Morch

I'm sure Hamas leadership wouldn't mind the sacrifice of more Palestinians, they practically said it's demanded. But with regard to their own safety and well-being, things are a bit different.

There's that (the atrocities part), but as for 'should-never', that's were reality comes into play. We don't always get what we want.

Needs moar exclamation marks. IMO, the over use of Holocaust references in relation to this is a disgrace. Israel was surprised, yes, and civilians murdered, yes - but Israelis fought and ultimately, within a couple of days repelled the attack. Conjuring lambs-to-the-slaughter references is spitting on the faces and graves of those who fought. And, of course, all this hysteria doesn't have anything to do with the actual threat. Hamas cannot destroy Israel. There is no second Holocaust. All this 'non negotiable' babble, when there are negotiations being held - kinda amusing.

This doesn't have much to do with what I posted, though. With regard to some terrorist organizations, especially those with political elements, a transition of sorts is obviously possible (Fatah may serve as an example, or Israel's ruling party), doesn't happen overnight or smoothly, but not unheard of.

That's a quite sweeping statement, which cannot be proven. Usually things work by addressing things actually done, and intentions behind them. Assumptions as to what might have been done and so on aren't part of it. I think most legal system recognize not all crimes are same same.

I don't think I have cancer, thanks. There are currently reports on Israeli media (guess English versions will pop in a day or two) that the government is mulling over the pros and cons of reaching an agreement with Hamas along similar lines to how things were resolved vs. Fatah in Beirut in 1982. For those not familiar with details - this means Hamas military wing leadership and personnel go out of the Gaza Strip (to whichever destination that will accept them), arms left behind, hostages released, and the Gaza Strip coming under PA/International management. While it may look like giving up to terrorists - it saves months if not more of fighting, civilian and military casualties, and assured (most) hostages are free. Hamas terrorist elements not present in the Gaza Strip and denied a secure base of operations. I would guess Lebanon or any other nearby country will be ruled out as a possible destination for this reason. In 1982, when the IDF surrounded Beirut, the deal was struck and Arafat & Co. went to Tunisia. Now, I'm not saying it's the best solution, and no idea if it's viable even. I'm putting this out here to demonstrate that getting caught in rhetoric is all very well - but reality often works in different ways.

China is a member of BRICS as per your previous post. And whether or not he'll accept it's enough of a thing that the invitation was made. I agree it's not directly on topic, but a bit disingenuous since you're the one who brought it up.

Simplistic analogies are rarely a good way to analyze complex situations.

I'm not missing the point at all. Hamas cannot destroy Israel, regardless of how much they'd like to, and how much they talk about it. The blunders and failures related to the attack will be addressed - and even so, it came nowhere near to 'destroying' Israel. Hamas is a threat for Israel, but not an existential one. And it will hopefully be a much lesser threat when the fighting is done. There was nothing said about putting down weapons in my posts.

Wasn't Putin in China not long ago? Invited by the Thai PM for a visit?

Of course you aren't, and of course you have.

I don't know that 'fighters' is the appropriate term, guess you're just parroting AJ, though - so not surprising. And to counter your 'argument' (again) - what combat experience do these Hamas men have? What war did they fight? Which armies have they faced? Murdering civilians? Conducting limited terrorist attacks? That's about it. They are no veterans, they are not more hardened. The do have the advantage of playing on their turf, but that's about it.

As with the previous post from @Chomper Higgot - I do not have much issues with the above. I think, though, that people tend to lump together different categories of evil and wrongdoing, regardless of scale, severity, circumstances and so on. A prime example would be putting genocide level offenders in the same box as 'mere' terrorists. I don't think it's same same.

I do not necessarily disagree. All the more so when dealing with things that happened withing a 'reasonable' time frame. The issues that distract from that, for me, are the apparent hijacking of such things to support political agendas, implying sweeping 'wrongness' of the apologizing side and so on. Again, the apology 'ceremony' is less significant (and also, an easy way out) then things actually done to compensate, or right wrongs. As for the last part - I did not make any such strong comment, although I do think that many of those former colonies would not necessarily be better off today if history was different. For starters, many of them would not be countries (but that's another can of worms - what with borders drawn as lines on maps etc.).

Countries and nations are like that. You've got to have some more or less agreed upon narrative. Comes with the manual. I agree that it's fair enough to challenge and correct such historical accounts - but seems like there's a trend, more so in Western countries, and maybe more from the Left side of politics, that sometimes borders on the absurd. This, I think, often goes hand in hand with applying modern concepts and ideas to past actions and events.

There were reports (linked up topic) about Israel setting a task force to identify all participants and 'deal' with them. A whole lot of footage courtesy of Hamas men, Gazans and security cameras.

I think the 'fun' part for him was the trolling bit, the death and destruction to either side a secondary concern, if that.

Let's cut the hysteria - Hamas is not going to destroy Israel. Israel is (supposedly) a nuclear armed country. Hamas is a terrorist organization with (mostly) local reach.

There was a time in my life when I embraced this - starting fights without much of plan. Didn't work out that well, most times.

That goes toward demonstrating that the ICC and the UN do not bear real authority, but rely on member countries to either comply or to aid in enforcing such matters. Neither works very well. But since the course of this argument points to the larger issues of 'world government', 'world army' etc., I'm not sure critics would like to go there.

If that was how things are, you'd have way more casualties. Things are bad enough without hyperbole comments...

Some of my family bore the impact of the empire, thanks. As for unwittingly - I think that a whole lot of the strong commentary on such things is partisan, and used to support underlying political narratives. Me, I can accept that there were outright evil things done (even by the standards of past times), but at the same time acknowledge that there were other facets to it. Also, I do not much subscribe to the ritual of 'apology' for all long past sins. Sometimes seems like those making much of such apologies are ideologically or politically motivated, rather than actually having much stake in matter involved. As shows go, a public apology is a good one, though. The notion that the 'apology' changes a whole lot, or that a long gone past implies some imperative for eternal self-flagellation, are things I do not agree with. Accepting responsibility or acknowledging the past are welcome. So is material aid aimed to improve current conditions, all the more so if there's a direct connection to past actions.

Well, there's this saying about battle plans not surviving first contact with the enemy. Maybe not so different with legal advice. With the scope of military actions involved, it's almost a certainty some would cross the line. Then you have mistakes, which may count as well. Lastly, while the IDF and the Israeli government rely on legal advice, it does not follow that legal issues cannot be contended - it's not a foolproof thing. But way more organized and legit than some imagine.

I don't know if it's an issue of accepting Hamas claims as factual, so much as Hamas controlling access (and messing with) to evidence and witnesses.

What makes you think that they do not gather such evidence? I would be surprised if they haven't. Hamas is not a member, but Palestine is. When Palestine joined up, there was an issue with that, and the Palestinians had to clarify that it covers Hamas actions as well. The PA was quite distressed about it at the time, because de-facto they are the recognized Palestinian government. In effect, there is no way to enforce ICC issues when it comes to Hamas, though.