Morch

Hamas usually commands 35%-50% of the votes (on polls, no elections for years now). Support fluctuates following fighting rounds, post-fighting-winters, whether money comes in etc. It's potential candidate usually beats (again, in the polls) with more significant support. If you'd conduct this poll right now, it could go even higher in terms of popular support - a week from now, less.

Sure it will. Because there's nothing like jumping into unfamiliar territory when a friendly army and a terrorist organization are trading blows.

Maybe he's not a combatant? Maybe wasn't even a conscript? No details in this story (as usual).

That's because you're not familiar with the other, smaller outfit, Islamic Jihad. A resurgence of some IS clone, unlikely as that is, might also put things in perspective.

You probably misunderstood my post or the context. I wasn't referring solely to the Gaza Strip, but to a comprehensive solution between the two sides. This is not anywhere near doable, considering how things stand. I have no doubt that the people of Gaza will be even more antagonistic toward Israel when this is done and over with. Even if they'll lay some of the blame of the Hamas. Lebanon post 2006 was the same. Relatively brief period of anger vs. Hezbollah for inviting the Israeli attack, then back to the usual - 'Israel bad'.

I don't think that there's much objection to the notion of resisting or fighting an oppressive regime. The criticism is more to do with what's on and what's not. I don't know that Israeli governments' actions justified the more gruesome parts of the recent Hamas attack. Had the Hamas, for example, just raided the the army bases attacked, even capturing soldiers - that would be legit. Maybe not constructive, maybe be futile, but it wouldn't be called an atrocity or anything. And it would make the point just as effectively - without the negative backlash the Hamas needs to contend with now.

When you say 'the current government' - which side's government are you referring to? It not like any of the three (Israel, the PA, Hamas) is up for it much, or in a position to make such decisions. The notion of these negotiations is that the Palestinians offer Israel reprieve from constant terrorist attacks, the need to invest hugely in related sectors, and living life in peace. For this, the Israelis are supposed to pay with land. My personal point of view is that it is in Israel's best interests to reach an agreement, drop the illegal settlement efforts and concentrate on security concerns. Provided the latter are taken care of, it's worth it - especially long term. For a whole lot of reasons, Israel's voter base is turning more and more religious, and also more right wing. This makes rational argument somewhat difficult. I agree that the prospects for a Palestinian state are far from ideal, and that there are many hurdles even if Israel and the Palestinians were able and willing to bridge gaps - but the longer this is postponed, the harder it will be to reach an agreement, and the less the Palestinians will get. Consider the 1947 Partition plan which they rejected. What they will get today is less than that. So maybe better to do as Israel did, take what you can when you can.

No, I support Israel's right to strongly respond after this attack. I do not revel in the death of innocents, I do not demonize Palestinians. And I am critical of Israel's policies - mainly in the West Bank.

No, not 'any other' view. This particular one.

Oh, so it's the whole state that's 'murderous'? All of the Israelis? Including the opposition to Netnayahu? Including the pro-peace camp? Including Israel's Arab citizens?

They routinely get similar figures on national wide polls. Sometime down, sometime up, but pretty solid. As for a 'say in the matter' - Palestinians seem perfectly capable of 'resisting' and 'fighting' against Israel, why not against the Hamas?

There is no such 'whole region' agenda such as you claim. Even if there was, considering they take over a century feuding with the Palestinians and not getting it over with, guess the 'region' can relax.

Consult your imaginary Rabbi friend, perhaps?

And Hamas enjoys even a greater level of popular support. Polls can show all sort of things.

So for you, the conflict start at Deir Yassin? Why not at the 1929 Hebron Massacre? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre Choosing arbitrary entry points to this is great, incorrect and misleading.

Not dictated by one political party (and obviously if so, could change from election to election). I think some countries in Europe practice that in their schools.

Maybe that was just munchies.

So just a run of the mill idiot, then?

Hamas routinely enjoys massive popular support among Palestinians, though.

Learn your history before posting inaccuracies. Israel conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. Your reference is to 1948. This would indicate you're either ignorant of facts, or treat Israel's very existence as being the same as the occupation. Moreover, between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. I have commented on the Israeli occupation, on this topic and past ones. I have referenced the mass protests against the Israeli government on this topic. I have commented, in depth, about Israel's intelligence and operational failures regarding the attack.

There's no changing the power imbalance. It's a fact and a reality. There is no requirement that sides to a negotiation would be equal in strength, I daresay many times this is not the case.

Israel's current advantage over the Palestinians is a product of choices made, and course taken. You want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead. Funny how it's alright to discuss 'the roots' of the conflict when it suits, but not to address Palestinian side's issues in this regard. Ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state are a 'simple solution' only for people who insist on not being aware of how complex things are. Or, continuing the previous line of thought, unwilling to hold the Palestinians accountable for anything. Peace requires two parties. Do you see the perpetrators of this barbaric attack as partners for peace? Do you pretend that they do not enjoy wide support among Palestinians? I do not support Israel's military occupation and especially not the illegal settlement effort. I think that they run counter to long term Israeli interests as well. That doesn't make me blind to the other side's positions, actions and potential.

Sure, it's Israel's fault, It's the International community's fault, it's the USA's fault - everyone had something to do with it except the Palestinians. Now go on saying you don't make excuses for them.... USA support for Israel came about in the 1960's. Israel was founded well before that. Initially, there was even an arms embargo in place.

Not really. It's a name referencing an area, It does not denote a state, or that there was one. Try harder. This has nothing much to do with the topic at hand.

I never said I had absolute certainty about it. I pointed out that 'walking a mile in their shoes' is a bogus proposition. Are you quite finished with this specific line of deflection?