Morch

No. What the Hamas says is that it will accept a temporary 1967 lines Palestine, without acknowledging Israel, or it's rights. That's not quite the same thing.

Not that nonsense again. There were no such 'offers'. It's a pet project of the current Israeli Foreign Minister, which he pushed for when he was in another ministerial post some years ago. Apparently some kind of obsession with him, showing clips about it to foreign representatives at any occasion, whether related or not. It is neither relevant, nor feasible.

No, 'we' don't. You do not speak for any 'we'. You may want to separate things, making it easier for you to ignore facts. But then you try to do your meager best to minimize, normalize Hamas's agenda, actions. You can be strongly in favor of whatever nonsense. How will the EU 'enforce' this, exactly? Will the EU ignore Hamas as well? How will the PA be 'put in charge' of the Gaza Strip? You know nothing, you have nothing.

Nothing much in your posts betrays anything resembling balance. Spare the nonsense - you're not even-handed. Spewing off nonsense about Jews, Christians and Arabs living 'happily together' during the British Mandate raises the question if you even got much clue as to what you're posting about. There were two countries announced. One side accepted, the other rejected. All of the nonsense you pour ignores this basic fact. There wasn't only one country 'set up' for 'one party'. Your notions of a one-state were not applicable then, and are not applicable now. That you state what 'should have' does not carry a whole lot of weight given your obvious lack of facts and detail. Western bias, racism yada yada yada....as if you have something better on offer from other parties. You're not half the salesperson you imagine you are.

The 'recent' bit was about the part where this is currently applied to all citizens of Israel. My post was highlighting a change in policy compared to previous years.

There was no takeover of the Gaza Strip. There were no plans for such.

Hamas's agenda is not about an 'independent state' existing peacefully alongside Israel. It is about a Palestine replacing Israel.

Incorrect how? I stated clearly that things are different for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. Rules are (were) different for Israelis living in Israel proper - as is the case with the areas attacked by Hamas on 7/10.

@thaibeachlovers Your take of Iran seems to be that of an ant colony, or a beehive. Essentially, it's demeaning point of view, which implies the people in question do not have their own wishes, politics, motivations and so on - but that they are ruled by some overreaching imperative, some all encompassing plan. Iranians got politics same like every other country. So if the main man suddenly croaks (for whatever reason) there's sure to be some struggle for control. It might not be very dramatic, or very public - but it's there. Such things happened in the past, when Iranian prime ministers and governments changed. Assuming everyone will rally behind an agreed leader, rather than take the chance to 'upgrade' their own position is not necessarily a very informed point of view. As for your USA 'example' - the USA has a clear structure as to who gets to hold power in such events. And a tradition of following rules. Granted, your orange haired favorite is doing is best to undermine that, and I'm sure some of you MAGA guys would object to Harris becoming POTUS....

@ozimoron As for the latter, I think you're wrong. On this forum, it certainly does translate that way. Your posts, for example.

No, an accurate one.

Hamas's policy is that any male Israeli of fighting age is a combatant. I'm not arguing for this position, which is obviously bogus, just giving some relevant background on how Hamas frames things. As for firearms and Israeli civilians - in years past, what you posted was true. Hard enough for ordinary citizens to have them (with some exceptions, like them illegal settlers in the West Bank). Very recently, the government changed these laws (pushed as a response to 7/10 as an excuse, and spearheaded by the extreme right-wing elements within) - making it super easy to get hold of a firearm. Tens of thousands of permits issued - a whole lot of problems with the hasty process already surfacing. With regard to the settlements near the Gaza Strip: Each one had a security squad - which are basically volunteers (or maybe getting token payment/benefits, not sure these days and laws are currently being changed), mostly veterans with combat training (at least theoretically) who are supposed to act as first responders until police/army forces arrive. Arms (other than privately owned) are stored in a weapon depot, not in volunteers' houses or anything. Numbers of both squad members and arms made available were an issue of contention for some time, even before the 7/10 attack.

I see. So you've nothing to support your claims with, then? Surprising.....

When in doubt, go with 'confused'.

Seems like the 'after' picture, as he's already bandaged.

I find it hard to believe no one took pics for Instagram, or uploaded a TikTok clip before making the call.

Presidents looking at public trends before making policy decisions is pretty much routine. Guess if it wasn't done, some would complain about the President not taking into account public sentiment etc. As for your link - still no support for your allegations about 'minions'. Care to name, specify etc?

I bet that a second after the wise roman who coined the phrase said it, he got the equivalent of confused emoji.

It's a lefty conspiracy.

Iran pulling such a move (increased enrichment, nuclear device development) would provide the exact pretext and motivation to attack it. Considering that they are still a ways away from either having enough enriched material, developing and testing a device, and coupling in with a delivery system - it is probably not an immediate, current concern. Given that a credible threat would require multiple such weapons deployed, it's even more of a non issue, for now.

I think they were trying to sort it diplomatically first, at least for appearances sake. Then they waited for the UN thing, to make it 'legit'. Once that was on, attacks started up rather quickly.

Which 'minions' would that be? The movie characters seemed quite harmless....

Proven how?

@ozimoron Khomeini has been dead since 1989. His successor and current main man is Khamenei. As for WW3, just more of your constant scaremongering.