Morch

No. Israel did not declare all of the South of the Gaza Strip a safe zone, but specific areas of. If you can cite clear examples of civilians being hit within them zones, you just might have a point. Also, it would have to be a targeted attack to qualify as something relevant to what you posted. On the contrary, Hamas urged the people to stay in their North Gaza homes, and face the attacks. Even tried to block roads etc. Carry on.

Hamas is not in favor of talks with Israel, peace or sharing the territory. You want to gloss over that, or over the fact that Hamas is widely supported among Palestinians - that's your choice. As for the 'temper' bit, a few points: - When de-facto gaining control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas had a choice between developing it, and investing in the futile violence vs. Israel. One guess. - Given the recent Hamas attack, do you expect Israel to willingly go for a wider scale experiment to test if this was a one off thing? - This is not America, this is not Europe - this is the ME. Action or inaction that are perceived as weakness invite further attacks. When the extreme right in Israel carries out something approaching the Hamas attack, it will be a valid point. And no, citing things that happened back in 1948 is not it - both sides were at it back then too.

It's not 'semantics'. Some things, some acts are qualify as worse than others. This is reflected in any legal system. Your position seems to be that that current events are just another day in the ME. They are not. As for 'contributing something positive' - you actually think words on this forum 'contribute' a whole lot to anything? Was your own post 'positive'? What, exactly, did you feel you were 'contributing'?

No, it is not all same same. There are different levels of 'bad'. This is recognized by any legal system and and almost any moral code or religion. So yes, the differences in how people are killed does matter. That's pretty much the justification underlying Guterres's words - that there are laws in place, agreements on what's on and what's not. Where he goes off track is by failing to acknowledge that the same systems do, in fact, differentiate between classes of 'bad'. I'm not going on about the roots of the conflict. That, relates to the 'not in a vacuum' comment - not my to my post. I'm addressing a current situation, a clear and blatant breach of said rules. I don't think 'we' have to blame both parties just so that people could pretend all is well and balanced, nor in order to pacify Iran.

That something doesn't happen in a vacuum doesn't mean much. Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip, or the Blockade do not 'happen in a vacuum' either. There are things which are acceptable, or even if not acceptable, tolerable - the Hamas attack crossed way over that line. Excusing it by this or that is cowardice. An easy way out instead of drawing a line. Notice how these waffle statements usually include a whole lot on what Israel ought to do, and so on - but relatively little as to what Palestinians in general, and the Hamas specifically should. People on here say the world should intervene, the world should force Israel to stop, to make peace etc. How about a global intervention dismantling Hamas terrorist capabilities? How about the world forcing Hamas to stop its aggression? Or force the Palestinians to make peace? And then you have them posters 'questioning' Israel's view on the UN and its relevant bodies....

Granted, they are captives, they've been through 'debriefings' and all, the selection of what and who is shown is controlled, and so on. But still.... There's this disconnect between them knowing full well what they did, even in contradiction to the tenets of their faith, even admitting it was wrong - and the casualness in which they describe their actions, the orders given. I wonder if there were some among them that refused, or stopped and said - 'No, I'm not doing that. It's wrong'. Not to paint a rosy picture of the IDF - many bad apples, to be sure - but there is also an element refusing to enlist, or to take part in things deemed immoral. A small minority, yes, but it's there. I'm just wondering if there are counterparts on the other side of the fence.

Thanks, but I know what 'denude' means. I'm not sure what you meant by it in the context of Hamas and the current situation. What it effectively entails or imply. If it's yet another reference to Israeli leadership statements taken literally, that's not what I posted about. The apparent trend is that Israel should stop bombing the Gaza Strip, leave Hamas in place and deal with it on its terms. Considering gaps in positions and the unlikelihood a major changes in policy, at best this would result with hostages (mostly civilian) being exchanged for thousands of Hamas members held in Israel, things then go back to how they were - foreign aid pours in to restore Gaza, Hamas remains in charge, and with a 'win' under its belt can plan for the next round. Just more of the same, but worse. For all we know, many of the hostages could already be dead. And future attitudes of Gazan kids are almost certainly set by now anyway. There has to be more than that.

I think there's a common ground, of sorts, where support for Hamas and Antisemitism might meet. I also think that there's a whole lot of partisan co-opting and labeling going on - on both these topics and in Israel.

I have no idea what exactly you mean by 'denude', in this instance. I have acknowledged that Israeli leadership statements on this are overreaching and unrealistic (for political reasons, no doubt) - but that achieving a limited version of said policy, is possible, but by no means easy or simple. Hamas could be hit strongly enough to render it a non-threat (or at least not a serious one) for years to come. It can be physically uprooted and denied access to a secure base of operations on Israel's doorstep. This has been done before in other instances (PLO, AQ, IS). Such action is not aimed at resolving the entire conflict, but address an acute current emergency and prevent it from reoccurring in the near future. And again - you and others keep painting things as if there's only one side who needs to do something constructive in order to solve things. There's very little offered on what the Palestinians side could or should be doing to promote a state of things more favorable for their cause. I do not subscribe to this wholesale letting-off-the-hook thing. You can believe whatever you like. I'm sure many, or even most, Palestinians will continue to believe Israel bombed that hospital too. Beliefs over facts and reality is part of what is fueling this.

Extreme right wingers will not necessarily support Hamas - but may rejoice at Israel (or 'the Jews') taking a beating. Things like that don't always strictly adhere to ideological lines. Think of it as the-enemy-of-my-enemy thing. Or better yet - good-luck-to-both-sides.

And you have the same thing from the Left. People who are so invested in rhetoric, ideology and abstract concepts that they end up supporting, minimizing, and whatnot Hamas agenda and actions. There are some issues, Israel for example, on which the extremes meet. Not necessarily agreeing or joining forces, but similarly aligned nonetheless.

It's a long read, have a ball: Here's an outline of a war plan to change the situation in Gaza https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sysmhx1fp

You offer that the purpose of the Israeli attacks is either rescuing the hostages or revenge. This ignores what Israeli decision makers say - that the main thrust of the actions taken is toward eliminating (well, realistically, crippling) Hamas as a direct threat. Also, it's not just about the hostages - Israel took massive casualties as well, and in a way that merits (IMO) an over the top response. This is the ME, and whether it seems unreasonable or offensive to some, showing anything perceived as weakness vs. an adversary is often interpreted as an invitation for further aggression. Of course, this doesn't do much to break the cycle of violence - but the implied comments on this (not necessarily by you) seem to suggest an alternative. My own take is that, by now, the best that could be hoped for is not so much peaceful co-existence, but at best, some sort of 'not war' (intentionally nor using a more proper specific term, as to not get dragged to semantic arguments), accompanied by strict security measures, and clear penalties for breaching it. Even if this was to start today, it would take, years, decades even for sentiments to change.

Did the Hamas call or ask for a ceasefire? Did it offer any reasonable terms? Why is it that you insist on rewarding terrorists? On not holding the Hamas regime responsible for its own actions? You seem perfectly able and willing to apply this concept in every other instance.

I don't see you having much issue with this being the Hamas's way, or indeed the Palestinians' way for most of their history. How about the Palestinian do something toward building a trust that would facilitate such a move? Say, not carry out attacks like 7/10? Or mobilizing to condemn Hamas? Plenty of imaginary options there. And what does 'give them democracy' even mean? Last time the Palestinian held elections it ended up with one side (Fatah) not accepting results, the other side (Hamas) throwing Fatah people from rooftops. No agreement of how to settle this or even carry out new elections since. Democracy is not something that can simply be 'given'.

Hamas itself is an oppressive regime. Leave Hamas in place and intact - nothing changes. The population will be oppressed by both Hamas and Israel.

It would seem that, according to your take (above and elsewhere), the common theme would be an underlying argument that certain nations and people cannot ever be held accountable for anything. Basically, it's a variation of the white-man's-burden.

That is not correct. There were at least two offers initiated by Israeli Prime Ministers, they were rejected by Palestinian leadership. There were also the Oslo Accords, which de-facto (not talking about how pear shaped it became) gave the Palestinians self rule in a limited territory, and were supposed to be the basis of a permanent peace agreement. But since 1949, and up until the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian position was centered on rejection (check the Khartoum Resolution for a prime example). What you may refer to is the so-called Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. And yes, Israel sadly and stupidly (IMO) rejected this. But in effect so did the Hamas (which chose the exact time to carry out a massive terrorist attack). For sure, Israeli government, especially right wing dominated ones, weren't much into that (due to a mix of ideological and political factors). At the same time, it's not the case that the Palestinians were ready and willing either.

The same concerns were raised by former Israeli generals, including one which was previously specifically appointed to review related matters. As with many armed forces around the World, the air force is in ok shape, navy too, and elite ground units. The rest....less so.

If I understand correctly, you are referring to the USA, and we're talking about Israel. Media leanings, control and so on are somewhat different. I'm not even talking Palestinian media, because that's a whole other can of worms.

Israel-Hamas war: Macron calls for international coalition against Hamas https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/24/israel-hamas-war-macron-calls-for-international-coalition-against-hamas_6199216_4.html

You 'suggested' but neglected to explain how Hamas could be 'made to give up power', by whom, and in who's favor.

Posing to be something you're not, feigning ignorance, JAQing. Yeah, that's pretty much trolling. If you need another word, dishonest. You can certainly say how you see things from a pro-Palestinian point of view, though. It would be a start. You could comment on your impressions as to what such poster may think, based on the many posts on here. Many options. If none of the above seems more sensible than your choice, guess we will have to disagree. Posters on here, pro this or pro that, aren't the governments, leadership or even people involved. That you try to imply that, is the same nonsense as the 'we' stuff addressed earlier. Israel calls the shots? Like in this here situation? Seriously? The same 'passive Palestinians' bit again? Quite condensing for a 'supporter'. Comments on this made on parallel topics, enjoy at your leisure. You want to pin it all on one side, you're not here to 'discuss' anything meaningful, or 'interested to know' much - you've made your mind. Sure, hostility just from one side. Guess I've missed most them open-minded, polite, sincere poster on 'your' side, and just ran into the bad apples. Whatever you say, sunshine.

The last bit is vague - it can cut whichever way, and it doesn't explain or support the original comment.

I said it was in the ME. I pointed out it was better - in terms of democracy, judicial system etc. than it's neighbors.