Morch

It's a proposal by a right-wing politician, not law. I assume it was meant to be controversial.

Wouldn't trust a word he says. He's got zero credibility. If and when Biden seriously decides to push, little doubt he'll cave in. His 2008 elections slogan was about dismantling Hamas rule in Gaza (while at the same time promoting an opposite policy). Some years later, he'll give his blessing for Qatari money to fund projects in the Gaza Strip, surely aware where a chunk of this actually goes. On the recent three weeks alone he had quite a few about turns when things initially said were badly received by the public. The most recent one, just a few days ago was blaming the protests and the reservist element within it for the attack. Backlash made him take it back.

Because they are cynical, ruthless evil men who don't care much about their own people. I think that was addressed many times by now. And then... Hundreds of Israelis called for reserve duty with the IDF. Some returned from abroad, other went back to volunteer. Both of Netanyahu sons are eligible for reserve duty. Both live abroad (London, Miami), with an attached security detail (quite likely combat reservists). No sign either intends to return and give a hand. Eldest son alternates between fueling Dad's social media 'poison machine' and, allegedly, making sure Dad's eyes remain on the political ball.

How did i twist your words? Could have misunderstood what you meant, sure.

'impotence and retrograde ejaculation.' None of that, in my case - but there was an odd side-effect when started on medication. Brain gets aroused, equipment sort of gets the message later. As in 5-15 minutes later. Had a stupid situation with the ECG nurse - pretty as they come, almost cut from a manga cartoon, and hovering all over. No reaction. 10 minutes later an older model comes in, and starts with the blushing and giggling. Dosage was cut and issue resolved.

You sure about that? Seems there are quite a few tourists form Muslim countries about. Not to mention them motorcycle racers in Pattaya.

I doubt a doctor in the UK would seriously comment on medical condition without examination. As for costs, did mine at our local government hospital - bill was just under 20K. Would no doubt cost more at a private hospital. Given it's minor surgery, didn't mind doing it locally. Plus it's the same doctor anyway....

If you wish to dissociate antisemitism form versions of underlying ideological/religious beliefs, we'll have to disagree. I do not think most people perpetrating such actions do so without some reliance on a body of literature, opinions, preaching and so on. Don't see how my posts had to do with hatred. I don't jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon. I'm also not burying my head in the sand.

I blame both. My impression is that associated direct and severe violent cases are maybe more to do with immigrants, newly or not so newly arrived.

Palestinians not affiliated with Hamas, or other organizations, carry attacks against Israelis. How is it that Palestinians can 'fight back' against Israel, but not against Hamas? If you wish to claim Hamas is so powerful that no resistance is possible, would that imply that the Israeli occupation is not as bad?

Indeed. And now further augmented by the new crowd. One doesn't cancel or contradict the other.

Unless the 'Jew' is also a rabbit, you're doing it wrong.

The Palestinians do not seem to have many issues 'resisting' Israel, and even risking their lives in the process. Apparently, less so when it comes to addressing domestic grievances and issues. It's not so much about having 'no control', but rather to do with not actively asserting such. While Hamas does not enjoy the support of the majority, it does retain a significant, sizeable support base.

You can think what you like. Not doing too bad how? All them thousands dead not their people? You really imagine casualty figures do not include Hamas men? How are they not doing too bad with most public opinion against them (not the same as vs. the People of Gaza)? What ME countries actually support them? While you may go on and on praising Hamas men - considering the clips released of interviews with those captured by Israel, they seem to break real quick under pressure. Not to mention most of the attackers getting killed in the first two days, or that Israeli casualties since the ground attack started are low.

He was not fired. Netanyahu wanted to, but backed off, as it would have probably meant coalition and government falling apart.

It is not 'pretty apparent to anyone' - other than in your mind. Plenty of posts to the contrary alone make your comment nonsensical.

And yet you seem pretty careless about making generalizations referring to Israelis and Palestinians.

I'd be ashamed to be a Thai citizen, with someone like you supporting Hamas narrative after Thais were murdered and abducted.

Coming from someone fully invested in the Hamas narrative, that's kinda amusing. Whether or not 10,000 were killed can be debated, but of course casualties amounts to thousands. The issue is more to do with how many of them are Hamas men, how many died as a direct result of Hamas actions, how many are the naturally occurring death for this month and so on. Hamas does not release such details, for propaganda reasons. It doesn't matter is Israelis like or dislike Gazans. Nothing to do with anything. I'm sure they like them less now (and vice versa). There is no 'terrible' apartheid in Israel. If you want to reference the West Bank, that's another matter.

What, exactly did he lie about? Not what you claim or imagine, please - but facts. That you somehow expect USA policy to be in line with your warped views is not very compelling, or remotely realistic. Traditionally, the first round of ME hopping following a such a crisis ends without clear results. Nothing new here.

The whole world watched Hamas slaughter Israeli civilians in brutal ways. Why don't you run along and consult your rabbit for some moral guidance, eh?

@OP Had the operation done not too long ago. It was performed in our local government hospital , waiting time was about 10-14 days. Some government hospitals have one-day-operation centers for procedures that require little or not stay over, which means that in many cases the waiting time is reasonable. Whether or not to go with surgery or try different/alternative medication would depend on you condition, doctor's advice and your decision. In my case it was a bit advanced, so not too many choices, really. The operation itself was a breeze (home the same day), and care was much better than expected. It's not much fun afterwards, though - if you have an active life style or need to go about doing serious physical stuff, it will be frustrating. This too would depend on your overall health, age and so on. If you do go this way better to have someone at home to help with things the first week or so - another option maybe to stay at the hospital a bit longer (if applicable). The recommendation was to avoid strenuous activity effecting the area for 6 months (this too, dependent on age, health etc). Sounded way too long, but from what I gathered has bearing on chances of the problem surfacing again. I talked with two other patients who's experience supported that. I think actual data is less conclusive, though. Meds-wise, I'm on Alfuzosin. Started out at daily 10mg, had some annoying side effects - doc cut it to 5mg and things stabilized. So far, works alright. May consider weed long term (but again, that's more of case by case thing, so not for everyone and depends on more than one factor). As an aside, maybe use the 'opportunity' to check for other related issues - I originally went in for kidney stone attack, checks revealed some infection on top and, of course, the prostate thing. All the docs that treated me said it was sort of normal, one thing effect the other and so on. Good luck and good health.

Flummoxed? Evaporated? You sure do have a lively imagination. So, if I got your 'take' right - the Palestinian people are pro-peace, but their leaderships won't make a move because if they do their future (and possibly, lives) will be in endangered. Do you see anything problematic with this hypothetical formula?

There are a whole lot of civilian casualties, no one is denying that. Three points with regard to your post: Casualty reports rely almost solely on figures supplied by the Hamas controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza. Hamas does not release information on how many of its men were killed, nor is it clear if the figures include the Hamas men killed in the aftermath of the 7/10 attack. Similarly, casualties claimed by Hamas (as in the hospital blast incident) are apparently added to the casualty lists, but without clear indication as to who/what killed them. Considering a 'normal' round of hostilities results in hundreds of failed rocket launches, that could amount to quite a lot. Further, the figures released highlight death of children, women and the elderly. There are usually not much information handed out on male casualties in the fighting age bracket. The overall figures may tally, but their composition is another matter. People, human rights organizations, and politicians are quick to cry 'war crimes'. Essentially, though, international law on these matters seem to be less about protecting civilians, and more about setting 'rules of war' in a manner which allows such killings. So, for example, in many cases protections are basically waved if a site is used for military purpose, or even if the 'value' of the target attacked 'exceeds' the expected 'collateral damage'. Other such things involve the use of precision-guided arms and munitions, which give more leeway - by 'neutralizing' the claims of 'intent'. All of this does not go toward claiming causing civilian deaths is moral, good or anything of the sort - just that they aren't always quite the 'war crimes' claimed. It is almost routine for many such claims to be raised during the fighting, with the number of actual demonstrable violations being smaller. As far as legalities go, I would be surprised if the Israeli government and the IDF do not rely on robust enough legal interpretations (which, no doubt, will be challenged by alternative interpretations, and a bunch of lawyers making a killing of their own in the process). International law, by the way, defines most of what the Hamas does as illegal - specifically, using civilians as cover, using hospitals and schools as bases of operations, setting up military facilities in residential areas and so on. Hamas is the sovereign power in the Gaza Strip. People often refer to Hamas solely as a terrorist organization, but in fact it's a hybrid one, with a political wing, and a social apparatus operating many projects and services. To it's misfortune (on this ground) Hamas was also elected (back when). Part of the obligations and responsibilities involved would include providing protection for the populace and working on its behalf. Most of what Hamas does in the context of fighting with Israel runs directly against that - no protection offered for civilians (no bomb shelters, but plenty of bunkers and tunnels for the Hamas), no advanced warning something is about to go down, no plans of evacuation (and indeed trying to prevent people from leaving, or calling on them to stay put), and most of all - going on such 'adventures' knowing the consequences all too well. Hamas leaders publicly called on their own people to make sacrifices, while themselves and families were safely away at the Gulf. For some unclear reason, people expect Israel to care more about the Palestinian civilians than their own government does. And still, there's no getting around it - a whole lot of innocent people lost their lives, plenty more would lose it by the time this is over.