Morch

Because Saudi Arabia's military competence and might are just the same as the USA/UK's. Also, stopping a civil war vs. stopping act of terrorism vs. maritime traffic are different level goals and issues. And, regardless - what alternative solutions are on offer?

@ozimoron Indeed, but too funny.

@sirineou What 'secret offshore accounts'?

It possible to report the facts, and still do so in a biased manner. It's all about presentation, and which facts are included. Here's a similar comment from earlier in this conflict: https://aseannow.com/topic/1314367-the-children-of-gaza-more-than-7000-killed/#comment-18553795 The Guardian's general stance on things Israel is nothing new.

@ozimoron What is wrong with you? Seriously. You cannot seem to follow even your own posts, who you responded to, and what was said - yet defiantly make bogus claims regarding this. The post you replied to was not @Jingthing's, but @Bkk Brian's. There was no 'counterpoint' - it was a comment on the The Guardian's stance and bias. You just jumped in, again, apparently with little but a foggy notion what you were replying to. You keep doing this sort of thing over and over again. Maybe post less and read more.

It was that easy, eh?

It's not 'so I say', you can look up his many comments, biography, writing and views. As for being on Marr's show, what does it have to do with anything? Corbyn was on it as well. Being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist does not bar people from being interviewed.

The legal expert is a long standing Israel hater, Zionist hater and borderline antisemite. Considering he's been advising the Palestinians on many past occasions, I'm not sure why someone would expect him to say otherwise. So far, I don't see how his advice benefited them, but maybe this time...

Yeah, and you still have no coherent answer for either comment. Fancy that. No one said all the Gazans are Hamas fighters. Whether you want to cite 20,000 or 23,000 - estimates are that Hamas men killed are in the high thousands. I would guess similar proportions regarding those buried under the rubble. So what we remain with is you making a hasty comment lumping them all together and packaging them as 'civilians', and now waffling. The current phase of the court proceedings is more about Israel actually committing 'genocide' but that it might, or that it's total actions might amount to something that can legally be defined as such. It's not quite what you advertise. Not sure what the 'exactly' bit was related to - then again, a whole lot of your posting seems confused.

My comment was intended with regard to commercial shipping. I don't think that the threat to military vessels is that great, yet.

Oh, there are 'extremists' on the Palestinian side? Who would these be? Maybe the same group who instigated the 7/10 attack? The group ruling tGaza Strip? You seem to do your best not to discuss or name them. Not so when it comes to Israel, then it's full detail time.... As for your historical narrative - seems you forgot all about the Palestinian rejectionist position - them infamous three No's. Look it up if you don't know what these are. Initially, you claimed protestors in the West had some koombaya 'one-state' solution in mind when chanting, now you move the goalposts to say that they do not have a clue about the underlying rationale. I think you're making things up, and cannot back them up with anything.

More nonsense out of you, as usual. Where did I claim 'Israel is incapable'? Do you bother reading posts before replying? Do you understand who said what? If anything, the other way around - Israel could definitely genocide the Palestinians, if it chose to do so. The fact that the Palestinians are very much about hints that there is no such 'genocide'. As for 'over 20000 civilian deaths' - that would be you embracing Hamas propaganda. The figure includes Hamas men killed, and they are not 'civilians'.

That would be you spewing dishonest comments, again. The Hamas version, and what many Palestinians are into is exactly what's advertised - a Palestine without Israel. That you try and claim all protestors are of one view is nonsense, as you can neither support this or prove it. As for what you term 'Ben Gvir people' - I'm not aware that they actually use the phrase, regardless of their ideology. What I am sure of, is that if you bother to cite one side's extremists, but totally disregard and minimize the other side's guys - your not being honest.

That's another nothing comment. If the court dismissed the complaint, would that alter the opinions of anti-Israeli posters on here? I doubt it. Similarly, if the court sides with South Africa's move, would pro-Israeli posters change their positions? Doubtful as well. Maybe in your fantasies people change their minds when the hammer hits the gavel. In real life, no so much. And that's without getting into questions such as seeing the court, process and so on as impartial, legit and so on.

Commandos, no less. Got to love them comments. As for Gideon Levy - he's both an anti-Zionist, and an attention seeking troll. Considering he's fringe, I'm not sure what your big point is about citing his views.

What 'genocide'?

What...again? There were several such topics/threads by now....but surely, this time is different. This is the time. Game is on. Or not.

Yeah, like anti-Israel posters on here 'denounce' it in a half-sentence, then give a one thousand word essay about Israel Bad.

Licking is post-initiation.

There's a Thai guy who could improve your finances if you let him kiss your butt. You'll also need a gold leaf.

If the 'devotee' farts during the 'ceremony' does he/she get kicked out from the cult?

I think easier said than done. Some of these they can surely produce on their own, by now.

The prospects of Israel completely rooting out Hamas anytime soon, are slim. The statements you hear about this from some Israeli politicians are at odds with views expressed by the military or people with more knowledge and less re-election considerations. Even a less comprehensive goal, say 'just' seriously curbing Hamas's military capabilities, dismantling the more problematic elements of its tunnel system, and capturing/killing those involved in the 7/10 attack - will take a long time. Officially the IDF speaks about a framework of a year, but that seems either unrealistically optimistic or something for public consumption. And that's assuming freedom to carry out operations in the Gaza Strip, which is not a given. If discounting them 'total' endgames, and focusing on what's more attainable - that would be a somewhere in between, with Hamas not completely defeated, yet being much less of a threat. This would still require months of fighting, dismantling tunnels, and so on. Regardless of the above, there's a question of what happens in the Gaza Strip next. The so-called 'the day after' issue. So far, due to political constraints and agenda, Netanyahu is doing his best to avoid serious discussion about this, instead toying with nonsense 'solutions' (some of which are echoed in the post replied to). The only semi-practical possibility is the Gaza Strip being co-managed by the PA and some form or the other of International involvement. I don't think this is quite up to Israel as some (including Netanyahu & Co.) imagine. Without getting into the practicalities of a two-state solution, the details involved and the prospects of it becoming a reality - what other option is there? Keeping the Gaza Strip in limbo? Ongoing violence and strife between illegal Israeli settlers and the Palestinians in the West Bank? Israel cannot go on ruling the Palestinians as it does, not in the long run. Hamas's ideology (and it's extreme right wing counterparts in Israel) are no answer either. One makes peace with enemies, that's how it is. Doesn't have to be all rosy, doesn't have to always work out 100%, or be to everyone's satisfaction. The alternative is a state of constant war. This is not unimaginable, but maybe more so when dealing with two separate countries. The way things are make the conflict much more complex than two neighboring entities plus a state of war - and I don't think it can be maintained (by either side) without things coming to a ugly head at some point.

Methinks that you conflate between words and actual action. It might become what you say. So far, though? Not so much.