Morch

The rocket arsenal was not a secret. It gets re-stocked after each confrontation - which makes one wonder just how effective/tight the 'siege' is. The ground attack did not utilize much special means. As per Israel's intelligence failure (which I'm sure will be a focus for investigations post-war), part hubris, part a successful effort by the Palestinians, and part neglect. Especially with commemoration date, it's widely equated with the 1973 surprise. Intelligence gathering is easier than correctly analyzing intentions.

According to Hamas officials, the main operative goal was to secure captives for a possible prisoner swap. The public pretext and motivational declarations were the usual 'save al-aska' stuff. On a political front - a need to reassert their relevance and credentials. But mostly, this seems to have been driven by the hostage/prisoners thing. IMO, it just went better than expected.

The Gaza Strip was not always under 'siege'. This largely came about in response to Hamas attacks and stance. Every time the chill down some, they get extra concessions and an easing of the blockade. The very same is maintained by Egypt as well.

I doubt there was ever a serious claim Russia funds Hamas, or aides it in any material way. Iran mostly supports the Islamic Jihad, a smaller, more militant outfit. Hamas getting Iranian funds is an on/off thing, having to do with power plays between Iran and Arab rivals. Qatar was/is sponsoring a whole lot of 'officially' civilian projects and subsidies in the Gaza Strip. The deal was funds won't be used for military purposes, but good luck with that. Quite a lot of crypto action by Hamas as well, and obviously, sucking whatever they can from the local populace.

Israel got long standing peace agreements with two of it's neighbors (Egypt and Jordan). Neither was ever 'broken'. Various agreements with the Palestinians (none of which are 'peace agreements' exactly) were breached by both sides on multiple occasions. Both sources on your links would reference criticism on the situation where a country is singled out thus, especially with so many other bad players and even worse transgressions are about. Genocide would imply the demise of the Palestinian people. There are more Palestinians now then there's ever been. One of the claims raised by 'supporters' of the Palestinians is that their numbers amount to a demographic majority, and increasing. If it is indeed a 'genocide', it's pretty lame one.

That's a fine ethical and moral point. What standards is the Hamas (actually and effectively) 'judged' by?

The Gaza Strip is not occupied, and it's been that way for a long time. The so-called 'siege' is a by-product of Hamas's own actions and policies - it was not always in place. In the current instance, it is quite clear who is the instigator.

It does not. Even Biden held out having an official meeting with him. Ended up as a short time thing, and not in the White House. Most non-right wing/authoritarian leaders in Europe shun him as well. His last appearance in the UN was in-front of an almost empty hall.

I guess that you missed it wasn't always thus. The 'siege' is mostly a reaction to Hamas actions and agenda. Also, it it maintained by Egypt as well. Don't see as many complaints about that, or Palestinian attacks on that side.

The current government is considered extreme right. Just a few years ago, Netanyahu refused (or said he's refuse) collaboration with some of his current political partners. Obviously, his political survival and assuring he stays out of prison comes first. While there is definitely a shift to they right (for many reasons). But there's right and there's extreme right. Some right wing parties can fit in a centrist based government, and even accept major concessions (if it comes to that), some do not. Netanyahu would surely prefer a 'saner' coalition, but many on the opposition refuse collaboration due to his ongoing court cases. That's how the current government came about.

That's not true. I address such comments as well. Some posters I don't bother responding to, or are on my ignore list.

Perhaps you're just making up stuff. Just the week prior to this there were the usual (indirect) negotiations securing extra work permits and other concessions for Gazans. Also, I don't think that they asked the people of Gaza as to their views regarding this 'issue'.

I would prefer you not to butcher my posts in order to make daft points.

You mean that news channel state owned by the fabled democracy that is Qatar? Which, by the way, is a main sponsor of the Gaza Strip? Less biased, how?

The Gaza Strip has not been occupied for many years. Yesterday's attack might change that.

His current coalition won the popular vote by a thread. And that's with his right-wing, religious parties partners having high voter turnout vs. the opposition's (especially Arab parties) organization. It could have pretty easily been otherwise, or yet another draw (like the previous 4-5 times he failed to win a majority). The current government pole figures are very lame. He's also seen a divisive figure, and (widely) as an untrustworthy one (his main coalition partner described him as "A liar, and a son of liar", just saying...). That's without mentioning his ongoing court cases.

This topic is about the Gaza Strip, and Hamas. Israel withdrew from there years ago, dismantling all settlements. Could we focus, please?

That might be true, but again, a one sided comment. The very same applies to the Palestinians. They will not have their own version of "river to the sea", and apart from yesterday, it's the Palestinians that pay more dearly for the situation.

Almost. A whole lot of the troops normally stationed in the area were temporarily transferred to the West Bank. Their mission was to bolster security there following more clashed between illegal Israeli settlers and Palestinians - which escalated (again) a few days ago. Also to provide security for religious Israelis (ie right wing voters) wishing to worship at a particular site. This was done following intelligence assessments that the Hamas is not looking for a fight, is deterred and recent upcoming concessions would keep the situation quiet. Essentially this was aimed at appeasing Netanyahu political partners. The IDF command is to blame for not reading the situation right, and not resisting the troop movement. The responsibility lies with both politicians and general.

That's how I grew up, and that's how I handle it now. Was just wondering if there's an easier/quicker way to go about it.

Like the Hamas would dare do what it just did? Hezbollah is much stronger than Hamas, and the IDF took hours to act, and is still no finished driving them off/killing them. Bombing them from the air later on is a different thing. On the ground, the playing field is more even.

One is, obviously not naive, and was merely striving to point out the absurdity of the other poster's one sided comment.

Didn't say it would stop the IDF. Most probably this would happen after the fighting is done with and inquiries into this mess are finished. For now, the coalition will survive, and is even offered some aid (or at least, respite) from the opposition. I don't see a scenario in which Netanyahu voluntarily resign, or that his current political partners betray him over this, though. If poles are to be believed, the current coalition does not command an electoral majority. The last elections were won on a very narrow margin. Sliding right is one thing, having the extreme right win is another.

It can seems like that, but it's not. There were at least two waves of attacks (initially). The first one was carried out quite efficiently by 'proper' Hamas fighters. Later on others joined, some apparently more enthusiastic than organized. Granted, they do not have full military training etc. but they did manage to surprise the IDF, and at least in some places, still fighting even now. Underestimating the Hamas is, perhaps, one of the things that made this attack possible.

This here article is about Hamas attacking Israel. Hamas is an Islamic movement and organization. Maybe they are the Palestinians' worst enemy?