Morch

Why not the Palestinian Ambassador?

Families will get a large (by Thai standards for sure) compensation pack from Israel. At least that's how it went in past instances. Not that it will bring their loved ones back.

Egypt made it clear it has no interest or intention to do that. And as with any outside control, it would be resented by the Palestinians.

The PA is seen as corrupt and ineffective. Abbas older than Biden.

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.