The US has bombed Fordow and other sites.

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/22/israel-iran-war-live-trump-says-us-has-attacked-nuclear-sites-in-iran-including-fordow

I never said I agreed with it. I was just outlining the possible reasons based on the principle of "My enemy's enemy is my friend".Maybe Bibi wants to "fight fire with fire".
All through history protagonists have taken up with some strange bedfellows to achieve a common goal.

"Israel is considered no risk at all, despite the crazy man and his friends in charge of the place and the fact that they will not allow any inspections?"

Maybe he isn't as "crazy" as you think ?

Putin hasn't allowed any inspections of Russia's program since Feb 2023, so why isn't anyone jumping up and down about that?

"Even worse, why is the genocide that has been taking place in Gaza entirely ignored by a number of posters who have commented repeatedly on this and other threads?"

Because there is no "genocide".

20,000 civilians dead is nothing for a conflict of this size.

Less than 1% of Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. That's frankly a miracle given the realities of urban warfare against an enemy that hides behind its own civilians.

Read a history book.

The Rwandan genocide involved the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in the span of one month--70% of the Tutsi population.

Sometimes called the "first genocide of the twentieth century", the Armenian genocide refers to the physical annihilation of all Armenian Christian people living in the Ottoman Empire from spring 1915 through autumn 1916. There were approximately 1.5 million Armenians living in the multiethnic Ottoman Empire in 1915. At least 664,000 and possibly as many as 1.2 million died during the genocide, either in massacres and individual killings, or from systematic ill treatment, exposure, and starvation

The population of Gaza is increasing, so no genocide.

Can we put this "genocide" label away now?

I know. I just think that option that he is pushing has zero chance of yielding anything but sorrow.

I did not say he has to sort another State. That is the Palestinians job. But to get the one he represents in a full peaceful way to a better future, he cannot carry on denying one.

@MushMonster "But to get the one he represents in a full peaceful way to a better future, he cannot carry on denying one."

You talk as if it's Bibi's sole decision when it isn't

Israel’s parliament passed a resolution that overwhelmingly rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israeli media reported. (July2024)
The resolution passed in the Knesset with 68 votes in favour and just nine against it.

They said that a Palestinian state would pose “an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region”.

The Palestinians had several chances to have their own state but rejected them all.

So it looks like that ship has sailed and the Palestinians only have themselves to blame for 'missing the boat'

By Netanyahu I mean him, as the prime minister for decades, and his cabinet and full goverment body.
I suppose the unilateral declaration of the State of Palestine and talks towards it will take the lead then. I do not think the boat has sailed to be lost in the horizon. I actually think it has docked in a port with more options. Only it will take time. But I do see the two States as the only interim way forward.
To be honest, the old map with Gaza as part of Egypt and the West Bank in Jordan made full geographical sense. And you would think that they have some cultural similarities. I wished they had stuck to it and made it work. But here we are ages later.

It's a bit grim to try to brush over and justify the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian children by telling someone to read a history book about other appalling massacres. It's chilling that you can make this sort of statement it such a blasé way.
It seems that, in your mind, Netanyahu and the Israelis can do exactly as they please, and you will continue to justify everything with your whataboutery.

I would rather nor rely on Hamas either but the fact that Israel doesn’t let in journalists or independent observers limits our options. And I would rather have estimates from Hamas than the dead in Gaza going unreported to the outside world which I’m sure many would prefer.

Retaliations, you mean. The UN has stated that Iran's counter strikes were legitimate self defence, under international law.

There is so much nonsense and emotive rhetoric in this post I hardly know where to start.

However, what is your solution to the conflict?

There will be no peace until the Iranian-sponsored terrorist organisation Hamas is removed from Gaza.

How can Hamas be removed so the Palestinians can live in peace?

Thank you

It's very easy to dismissive others who shine a spotlight on you by saying that they are over emotional. It's called gaslighting.

I am not in a position to make a solution. None of us are, as you know.
Most people of sense realise that there is no, nice, clear cut 'solution' to such complicated and long standing problems. If that were the case, someone with decades of experience would have done this years ago. We also have the added complication that there are certain groups and individuals who have a heavy vested interested in keeping conflicts going.

You seem to be trying to reduce this extremely complicated issue to 'Hamas is bad'. That's a non starter in itself.
Me personally, I am against violent 'solutions' because that's an oxymoron in itself. I am pro diplomacy as a tool to find the best route through discussion, with compromise on both sides. If anything can produce a long(er) lasting cessation of violence, it is that imho.
One problem with people who come down 100% on one 'side' in any of these conflicts is that they never seem to offer any solutions. All that many of them do is complain about the other side and achieve nothing.

@rainingsnoring "I am pro diplomacy as a tool to find the best route through discussion, with compromise on both sides. If anything can produce a long(er) lasting cessation of violence, it is that imho."

This ^ would be a reasonable approach if you were dealing with reasonable people. This isn't the case and I think in this instance it is incredibly naive to think it would work.
I also think your understanding of the history of the area is a bit weak.

In 2007 Hamas controlled Gaza after open fighting with it's rival political group Fatah.
Smai Abu Zubri, spokesperson at the time for Iran-backed Hamas claimed it was a “second liberation of Gaza from the collaborators”. Hamas made clear it's avowed goals of the destruction of the State of Israel.

When one side says it wants the other side dead, why would anyone make a deal with a people that demand your destruction?!

The Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Olmert suggested that the West should give “serious consideration” to posting a peacekeeping force in Southern Gaza, to stop weapons reaching Hamas via Egypt.

This was not implemented - a missed opportunity.

Since 1948, Arabs have been saying Jews don't have a right to their land. They have changed their stance slightly a few times, but for the longest time, the Arab League's policy towards Israel was "No Peace, No Recognition, No Negotiation". The Arab mentality was still towards having one strong islamic country and having Jews in Jerusalem went against that plan-- it was more about religion than territory.

Do you not think that this conflict is seen as a Religious War by the majority of the Arab World?
Maybe that is why Qatar is being a "sugardaddy" for many terrorist groups?

The Middle East didn't start out as Arab Muslim. Neither did Africa. They were conquered by Muslims and Arabs and their ethnicities were cleansed. I find it ridiculous that there are arguments that tiny Israel is somehow guilty of colonizing and ethnically cleansing a tiny bit of land smaller than the Isle of Man when the archeology there shows they're the dominant ethnicity in Israel for over 3600 years. Please explain to me how the Temple at Jerusalem is below the mosque if the Arabs were there first?

Palestinians have built a national culture on grievance and victimhood instead of setting goals that could win them independence.

@mrsrtobinson the definition of genocide has absolutely nothing to do with numbers - it is purely about intent:

"the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"
I personally don't get involved at all in the discussion of whether it is genocide or not - it is a specific legal definition which has a really high bar of proof. I think there is a risk that focus on this detracts from what we know for sure - that Israel is defying International laws with devastating impacts on the Gazan population.

And you haven't responded to my earlier comment about Netanyahu openly admitting to derailing the Oslo Accords? You're still talking about all the opportunities missed by the Palestinians with no acknowledgement there were and are barriers on both sides to a two state solution.

@fffiona
In his own words (2023)....
Netanyahu said, “I inherited the Oslo Accords... The decision to bring the PLO from Tunis, and plant it in the heart of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), and in Gaza, was a decision made and implemented before I became prime minister. I thought it was a terrible mistake and I still do.”

Addressing a reporter, the Israeli PM said, "You and your journalist friends have been blaming me for almost thirty years for putting the brakes on the Oslo Accords and preventing the Palestinian state. That is true,"

Netanyahu told reporters at the Tel Aviv press conference, as reported by The Times Of Israel.“I’m proud that I prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state because today everybody understands what that Palestine state could have been, now that we’ve seen the little Palestinian state in Gaza.
Everyone understands what would have happened if we had capitulated to international pressures and enabled a state like that in Judea and Samaria, surrounding Jerusalem and on the outskirts of Tel Aviv,” Netanyahu reportedly said.

(My italics)

From the perspective of many Israelis, the dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian relations since the signing of the Oslo agreement confirmed their worst fears: that the Oslo process would give a militant enemy the tools and launching areas for bloodthirsty terrorist attacks against Israelis.

The greatest Israeli anger was elicited by the fact that the Palestinian Authority was doing very little to prevent terrorist attacks emanating from its territory. It refused to take steps towards disarming terrorist militias, permitted terrorist organizations to operate open offices in its territory, and either refused to arrest terrorists or would adopt a policy of “revolving door” arrests–placing terrorists in prison for a few days and then releasing them.

A series of incidents caused the Israeli public to wonder whether Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had ever truly intended to lay down arms and seek negotiated peace agreements rather than armed struggle: Immense arms supplies to the Palestinian Authority were made public; captured documents indicated Palestinian Authority support for terrorist infrastructures; and Palestinian policemen took up arms against Israeli soldiers. For Israelis, this was the ultimate breach of agreement, rendering it moot.

@mrsrtobinson whatever the rationale he gave you are essentially agreeing with me. There are and were barriers on both sides - and Netanyahu has made it clear he doesn’t want a two state solution.

No, I am not agreeing with you. Far from it.

As long as Gaza is controlled by the genocidal terrorist group Hamas (which effectively means that the Palestinians are not speaking with one voice) there can be no solution.

As I said further up this thread, why would any group want to negotiate with another group that is Hell-bent on destroying it?

Palestinian beligerence has always been an obstacle to an equitable solution.

I won't list all the examples, but I'll just mention two.
In 1970 Palestinians living in Jordan were calling for the destruction of the Jordanian government,

The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) had became a state within the borders of Jordan and they set up their own laws. There were two attempts on King Hussein’s life, which lead to direct confrontation between the PLO and the Jordanian military in June of 1970. The Palestinians represented 2/3rds of the population of Jordan and did have the numbers on their side and Syrian military assistance, but not the air cover needed to win the war.

In September of 1970, the Jordanian military shelled the refugee camps. Rather than go through to find the terrorists and deal with them militarily, they chose the option of indiscriminate killing of civilians. 300,000 men, women, children, the elderly and infirm died as a direct action taken by Jordan. It was known as "Black September".

Had the Arab countries never declared war on the fledgling state of Israel and been able to accept a Jewish state as any other, there would have been no Arab refugees.
King Hussein has largely been given a 'free pass' as the direct actions he ordered his military to take. The Jordanian military was responsible for more loss of life driving the Palestinians out of Jordan than all the actions of the IDF put together.
Some of what Israel has been accused of doing in Gaza, without any facts to support the claims, was exactly what Jordan did.

In 1990-1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait. At that time there were 357,000 Palestinians living in Kuwait. They aligned themselves with the invading forces of Saddam Hussein and after the War was over were expelled. As most had Jordanian passports they went to Jordan
Kuwaitis said the anger against Palestinians was such that there was little chance that those who had left during the seven-month occupation could ever return, and relatively few of those remaining would be able to stay.

It seems to me that some Arabs and certainly the Palestinians make a habit of "biting the hand that feeds them".

This is why no Arab countries in the region want to aid them or take any of them as refugees.

i can accept there have been faults on both side. But your narrative that the Israeli government is blameless in creating this enduring situation and has actually supported real chances for a two state solution is revisionist in the extreme.

Your last sentence makes my point exactly re Hamas

Interestingly, you make no condemnation of the actions of King Hussein of Jordan on "Black September".
So, according to your mindset, it's OK for Arabs to massacre Palestinians but not for Israelis to attack terrorists in self defence?

That's rather strange logic?

A bigger problem is that even if both sides were agree to a Two-State Solution where would it be located?

Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, which is geographically problematic.

You only have to look at the formation of East and West Pakistan and the ensuing debacle to see how this would play out.

@AnnaBalfour"ethnic cleansing of Gaza"

Ethnic cleansing has not been defined and is not recognized as a crime under international law, according to the U.N.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Hitting a hospital
https://www.instagram.com/p/DJoZ4futBnW/

A school
https://www.instagram.com/p/DKGQEFQzuTG/

For anyone wanting to see from the ground https://www.instagram.com/motaz_azaiza/

Hmm, not exactly.
It has not been recognised as an independent crime but has most definitely been used (and defined) by UN Commissions
It's just that it also fits within the definition of Genocide, also stated by the UN so not unreasonable to use the term 🤷‍♀️