Morch

I got that. Still, maybe a pity about then heavies with baseball bats not being real.

Earlier reports indeed mentioned the C-130's. Seems more reasonable to use commercial airliners, though. They'd use the same air route Israeli airlines do (a bit longer) or Emirates and such. There's no issue flying over Iran.

There were reports they were trying to coordinate with Israel regarding this. As far as I'm aware, Israel's airspace is not closed at the moment (was briefly so yesterday). Many airlines cancelled flights though. If the Hamas got any sense, they'll release (maybe not immediately) hostages from non-relevant countries such as Thailand and the Philippines. Israeli and Western hostages are a different story. I suspect that even with such a waiver (which might already be in place), at the time of crisis there will be public pressure to bring them home anyway.

Thailand rarely involves itself in this, unless there's wide international concatenation one way or the other. Then they join the chorus. The exception is in cases where Thai citizens get hurt. This happens only in the instance of Hamas attacks. The West Bank and the Occupation do not figure much in this regard. Could be wrong, but I think there are no Thais working at the West Bank (or maybe not many), so the issue doesn't arise. Older figures used to cite 20,000 Thais working in Israel. Guess it makes a difference vs. commenting on Ukraine etc.

That's one possible reaction to being educated about how complex the situation is, and how simplistic solutions do not apply.

You definitely cherry-picked a quote. That's not debatable. There are plenty of views, books, accounts and whatnot on the matter. You picked one, not even fully in context. And on the subject of Morris - he had. at least once, a major change of views, revising certain things he wrote. I'm not pointing this out in regard to the bit your presented, but to demonstrate that even he doesn't treat his words with the same reverence you seem to. Not sure what was your point regarding the Oslo Accords. Lost me there. Sorry. Rejectionism would be understandable up to a point. Given the relevant frame of time, I'd say its sale-by date expired. At what point does one stop making excuses? Bad governance is not mandatory. The Founding Fathers weren't so bad. And note that I pitted it vs. Israel's leadership, which (disregarding current ones) wasn't bad to begin with. This goes hand in hand with previous comments about constructing social and political infrastructure.

Some were driven out, some were encouraged by own leaders to do, many did what people do in such situations and ran away. Each and every one of these topics degrades into bickering over historical details (presented from hyper partisan points of view), as if 'winning' some point or 'proving' something would change anything. Life doesn't work this way. At present, it doesn't matter all that much. Of interest, yes. But it's not like either side will realize his mistakes, hang collective head in shame, and fold.

Good points, agree with most. But... Netanyahu also needs to be seen as doing something. So maybe not an all out conquering of the Gaza Strip, but a limited ground maneuver. If the state of readiness on the Israeli side is as it seems, this could fail as well. Then there are the hostages. This really complicates things. Israeli social media is already flooded with conspiracy theories and accusation of 'traitors', 'leftists traitors', 'collaborators with Hamas/Iran', or trying to blame the anti-Netanyahu protestors. This is served courtesy of Netanyahu's social media apparatus (aka 'the poison machine'), Iranian and Russian bots.

Electricity is already down. This would effect water supply as well.

I don't know if negotiations will succeed, but reports are that Israel already asked Egypt to mediate. The Israeli ethos is that no one gets left behind, and the Israeli public, for a long time now, isn't quite as 'hard' as it used to be. Netanyahu is a politician. It's a good question if he'll survive this, but ditching the hostages would assure he won't.

The Gaza Strip is already under a pretty tight blockade. The Hamas is under various sanctions as well. Doesn't prevent them from launching attacks, or restocking their rocket pile between rounds of fighting. I suspect you are unaware that both Lebanon, and the Hezbollah are under official sanctions, and an arms embargo.

And after 70 years, the Palestinian predicament keeps getting worse.

Gaza harassed by Israeli 'settlers'? You are, perhaps, conflating the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Consent would not be given by Hamas, as they have nothing to gain from it. Their whole justification is being an armed resistance movement. Israel would not consent to trust it's security to an international force given how lame this works on its northern border. By force? Do you see any sane country sending it's troops to clear the Gaza Strip? Would be interesting to see how 'humanely' and 'in accordance with international law' they'd fare. And seriously, no one would send troops to force Israel to do anything. Get real. Diplomacy is the only half-way possible option. The area in question is pretty small. Can't see how a 'demilitarized zone' would be effective.

Netanyahu was not being attacked. As the attack unfolded he was vacationing in a luxury hotel at the north of Israel. Took him 7 hours to address the public. And even then he didn't say anything meaningful. Same goes for his ministers, normally having trouble to keep their mouths shut.

You haven't 'pointed out' anything. You cherry-picked a quote, and now treat is as gospel. Palestinian rejectionism did not start during the Intifada. It was there from the onset, and through the decades. With each iteration of adhering to it, they lost more. The only time when this trend was reversed (temporarily, obviously) was when they went for the Oslo Accords. As in, did something different. Mostly, Palestinians rejectionism and violence works for Israel's right wing agenda (a mirror image, by the way, to the effect of the oppression meted through the occupation, or the ongoing situation vs. Gaza). As for 'what government' - you could just leave the question there. Even Palestinians deride their own 'governments'. Most Palestinian leaders did more to line their own pockets and secure their political positions than to work for the benefit of their people. Not like Israel haven't had the same issue for years now, but at least it had a few decent, or effective ones over the years.

To be generous, this is a wildly one sided comment. To be less generous, it's nonsense.

Yeah, Gaza and a possible UN force placement. I just gave an example of how this doesn't work in a very related situation. By the way, years ago there was a force of international monitors in some of the Gaza passes. May want to check how that ended.

It can be taken a step further on the cynicism ladder. The more destruction and Palestinian casualties, the larger reconstruction and rehabilitation pledges post-war.

Would you?

As far as I'm aware, the UN Charter requires both parties agree to placing international troops, and guarantee no attacking them. By the way there just such a force on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Don't seem to be preventing much of anything.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1308598-israel-is-at-war/page/22/#comment-18405863

Which was a relatively minor organization, relative to the 'Hagana'. The latter, it might be added, was directly tied with efforts toward creating national institutions, services and the like well before independence. When Israel was founded, the Irgun's last Hail Mary attempt at military separatism was crushed. Similarly, the Hagan's elite force ('Palmach') was disbanded, to it's members' protests - in favor of strengthening the budding national army (the IDF).

Nothing prevented the Hamas from developing Gaza along civilian, non violent lines. Nothing prevents the Palestinians, in general, from embracing non-violent protest. You're just pushing a false no-choice narrative.

Said the poster doing his best to minimize the Hamas attack on Israel....

The USA Navy thing is just for show. The munitions in question are most likely Iron Dome interceptors. The USA have 1 or 2 storage facilities in Israel holding the more common ammo/arms etc. These are intended for USA use in time of regional crisis (to shorten supply lines and backup other regional depots). With USA permission Israel could withdraw stuff from there as well. You seem to place a whole lot of confidence and trust in Netanyahu's words, when it suits.