Morch

I don't think he is not aware, or not updated. That's not it. More to do with where he comes from (politically), and the fact that this is his final term, so can say whatever. As for a ceasefire - there are increasing reports about a hostage release/trade deal mediated by Qatar. This would certainly involve a ceasefire.

Not drinking before lunch, normally. And way less than a used to, anyway. Age takes it's toll. Don't think I was off mark with my comment regarding said poster, though.

If they didn't care the casualty lists would be longer as well.

Yes, fighting in urban areas is like that. Many civilians get hurt. Is that new to you? If Israel was intentionally out to kill civilians, there would be more dead. Not too hard to understand. Hamas could always surrender. Or ask for a ceasefire, even. Or come out and play. Or let civilians into the safety of it's tunnels.

Yeah, i was responding to the other poster. Seems almost as interested in Israel being condemned as he pretends to care about Palestinian lives.

Yawn.

You can keep banging on about 'revenge' or 'don't care' - it runs in the face of reality. If either was true, the death toll would be way way higher. It's not very hard to kill civilians if that's one's goal.

Don't jump the gun....I sense a new meltdown rant coming on.

He said in a hopeful tone....

I think Gazans would love going back in time to that 'less intense' phase....

Didn't care for the competition.

Your link is to a source run by the Ahmadiyya sect(?) of Islam. They comprise about 1% of the Muslim in the world, and are considered heretics or outliers in some Muslim countries. Quite disingenuous on your part, but insurprising.

It's not a matter of what you care about, but rather what they care about, isn't it?

Netanyahu is not a fundamentalist. He's more like Trump.

Can't recall if you're ignorant or just a troll, sorry. Muslim religious writing do have harsh teaching regarding Jews. And not some esoteric stuff either. There is no direct equivalent in Judaism, maybe due to timeline. And generally no, there wasn't all that much 'happily together' stuff. Certainly not a few years back. Got to love the going on about extremists on both sides, then calling out just one of them. As per 'Zionists', many here toss this about without clarifying what they mean - most Israelis can be labeled Zionists, even left wing pro-peace types. It doesn't necessarily imply upholding religious right-wing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian views. Them illegal 'settlers' are a faction within Zionism, not more than that.

I did not blame the victims. Hamas leadership aren't victims. Murder requires intent. If Israel intended to murder Palestinians, there would be a whole lot more dead Palestinians about. That you insist on conflating terms, twisting them to fit a false narrative doesn't change facts. Hamas was aware of the disparity when launching its attack. What's your point? I'm not very interested in what you read, or how you choose to interpret things. Quite obvious your take is set regardless of facts.

Disregarding the expected knee-jerk reactions from HRW - There are legal concepts governing what 'indiscriminate', 'collateral damage', 'targeting', and other terms tossed about, are. This is different than how things may 'seem', 'look like' and so on. If you examine previous instances of this war, or indeed other campaigns in the ME and elsewhere, you'll often find HRW, and various UN bodies (often supposedly dealing with human rights etc.) issuing such wide brush statements. This does not always translate to legal terms, actions and so on afterwards. The reason being, as far as I understand, that information regarding operations is not provided during the fighting (for obvious reasons), and so claims of violations cannot be analyzed, weighted, and legally decided on the spot. Doesn't work this way. There is a certain shift in this, though, seen also on this war - where armies involved release more detailed information than in the past. I think this indicates acknowledgement that the public opinion (or PR) front matters as well.

No. Your previous comments, and the current one are the all the same - you find something to nitpick, allege posers imply things, and spin this into a whole side-topic. You do the same thing over and over again across multiple topics and discussions. Nothing new. It's amazing you can't seem to post without engaging in such a manner. The % you cite in regard to the elections refers to the general vote. The Palestinian system is a dual one. So in Parliament, Hamas had an overwhelming majority of 74 our of 132. Further, the original government formed right after the elections was a Hamas government, not a unity one. It was only after it became obvious that a Hamas government would pose a huge problem vs. the international community and Israel, that a unity government was formed. The poll you cited does not indicate wall-to-wall support for a two state solution, no matter how you try to spin it. Hamas's rejections of this, by 'virtue' of being more inclined to act on things, means that it punches above it's weight. All the more so when the side handling negotiations is the the PA. This is not very different than how things are in Israel, or maybe anywhere else - harder to mobilize the Center. So much for 'call out', 'false' and the rest of your nonsense. Pavlovian...pffft.

Yeah, I know. Wasn't really expecting much serious replies anyway. Been there, done that.

Maybe in your mind, though I doubt you believe it. Countries and governments' first obligation is toward their own citizens. Pretending to hold Israel to bogus moral standards is nothing new on these topics.

No disrespect, but this isn't a magistrate court, and that's not quite how things are judged or decided. Nations are not individuals. To quote from your previous post: "The response has not been inline with their stated objective, it has been revenge. The world has seen it despite Israel’s failed attempt to control the narrative." You certainly seem to suggest how 'the world' sees things. That's what I was responding to. While I'm not the one who quoted Sunak, I think it was an instant demonstration of how your comment is incorrect.

I think it was towards the world-supports thing?

You're either lying, got memory issues or put relevant posters on 'ignore'.

It is not 'the Israelis' as a whole that's into the illegal settlement effort. It's mostly a religious right-wing thing. No wall-to-wall support. Israeli right wing policies are not pro-peace, that's nothing new. They do not talk about a two-state solution, usually. Add to that a wide perception among Israelis that there's no reliable Palestinian leadership/partner to reach an agreement with, and understand that even a Centrist-Left government would hesitate going there. The powers that be talk about it because the other options are worse, or even more unrealistic. IMO its also used as a buffer - if the message would be that there's no solution and that's that - things could quickly get out of hand. So keeping up some pretenses (if that's what they are) may be a diplomatic way of addressing a volatile situation. I think that the Palestinians should do several things, and I'm almost positive they won't: - Achieve some level of political unity among themselves, and choose a better leadership. - Re-asses their past choices, re-calibrate their goals and frame them according to what's achievable. - Focus their efforts on diplomacy, mass non-violent resistance. - Make their positions on key issues and claims as clear as possible. So long as they are divided, it's easy to block any effort they make, play them against each other or use either factions' failures to discredit their 'cause'. Whatever Palestinians may dream of, some things will not happen - there will be no 'river to the sea' thing, a mass application of 'the right of return' will not be accepted, and their independence/sovereignty will be limited (at least to begin with) - other stuff as well, but we're not doing the whole list. The point is that there needs to be a more clearly detailed, realistic and fact based approach applied. The Palestinians' attempts at violent 'struggle' have proved futile over the years. More so they are actually detrimental to their 'cause'. It usually strengthens Israel's narrative, damages Palestinian global image and bring further hardship to the populace. On the other hand, especially with today's social media networks, easy communications and Western attitudes - non-violence, especially on a mass scale would better make their point (and weaken Israel's narrative). This would probably go down better if Palestinian society was less conservative/restrictive, but can't have everything. As far as diplomacy goes - man...where to start? First of all, stop all them sulky games. No one cares. A change of attitude from acting as if being owed, to a more realistic stance of asking for help. Pick better backers, and don't piss them off. Don't try to play other countries when you obviously can't. Choose better people as representative on a national and international level. Get in bed with the West (it's not like Russia gives a hoot or can do much, and China is not a thing yet as far as this conflict goes). Broadcast a clear message - we want this, we do not accept that, we will agree to the other. So long as positions stay vague, shift about and so on, it's easy to take the narrative apart. That's the short version......

You've said earlier you have no relevant military experience. How would you know? That something 'seems like' doesn't make it so. There's no pretty way to conduct an aerial bombing campaign in urban areas. As for speaking for 'the World' - I doubt you do.