israel-of-intentionally-bombing-civilians/

Being 'on the ground' does not imply impartial reporting, quite the opposite if anything - or do you imagine AJ could do an anti-Hamas piece while operating in Hamas controlled Gaza? As for the PR angle - it doesn't really matter much. Call it a PR stunt by Israel, call it a PR stunt by Hamas - whatever. The bottom line is that lives could have been saved (yes, some, not all) and a certain choice was taken. I expect that had Israel refused to accept the release of the four hostages, AJ would be all over it, and you copy pasting it here.

The PA doesn't have much traction with the Hamas, no authority over it and no way to enforce such. Considering Palestinian public opinion, such a call would probably result in a surge of public support for Hamas, or at the very least further erosion of support for the PA.

Disregarding the standing question of AJ's credibility, and/or airing Hamas propaganda - Where does a doctor's first commitment lie? With playing PR games on behalf of Hamas, or is it about saving lives trusted to his care. I think this guy showed pretty clearly what he's about. No doubt, post-war he'll give a teary eyed interview about being coerced or something. To put this in perspective - by the same rationale, Israel should have refused to accept the few hostages released by Hamas, for reasons of them being a PR stunt (which they were). Israel chose differently. As for the good doctor's nonsense - if Hamas stays underground it means they have fuel. If Hamas launches rockets, it means they have fuel.

IDF: We supplied 300 liters of fuel to Shifa, Hamas barred hospital from getting it https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-we-supplied-300-liters-of-fuel-to-shifa-hamas-barred-hospital-from-getting-it/ Sounds like Hamas values dead patients...

There are reports of a swap deal in the works - but these vary with regard to how many will be released (none that I'm aware of says all, figures range from 10 to 80). I'm not sure in exchange for what, though. So far no information on condition of the hostages, so could very well be that some aren't alive anymore. An extra factor being that some were taken by another outfit, the Islamic Jihad. I'm not sure Hamas got that much leverage on them even on a good day. Then there were also (apparently) some hostages taken to Gaza by non-aligned Gazans (the word out was that Hamas will pay generously for hostages brought in). Not hard to imagine some of these people being 'misplaced', forgotten (if captors got killed before transferring them to Hamas) or still held by the same people. It's a mess. USA flying bombing sorties would mean complicated coordination with Israeli troops, with higher chances of friendly fire incidents - and so far seems like the IAF is doing what's possible (don't think the Navy got something significantly heavier and/or efficient to add). The drone ops are quite good if intel is shared. Further, USA direct involvement in the bombing would make diplomatic efforts (both on the hostages issue, and the day after) much more complicated. I bet it's frustrating for the air crews on them carriers. The USA's main military roll in this is to keep things from going regional. So far doing a good job as far as this goes.

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Hamas could have made it into an example of what a Palestinian state would look like. They chose terrorism, violence and rejectionism. You can spin that which ever way you like, but the choice was taken by them - not by Israel. Considering the Hamas Charter, maybe not surprising. As for your other claim - there were several Israeli governments who made efforts toward a two-state solution, so the 'never' is incorrect. That these efforts were, ultimately unsuccessful, is the result of multiple issues - some relating to Israel and some to the Palestinian side. Not really what the topic is about though.

Your point?

There were no Israeli settlements left in the Gaza Strip since 2005 when Israel carried out its unilateral disengagement plan. What you are referring to is the West Bank. The Palestinians had a choice, had a chance to show things could be different - they took the usual path. In some ways, this played into Israel's right wing's hands, supporting the notion that the other side couldn't be reasoned with, made agreements with - not a partner for peace. Already gave my opinion about the 'horse' and his statements.

Israel, under Netanyahu (which is in power for years now) was not committed to a two-state solution. The PA mostly made noises that it is, but never done much to promote things, and the Hamas is not much into it. I think you are referring to quite a long time ago, or to the several Center, Center-left governments that served over the years.

Almost all two-state formulations ever offered involve some level of Israeli security control over certain areas. Given the 7/10 attack, it would seem like a prudent position. On the other hand, since Netanyahu is neither a strong leader, nor a trustworthy one, most of what he says should not be taken very seriously. The same Netanyahu campaigned in 2008 under the 'dismantle Hamas rule' slogan. Most of what he says now if with the political aftermath in mind. Speaking to the base, as it were. As for 'blue helmet army' - yeah, because that works so well in Lebanon, and worked so great in Syria once things went south.

The side that suffers more casualties is also the one constantly instigating new rounds of fighting, despite knowing the score. It's the same side that does not invest in any sort of protection to its people, and denies them the safety of its own underground facilities. The very same side who's leaders treat their people as 'sacrifices' for a 'cause'.

No Israeli soldiers or settlers in the Gaza Strip for years now. Hamas took the chance to show things could be different, and turned into a terrorist base.

Whether they are truly into it or just chanting the slogan - 'river to the sea' is pretty much a call of the 'extinction of Israel'. Quite a lot of that.

Seems alright for smaller scale protests, but 300k maybe different requirements?

He said his first words....so cute.

Macron calls Herzog, says he didn’t mean to accuse Israel of intentionally bombing civilians https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/macron-calls-herzog-says-he-didnt-mean-to-accuse-israel-of-intentionally-bombing-civilians/ Guess that means we're back to the Spanish junior minister, and the Belgian DPM.

Not a Pierce Morgan fan, but the guy he interviewed is a right tool:

I was making a general comment on the way you roll. You expect issues to be rehashed that have been discussed for days and weeks now. Expecting people will provide you with answers, go back looking for supporting pieces of information and so on is just you trolling.

Topic has been going on for a long time and with a whole lot of opportunities to suss out other posters. There are very good reasons for that yawn. Read the topic to get a better understanding of the discussion's dynamics. That may pop away your bubble of feeling righteous and special - everything you've posted so far was already flogged at least twice by now.

Indeed it does.

In my opinion some posters lack self awareness.