Morch

Or perhaps the World would recognize that terrorists having a secure base of operation on one's doorstep is not an acceptable proposition. It's all very well to go on and on about a two-state solution, and blame Israel for not being into it - but it's not like the Hamas is interested, and not like the PA can deliver. So basically, you've got two sides who cannot come to terms. You want to paint it otherwise? Fantasize this could be ignored? Up to you. Do you expect Israeli citizens, right-wing supporters or not, to be more enthusiastic about a two-way solution following 7/10? Maybe some fringe left elements. I don't see how sides could be effectively forced into an agreement, and this agreement holding.

There is no wall-to-wall support among Palestinians for a two-state solution - regardless of your 'definitely'. And that's referencing the general public. Considering Hamas is not really into this, and that it's support base is significant, that would make your assertion out of touch with reality. Israel does not normally have control over they Egyptian border crossing. These are special circumstances. Making up stuff again. Ignorant, or wilful people may adopt what label they want - the fact is that the blockade was not always in place and is directly tied to Hamas actions and policies. That you (and others) insist it should be lifted, but air no similar demands that Hamas change its ways does not make for a strong, of even informed, argument. Your last comment is quite revealing. What you're after, apparently, is Israel's condemnation. It doesn't matter at what cost. It doesn't matter what the facts are. Thanks for sharing.

World opinion is like that, nothing new. Still doesn't answer how giving in to Hamas is not rewarding it?

I think that's not a huge issue, actually. Considering Hamas had a long time to prepare for this, there's little doubt they stocked up on supplies beforehand. Maybe true for some specific stuff, not sure. IMO, what it's about is the worry that leadership types would try to sneak out, with or without hostages.

I disagree. They knew what would happen. They have prepared for this, so their own men are probably less effected. Each civilian casualty adds to mounting international pressure on Israel. Each civilian casualty will be used for PR, recruitment, and aid requests. People don't seem to get it. What you see now, from the IAF, is not full throttle. Not even near. If it weren't for the hostages, and if there was a total disregard for civilian casualties the city of Gaza would have been a parking lot by now. So in that sense, their plan does work. Maybe just for now. Maybe not quite as expected. But still.

Several reasons: Trading them for Hamas men held by Israel. Obvious. Trading them for the release of other Palestinians held by Israel. Palestinian PR points. Giving Israel pause before attacking. Partially successful. Public opinion card vs. Israel. Hostages lives come first etc. - partially successful. Create further divides within Israeli society. See above. Playing for time, ceasefires, aid convoys etc. by gradual release of hostages. Partially successful. A demonstration of might and will. Successful.

I'm not implying. I'm saying. Previous Hamas attacks, which were on a smaller scale and did not involve such atrocities were responded to with significantly less force. Them facts. I think I display more humanity than the Palestinians' own leaders, at least. Again, an anti-semite going about 'humanity', good one.

You have failed to demonstrate only one side is responsible. You have failed to demonstrate that you can discuss this in a rational manner.

Your last comment is patently untrue. I have addressed your posts (and similar comments made on past topics as well). The two-state solution was never super-popular with either side. And sure, the Israeli illegal settlement effot is a major obstacle, even if it's hardly the only issue involved. I don't think that there is an immediate solution given political realities. Even worse, political trends on both sides suggest associated problems will increase. And it is hard to envisage the sort of deus ex machina outside political pressure solving this as being a real proposition. At least not in a way offering a viable, long lasting solution. The 'technical' elements of a possible agreement between the sides are pretty clear. Everyone not invested in it on a nationalistic or religious level could say what things would have to be done. The issue is with public support and the political situation in both nations. With them 'settlements' in place, there's no viable Palestinian state, without Palestinians dropping their violent 'struggle' and 'river to the sea' claims, there's no Palestinian state either.

You failed to demonstrate, or even discuss this in a rational manner, though.

Simply repeating not seeing it as reward doesn't explain much. Make peace with whom? Is Hamas interested in peace? Can the PA commit for anything semi-serious? This isn't about what we'd like, it's about how things are. And furthermore, expecting Israel's most right-wing government to opt for peace? Not realistic as well.

What you believe is not necessarily fact. With regard to the Gaza Strip, doubtful. It's a can of worms and doesn't hold as much significance as the West Bank. I kinda think you lost the plot when you go on about 'eradication of the entire population' - if that was so, the death toll would be way way higher. The dropped bombs vs. casualty figures suggests more than one bomb for a dead Palestinian, that's no way to go about a 'genocide'.

"Proponents of a Jewish State were openly in conflict with British Authorities, killing many (many!) British soldiers." If memory serves, about 150 British soldiers, policemen, and officials were killed by Jewish terrorists (1920-1948). The Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936-1939) resulted in at least double casualties figures than that.

But what you offer still amounts to rewarding Hamas's actions. Citing the destruction of Gaza, or the loss of Palestinian lives is alright, but these are not things Hamas cares about. If this war ends with Hamas holding on to it's terrorist capabilities, leadership intact and hostages held (or released in return for thousands of Hamas men, that's pretty much it. It will have extra motivation to repeat this (or version of) in the future, and so will other adversaries. I do not think Hamas will stop on its own. I think it should be stopped. I'm not sure that letting Hamas get on with things is the correct moral choice. If you see the Palestinians as having more issues with morality, religion and so on, then perhaps it would be wise to re-think applying Western concepts and perceptions to related ideologies, points of view, and actions. Maybe not everyone is playing by the same rules here. You can keep saying revenge, and maybe that was even a thing in the first couple of days of the Israeli aerial bombings, but considering Hamas does hide behind the civilians, embedding itself within, it's not realistic to expect the response (especially considering the magnitude) to be 'surgical'. With previous rounds of fighting, it was pretty much a pattern - Israeli attacks were labeled wholesale as war crimes (usually on media, political statements and social media), but things looking differently after actual legal analysis. I'm not saying what Israel is doing is perfectly alright, moral, good or any of these things - sometimes there are not good choices.

Perhaps so. But it gives some insight as to how things are considered and seen. A step up from 'have no plan', or the annexation/expulsion/mass extermination supposed 'plan' claims peppering these topics. IMO, even if Israel had a great plan (which it does not), the chances of reality unfolding quite as 'planned' are slim. Any which way this could go pear shaped. Then again, I don't think that there, realistically speaking, good and viable options to deal with the situation. It's a mess.

I acknowledge oppressed people have the right to resist. I do not think that such a right implies there are no red lines. As said earlier in the topic, had the Hamas attack been limited to the army bases and posts stormed, there would be less, and sans the gruesome atrocities, there would be less of a backlash, and less international backing for Israel's response. You want to blame this on Israel? Not surprising - pretty much expected from an anti-semite Hamas apologist.

Ignorance, again. The main focus of them 'right-wing crazies' is the West Bank. The Gaza Strip does not have the same religious significance to them. There's a small group within that wants this (mostly former 'settlers' evacuated from there when Israel withdrew). By and large, I don't think Israelis want anything to do with the Gaza Strip. There's no real talk or enthusiasm about re-occupying it or ruling it. The gas field was discovered many years ago. That's not it. All the major ultra orthodox parties are part of Netanyahu's government. What you refer to is a very small, extreme splinter group. They are pretty much against Israel's existence, so not hard to see why you like them.

Ooohh....another daft analogy.

No, I do not. I simply demonstrate, over and over again, that reality is more complex than the simplistic black and white narrative you and others push. You can't handle that, you can't address it, you don't want it to be true - so you make nonsense posts, troll, repeat stuff that was already discussed, go for emo comments and so on. And I do not consider Israel to be even very white. Much of what Israel does is, at best, borderline - even if necessary. To put this in easier to digest terms: Most of what Israel does in the West Bank is wrong, not so with regard to the Gaza Strip. An outed and proud anti-semite going on about 'sub human' is cute. Don't see you making much noise about Palestinian leaders treating their civilians as fodder.

If you consider the current situation of the Gaza Strip - do you think choosing a path that did not involve the Hamas paradigm of violent 'struggle' would be worse for the Palestinians? How so? Also, note that I offered two ways to get there, one of them involving Egypt. There was no suggestion made this doesn't (also) work in Israel's interests. Sure. You'd have to put some effort into explaining how Hamas demonstrating a peaceful approach would have been less constructive for achieving overall Palestinians goals. That would have undermined much of Israel's justifications and rhetoric, and would have resulted in greater international pressure to reach a comprehensive solution. Hamas violence serves Israel's right-wing narrative and policies. You can keep banging on about 'the only thing Israel wants' - you do not actually support this with anything, though. The potential gas field off Gaza's shore is just one of few further afield , larger ones and already belonging to Israel. That's not it.

If Israel is not special, why is it that it people hold it to higher standards? Your ongoing talking point aside, what 'peace deal' would that be? It's not like the PA was ready and willing, nor able to deliver. You're pushing a false, misleading narrative - again.

Minimizing Hamas again - Hamas did not simply choose 'their own path' - they made the choice for the entire population of the Gaza Strip (and actually, for Palestinians in the West Bank as well). I get it that you try to push a talking point - but 'staunch supporter'? Next thing you'll claim Netanyahu armed them and help them plan the attack. The reasons for Netanyahu preferring Hamas gains vs. the PA is quite obvious, and was already discussed on this topic. The folly of that decision was acknowledged, and negative comments regarding Netanyahu and his polices were made. Any other deflections you wish to offer?

What is astonishing is that you expect people to take the loaded, simplistic analogies you present as basis for discussion.

There are differing views among Israeli leadership and general public with regard to Israel's response, it's prospects, how it related to the hostage situation and what come next. All of that is in addition to the already deepening political divide. Doesn't help Israel being headed by a (smarter) version of Trump, who's more interested in his own political survival than anything else. That said, here's a rather detailed take on some of what's being talked about: Here's an outline of a war plan to change the situation in Gaza https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sysmhx1fp

Was the blockade always in place? Does it not have something to do with Hamas? There was nothing preventing the Hamas from demonstrating it's focus was on developing the Gaza Strip for the benefit of the Palestinian people, thus negating the justification for the blockade. You seem to believe that the only possible path was, and is, violence.