Morch

The attack was planned long ago - certainly months, some reports citing a year or more. It was no ad hoc response to am emerging situation.

If you watch the many clips of the Palestinian attack, you'll notice that beside and following the uniformed militants, there are quite a lot of Gazans in civilian cloths, running around rampant, looting etc. Some of the hostages were apparently taken by such groups rather than full pledged Hamas militants. This was acknowledged, sort of, by Hamas spokesmen as they tried to shift the blame for the atrocities on these people rather than 'proper' Hamas militants. That's their basis for the bogus claim that Hamas did not kill civilians. Me, I'm sure both Hamas militants and Gazan mobs were involved. The latter perhaps in the nearer areas to the border, and as a second wave, of sorts. Maybe not planned by Hamas, but not handled anyway. The point is, that if one treats Hamas's lame excuse seriously, it implies that many of the people of Gaza are complicit as well....And either way, it shows Hamas's priorities as to who gets protected and who gets thrown under the bus.

Was not closed for civilian airlines flying to Israel. Emirates was flying there up until yesterday.

Egypt maintains the blockade on Gaza as well. Just closed the border and denies Gazans the option to flee. Not much comment about that. Wonder how the rather obvious 'non Jews' phrase you picked would fit.

Yawn. Russia again. More pointless questions. Not one actual reply to points made.

I'd be interested in you actually replying to posts made in answer to yours, rather than raising new questions on other topics.

Mainstream as in representing public sentiment, enjoying public support. Not offered as an excuse, but more as in indication for the level of ingrained obstacles which need to be overcome. Makes a difference if an action is carried out by a relatively small outfit with fewer supporters, or by a large one which usually garners mass support. Same goes for public reactions to such actions. Was never a fan of Begin, nor Shamir, and did not think either was a good appointment, morally and ethically as well. Leaders of such organization becoming politicians and office holder down the line, is how things are in many instances. Same way Israel had to put up with Arafat, or many of the subsequent Palestinian officials appointed. Stating Dier Yassin was 'the first terrorist act' etc. seems like an arbitrary choice. There were other attacks, other massacres, and easy enough to choose a different entry point to the chronology - say, 1929? Both sides have their own respective narratives and litanies of woes. I don't know that Abbas is much for sword-play, but then again he's not very popular either. As for Netanyahu, while I find him and his actions deplorable (see previous posts on this topic and others, if needed) - not quite a warmonger as some suggest, IMO. More like a total cynic, who puts his own political survival way ahead of any other consideration, moral obligation and so on. The fitting reference is Trump.

Most countries in the world have normal relations with Israel. This would include Thailand. And, in all probability, your own home country. Hateful fantasies are bad for the skin, I hear.

Ummm....no. The political divide is not quite a geographic one as you present. There are Hamas supporters in the West Bank, and PA supporters in the Gaza Strip. Both get face occasional harassment and prosecution from the respective powers in control. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such popular Palestinian desire for separate states (as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). On the contrary, events in one area often cause reactions in the other. The issue is more political in nature, and by now, also of maintaining power and control. To add, it's been years since elections were held among Palestinians. So, in effect, the Palestinian people do not have a direct say even with regard to their own leaderships decisions and policies.

Only by those insisting on hyperbole and devaluing of the term.

There's that. But notice that the Hamas did not support (then or now) this notion. Hamas's 'response' for the original statement was a yet another mass terrorist bombing. The PA, too, was sort of pressured by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations into going along with it, not that it was enthusiastic or anything. Still, a shame the Israeli government did not at least engage the Arab World back then. Fast forward to the present - and much of the regional political landscape changed as to make the original offer out of sync with reality. Still a good enough basis for entering discussions, IMO, if parties were ever willing to.

Sure. A genocide lasting 75 years, with Palestinian population the largest ever. As for 'land theft' - no one stopped the Palestinians from accepting the original UN Partition Plan. No one stopped them from demanding independence (and their land) from Egypt and Jordan when they were the occupiers. No one even prevented them delaying negotiations with Israel as long as they have.

Israel just had it's 9/11 moment. If you think that's a realistic time to engage in peace talks, we'd have to disagree. Anyway, the Palestinians would have to be able and willing to play along. One of their governments is plainly not into it, the other unclear, ineffectual and lacks support. Making it all about Israel is bogus.

If you say so.

Several comments (not that I disagree with the core of your post): The Lehi and the Irgun were not the mainstream organizations at the time. Hamas's status among Palestinians, and as de-facto rulers of the Gaza Strip, is very different. With regard to mutual violence fostering further violence down the road, sure. Also good stuff for extremist and populist leaders to play with. The advice given to you by said elders resonates well - I recall there was a time it was dubbed 'The Peace Process Industry' or something. I do share the pessimism, if not to the same extent or level of detachment. More like, not impossible, but improbable, very hard to accomplish. But that's if talking about 'full pledged' peace. While no ideal, even partial, temporary solutions and remedies are better than nothing, especially as far as civilians are concerned.

Attacks on Israel's north were mostly by Palestinian organizations in Lebanon, with Hezbollah allowing and condoning then, but not very much in participation so far. The Hezbollah is not Lebanon, and comments from the Lebanese government already implored not getting directly involved - Lebanon simply cannot afford to. No one in his right mind expects Israel to withdraw from the West Bank at this moment. A two-state solution would require the Palestinians accepting an agreement - this is not according to Hamas agenda, and hardly something Abbas and the PA are willing and able to go for. Laying all the blame on Israel does not match facts and reality. Hamas could stop the war, or at least give some reprieve to to the citizens of the Gaza Strip, by releasing the hostages.

That's entirely up to you. I don't think it was a worthy appointment, if that matters. I do realize that it is not unusual for former leaders of such organizations to, over time, become politicians and leaders. Israel tolerated Arafat as the Palestinian leader, and many of the current Palestinian leadership could be faulted along similar lines.

Or maybe you should educate yourself about Palestinian politics, their ongoing internal divide, and Palestinian public opinion trends. On the other hand, much easier to spout nonsense posts....

This deflection was already tried several times. Did Ukraine launch a mass terrorist attack on Russia, specifically targeting civilians?

Mostly hubris, being too complacent, and falling for Hamas masquerade. Apparently there were warning - from Egypt, for example. And some signs were detected the night before the attack, but underestimated it's scope.

Hamas is a Palestinian terrorist organization. It is not 'all Palestinians'. It is not even 'all the people of Gaza'. Whereas 'Israelis' implies to all people in Israel (including Arab citizens, presumably).

That's what I said, you do not understand. Instead of asking for clarification you hurl insults. The short version: It's a post critical of the one I replied to. One of many such.

Reading comprehension issues, again?

So far the it's Gazan and Israeli civilians reaping what Hamas sowed. As for the 'eternal war' nonsense, one might thing that there was peace before.... Completely eradicating the Hamas? Probably not a realistic goal. Rendering it powerless, irrelevant, maybe yes. For reference, how do AQ and IS fare now, compared to their heyday? One lesson from this, IMO, is that letting a terrorist organization set up a solid base of operations (and worse, a state or a region under control) is a risky proposition.