Morch

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by many Western countries. Given that Israel, Egypt and European agencies have a pretty good grip on personnel belonging to the organization, wouldn't worry about that much.

Even if it happens, which is doubtful, the current thinking in Israel might be that it doesn't matter anymore. The concept that it's better to have the Hamas as a semi-reasonable, and better alternative option to IJ, AQ and IS, seems to have just crumbled. As AQ and IS are less of an issue these days, the threat of a worse player taking control isn't very relevant. The PA could step in, A UN force, whatever.

Sure thing. Unless one recalls that Netanyahu's 2008 election slogan was pretty much the same. Ended up doing the same old fighting rounds, and added Qatari funding to the mix. Everything he says is aimed for home consumption, and with the knowledge that his base will swallow almost any nonsense.

That is not even remotely true. Each and every round of fighting sees Israel being criticized and censured. The Hamas, as party to the festivities, much less so.

If the other side refuses to engage, what should a country do? Realistically, that is, not the usual nonsense.

Israeli intelligence almost definitely knew that stockpiles were refreshed. There's no surprise here, it happens after each and every round of fighting (or else there's be only one of them). However, Israeli intelligence does not make policy, that's the government's job. The decision whether to attack such stockpiles and other facilities lies with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and to a lesser degree, other ministers. The intelligence failure is with regard to misreading Hamas intentions, and with not providing enough of an alarm once the ball started rolling.

A fair enough review. How does it relate to the Hamas attack, though?

For decades, Israel's state of mind and policy were to bring captives back at almost any cost. But over the years, and especially with recent prisoner swaps, this sentiment was eroded some. When it comes to Netanyahu, it has more to do with perceived political gains. If it were a couple of soldiers, that's one thing. This situation involves multiple captives. many civilians, women, children. And it's not like Hamas will keep the together or anything, so heroic rescue operations are off the table. Uncharted territory, this.

Guess I should have elaborated more on the "relevance" bit. It relates to what you posted. So far the Palestinian issue raised in talks about possible Saudi-Israeli normalization was mostly discussed with regards to the PA, rather than the Hamas. With Qatar, it's also to do with the transfer of funds. The consideration of massive retaliation by Israel doesn't seem to be a huge deterrent for Hamas leadership. There is little say for the local populace when it comes to government anyway, and public sentiment is easily maneuvered to focus on Israel. Then there's the reconstruction bonanza....

One of the things I'm wondering about is just how accurately the Hamas assessed Israel's intelligence picture regarding the situation. Back in 1973, Egypt and Syria made an effort to disguise their intentions, but even so, were surprised as to the level of Israel's intelligence failure. I think that with the current attack, the Hamas assessed it could pull it through, but maybe with greater investment in the initial assault, and a shorter window of operations. Not sure all them Hamas militants that were killed in Israel during the prolonged fighting yesterday were actually planned to stay that long. More like a situation that evolved during the fighting. Would have made much more sense to grab whomever they can, and head back without massive casualties (reports site hundreds of Hamas militants dead).

My point was that Hamas is not actively or effectively 'judged'. The 'comparison' bit is irrelevant. Israel, on the other hand, is regularly censured for any transgression. So if Israel and the Hamas are both 'in the same bucket', how is it that only one gets blamed?

The ones going currently about to reap what they saw are the Palestinians. Or rather, the Gaza populace will reap what the Hamas saws.

On one post it's 'time is on the Palestinan side', on another it's 'genocide'. Not expecting much logic or reason from some posters, but this comes up regularly. If the situation was 'tailor made for them', should not at least partial blame be placed with the 'tailors'?

We've been over this issue on several topics in the past. I agree that there's a shift to the right. And as said, it has a lot to do with government policies. But the underlying long term causes for such are pretty much outside the scope of the current topic, and do not directly relate to either the Hamas attack, or the upcoming Israeli retaliation.

No. This is a phrase used almost regularly before any conflagration/attack on the Gaza Strip. It's aim is more for civilians to evacuate, as to lessen casualty figures, and to apply public pressure on Hamas leadership. Also sounds good for the voter base. There were no statements regarding attacks directed at Palestinians in the West Bank, and the comment was made specifically with regard to the Gaza Strip. It's going to get bad, but not quite as you seem to imagine. Think like previous fighting rounds, but a somewhat worse.

Considering your own steam of one sided arguments and complaints, seem like your doing just that.

I think it's better to have a job and means to support oneself, rather than being right and starve to death. Since applications for these permits exceed quotas (both from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank), the general Palestinian populace seems to feel the same. A port is a fine notion. But considering Hamas manages to smuggle in enough materials for thousands of rockets, what do you imagine would happen with a port under their control? Again, the reason such things remain out of grasp relate to Hamas's actions and policies. Egypt could have easily provided the Gazans with free passage, work and even a port. It chooses not to.

It wasn't put under 'siege' or 'bombed' on a whim, but in relation to Hamas actions. You can try spinning that all you want. Never said anything about fairness, that's your addition. The situation came to a point where the Israeli pubic was ready to accept the withdrawal, given the price paid. From a purely military point of view, there was no issue going on controlling the Gaza Strip. This move, by the way, required a strong right wing leader in place (Sharon) . I'm not saying that reoccupying the Gaza Strip is a good idea. It's not. It's one of them things which are easy to start, but hard to end. Regardless, given the current situation, it might happen anyway. Not that I think it will solve much, even on the immediate level - but given that there are no good options or solutions, it could come about.

I doubt that you actually speak for the whole of your 'lot'. There is no such single minded view within Israel. While rehashing history is all very fine, Israel's own transgression and wrongdoing cannot be ignored, or even be fully excused and justified by it's people's past. There's enough going on without dragging the whole baggage into these 'discussions' (and that goes for the Israel haters on here as well).

Maybe they ought to reflect on their leadership and choices made. So far, all of their 'struggle' and 'resistance' brought them mostly further misery and hardship. On the other hand, every time they make steps toward embracing less violent positions, their situation improves (some....not saying it's all rosy, obviously). The international community's, or even the Arab World's lack of support is also related to the Palestinian stance and inability to embrace effective means for progress.

There are, apparently, dozens of Israeli hostages and captives in Hamas's hands. There are two million Gazans. with most not being Hamas members, and definitely not combatants. Such talk as yours is what politicians use to rally supporters, it's not policy material, or an operative plan.

Were the Arab countries involved open to negotiations? Were the Palestinian much receptive to anything back then? The occupation, by itself, was not unreasonable given the conditions back then. The illegal settlement effort is another thing. But presenting a picture in which it was all up to Israel is wrong.

Get your historical facts straight, then maul them to fit your argument. In 1967, the West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan, while the Gaza Strip was effectively under Egyptian military control. There was no 'their land' for the Palestinians even then. The was, and (initially) the subsequent occupation had little to do with the Palestinian issue.

When a network of spies, or a series of surveillance devices suddenly goes down, it's a warning sign by itself. Even so, hundreds of operatives moving to the border and passages were ought to be caught by surveillance measures and personnel within Israel, so that an alarm could be raised. This did not happen. This was obviously planned at least months ago, if not longer. A complete failure of Israel's intelligence community.

It's the same cabinet that made this fiasco possible. Very good on hot air statements, getting important things done, not so much.